The Existance Of God(Christianity)

Post Reply New Topic

But the syndromes DRIVE your behavior and are defined by behavior. Therefore free will isn't somehting that exists 100% in you or anyone else. You can't say that everyone has 100% self-discipline over their behavior, because then there would be no such thing as obsessive-compulsive disorder or drug addiction. It would simply be a matter of free will to break habits, and it clearly isn't.

i said that God cannot make married bachelors because its a nonsensical thing. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything you string together in words. Things strung together in words may not be things that are even possible, like making a rock too heavy to lift. If he made this it would limit his omnipontence, and he would not be omnipotent. If this inability to go against his perfection was removed it would make him less powerful. It is because he is omnipotent that some things are impossilbe. which are like i said making nonsensical things and sinning, lieing, and ceasing to exist(going agains his perfection)

If God made perfect beings it would limit God's perfection, because it would make us just the same as God.

All knowing not all controlling. if it contradicted free will we would all be mindless robots, and God would had yet again went against his perfection by lieing because in the Bible it says he gave every man a free will to choose.

Ok to transcend means to pass beyond the limits of. He passes beyond the limits of time and space and is aware of everything and sustains everything If you are to say that he cannot exists it limits Him to one place one time and goes against his perfection.

If i can invent anything I want to i have to have a full understanding of it. All christians do not have a full understanding of God. The only understand what he has revealed to us throught the Bible.

well if i rely on my own mind for truth .. its true for me to kill people and blow them to bits and have incestous group orgies with animals with my family.. its also true for me to take money and embezal money from the government. And yes you do percieve God by using your mind what else would you use. God can be partially understood because he has only revealed part of who he is. and I think, therefore I am would be I think I'm a superstar so I am . I think I'm a police officer so I am. I'm ruler of all so I am.

Why on earth would a lieing mind be more valid than an omnipotent, omniscient, disembodied, necessary, and rational being who created me and cannot lie.

Ok The Big Bang Theory says that some (through in number) millions of years ago the world was created by no creater or any cause. History according to Darwanism does not exist because you dont know the when the world was created, you have no written accounts of it and the only account came from one man who told everyone in the 19th century. Christianity however has the Bible which talks about the 6 day creation and a little before it was made. Conceptually Possible vs. Logically Impossilbe means taht if something is conceptually possible it is not logically possible. Like for instance a virgin birth thats not conceptionally possible, because it had never happed before, but it is logically possible because God made it happen because he is omnipotent, omniscient, and etc.

I shouldn't trust the Bible because you make no sense of it? My reason to assume that He is omnipotent is because he says so in the Bible and His attributes say he cannot Lie, sin, or go against his perfection.

drug addicts have a choice before they start. Addicts always have a choice its not like some irresistable and unstoppable force is controlling them.. OCD has choices invovled, its harder but they are still invovled. And if your syndrome Drive your behavior than they drove your to choose to get on the computer? or drove you to first decide to get on the computer before you liked it and considered it an escape or a haven or for w/e reason you like it. and of course not everyone has 100% self discipline people choose to do wrong things all the time.

also still waiting for an explanation on how the laws of physics created the earth please dont forget to explain this.

How is it that you DON'T see this as a circular argument. It's totaly self-refrencing. "God is real because the bible says so, and we know this is true because god wrote the bible"

Dur!!

its not circular because God is the creator of everything, he's omnipotent, and the rest of the attributes. I agree with what's in the Bible because its true to the world around me, Everything I've read in it that relates to it is true. Also its true thoguh Transmission: Jewish scribes had a Reproduction process with error prevention, and God's will "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord" - Exodus 24:4 Joshua also "wrote these words in the book of the Law of God" - Joshua 24:26, Samuel "told the people the ordinacnes of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book and placed it beore the Lord" - 1 Samuel 10:25, "Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it in ordinary letters..." - Isaiah 8:1. I also know because "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be the word for word identical with our standard Hebrew bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." - Archer Gleason, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 19

I also know from Archaeology the Ebla Tablets were fround in 1974 and were written about a thousand years before Moses was born. Archaelology also suggests (or proves) that Israel derives its ancestry from Mesopotamia, which the Bible teaches in Genesis 11:27-12:4. The Hittite civilization talked about in Genesis 15:20 and 1 Kings 10:29 was discovered in 1876 by a British scholar named A. H. Sayce . He found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906. Winckler's excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres.

Archaeologists have searched the Dead Sea region for many years in search of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14:3 gives their location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side six wadies, or river valleys, flow into the Dead Sea. Along five of these wadies, ancient cities were discovered. The northern most is named Bab edh-Drha. In 1924, renowned archaeologist Dr. William Albright excavated at this site, searching for Sodom and Gomorrah. He discovered it to be a heavily fortified city. Although he connected this city with one of the biblical "Cities of the Plains," he could not find conclusive evidence to justify this assumption.

More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.

Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."{5}

Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450–2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.

What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.

Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come.

The Walls of Jericho:

According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930's, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.

First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua's description of Rahab's quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city."{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.

A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks."{7} Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.

Also photos of the Dead Sea Scrolls were withheld from public for fourty years until after they were found. This Bible is flawless

Because the bible says so, and we know that the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it. We know that god exists and is omnipotent because the bible says so, and we know the bible is true because god wrote it.

did you not read the rest of that?
it was circular but i have more proof ill add tomorrow i just need to sleep its almost 1 a.m.
I need to go to sleep lets continue this tomorrow lolz

The dead sea scrolls pretty much, if interpreted correctly, debase the current bible. Gnosticism, the root of Christianity, derives from paganism, and is very female-based. The old God was a Female. I believe her name was Sophie. I don't think that most present-day Christians would want to confirm this, on top of their beliefs. If women were the head-of-the-household, the world would be completely different.

I obviously wasn't using the married bachelors as an example though. If you are arguing my points, that is a red herring. But since I used a real example that we know to be true, (ie, humans creating a building they can't lift), it is not impossible, and therefore, not nonsensical. Please seriously reconsider my argument. But since you've already conceded that creating a rock he cannot lift limits his omnipotence and could not therefore be omnipotent, you have just proven that God isn't omnipotent. I have no idea why you choose to continue to assert that he is omnipotent and that creating a rock he can't lift is "nonsensical"; I conclude that the only reason you ignore the implications of this is because you have used circular logic to arrive at a "conclusion", meaning you're just finding the evidences that fit the conclusion, but ignoring the other evidences that are just as valid (if not more than) the ones you've selectively hand picked. This is a fallacious method of arriving at a conclusion and makes no sense at all. Omnipotence contradicts the "impossible". If you can do everything, then there is nothing that you can't do, and therefore, nothing is impossible for you to do. Of course, this is a contradiction that a few people refuse to acknowledge, despite the logic of it.



No, it wouldn't. It would just mean that God isn't the only perfect being in the world, but that doesn't make God any less "perfect". Although you may also consider this to be a contradiction because if you are suggesting that God creating perfect beings makes him less "perfect", then perhaps he might create imperfect beings, but if he did, that contradicts his "perfect" nature, for why would a "perfect" being create imperfect beings? Wouldn't that make him imperfect?



The implications of knowing our future means he knows exactly what will happen to us; in other words, my choice, whatever it may be, has already been determined because the outcome of such has already been made known, and will not change--if it did change, then God would know of such a change, and the outcome is still determined. If he did not, then he does not know the future and is not omniscient (the more parsimonious option). The fact that he knows the future makes my free will to choose redundant because anything I do doesn't change the future, whatever God knows what it will be. So yes, maybe God lied, either by saying we have free will, or that he is omniscient, and the only reason you doubt this to be a possibility is because you refuse to believe that the bible might contain contradictions or lies, or that you cling to it so strongly for no real reason at all, and have made this a conclusion from little to no evidence at all. In fact, you're continuing to pick and choose what evidences you'd like to see rather than considering all of them.



Perhaps it's about time you conceded that his perfection either has nothing to do with his existence, or that he isn't perfect, considering it's a contradiction as I've explained above. Or perhaps the only way he can "pass" beyond the "limits" of time and space would be if he didn't exist because only something as ridiculous as that could only be true if it didn't exist in reality. That's possible, right?



Prove me wrong. I just invented a monster with gold scales, blue fur, ten legs, three eyes, two heads and green feathers. I concede that the only thing about this monster that I understand is what it looks like. Do I need to invent something that we have a full understanding of? Obviously not. The fact that you might "want" to understand something you invent is not the same as a requirement to understand something you invent, and is possibly irrelevant.



That's not what that Latin phrase means. It means that my existence is confirmed because I am able to think and know what my own thoughts are--because these thoughts exist, I exist. If these thoughts did not exist, I cannot know if I exist or not--I wouldn't be capable of interpreting things and learning things. If I did have a thought of being a superstar, it does not mean that I am, only that the mere fact that that thought exists means that I exist. The same applies to anything else you may be thinking of. As a linguistic note because I have a keen interest in Latin, "existence" in Latin is most commonly expressed through the verb, sum, esse, fui, etc... for "to be", so you could translate "Cogito ergo sum" as "I think, therefore I exist."

I'm afraid I don't know what your example of the truth in killing people and doing horrible things has anything to do with using the mind to interpret the truth. You might use your mind to know who the real murder of a crime is, or you might use your mind to figure out how to solve a math problem, but that's certainly better than praying to God, asking who the real murder of a crime is, or asking God to solve a math problem for you.



Because such an existence of a "perfect" being as you have described contradicts itself, and therefore cannot exist. It is more parsimonious to consider that the "perfect" being as described above has too many contradictions and does not exist rather than to suggest that the mind "lies" to you. For what evidence do you have that the mind "lies", and what contradiction against the mind telling the truth can you suggest? I have not seen such. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence and contradictions against the existence of a "perfect" being.



How we know when the world existed or how it came to exist does not need to be evidenced through written accounts. In fact, physical artifacts and evidences are often more reliable than written accounts because the writer is capable of lying or exaggerating. We're even capable of knowing when artifacts are real or false. However, considering the big bang was most likely true, it would be simply ridiculous to believe that there could have been a "written account" at the time of the big bang because such an occurrence would require so much energy that those who see it would not have been surviving at that time--and physical evidences point towards the lack of life at that time, and they also tell us how this could have happened. Remember that because of evidence, you do not actually need to see the event happening in front of you with your own eyes. It would be cool, but not necessary, just as you can solve a crime without having seen the crime being committed. Likewise, Darwin did not make up his reports or his publications about evolution. He actually studied living things on his trip, reported his findings and based conclusions off of real evidence. The same could not be true for the bible writers. Where is their evidence that such a God that they describe exists? Where are their methods for learning about the solar system or what they believed the shape of the Earth to be? Are they detailed or described? Do they describe any evidences that we can observe now and have repeated so that we can understand them? You can only concede that the bible is hardly material for any scientific journal, and its information is redundant and unreliable. The same could be said for the creation story--does it say how God created the world in just "6 days"? Does it explain what evidence they had for knowing the world was created in just 6 days and by God? If your answer is that God does not lie (and he says he's a truth teller, how else would people assume he doesn't lie), then please consider this:

There are two men, one who always lies, and the other who always tells the truth. Now, you ask them this question: "Do you always tell the truth?" How are both men going to reply? I leave that up to you to figure out.



I don't know about whether or not you want to trust the bible, but I wouldn't because I don't make much sense out of it. I hope you realize that making assumptions out of a mere book, particularly one that doesn't detail its observations, evidence or proof is very much is akin to reading a fairy tale story and believing that these fictional characters exist.

I dislike debates, but I wish to say that I'm a Christian and that God is real and he is always there for us. He is a forgiving god who sent his only son down to Earth to sacrifice himself for our sins.

Why did he wait 200,000 years to send his son to redeem humanity?

A mere statement isn't much of an explanation.

Not convinced.

Actually the dead see scrolls contained cannonical and apocryphal texts from the OT and texts from the Essenes. The Nag Hammadi scrolls contained gnostic gospels and other apocryphal texts from the NT.


A goddess named Sophie, that's interesting.