News2 mins ago
God
62 Answers
I was interested to read Styleys post referring to heaven and what happens there.....
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by angeldraws. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
angeldraws, no-one can convince you that there is any god because gods are supernatural creatures for whose existence there is no evidence.
Theists are people who have decided, against all reason, to believe in some god or other despite that lack of evidence. So it's up to you: decide to believe or not.
waldo, you must know by now that Theland is deaf the 'who made God' argument. I have explained to him several times that his 'reasoning' leads only to an infinite regression of successive creators. He never responds and blithely repeats his mantra the next time the subject comes up.
Theists are people who have decided, against all reason, to believe in some god or other despite that lack of evidence. So it's up to you: decide to believe or not.
waldo, you must know by now that Theland is deaf the 'who made God' argument. I have explained to him several times that his 'reasoning' leads only to an infinite regression of successive creators. He never responds and blithely repeats his mantra the next time the subject comes up.
chakka's right, you can't have God's existence 'proved'; it just has to be something you either feel or you don't. You don't have to believe in the whole Christian God - indeed, Theland is an apostate - many feel comfort in a God who loves them and watches over them without necessarily worrying about whether he created the planet.
Hi - yea i realise it is up to me to decide, and ive had discussions with people of various religions before; including mormons, evangelists, methodists and Jehovah's witnesses, but i cannot seem to get to the bottom of WHY they believe in their god.....
people quote Psalms and passages of the bible but to me its common sense or nature or change and progress which brings us to where we are today.....not a god - i think that positive thinking is the result of praying....or having faith in a positive outcome, after all, 'Amen' means 'so be it'
if you could create a whole new being or race or whatever - would you have it worship you, fear you, and provide an afterlife for it and if so - WHY????
people quote Psalms and passages of the bible but to me its common sense or nature or change and progress which brings us to where we are today.....not a god - i think that positive thinking is the result of praying....or having faith in a positive outcome, after all, 'Amen' means 'so be it'
if you could create a whole new being or race or whatever - would you have it worship you, fear you, and provide an afterlife for it and if so - WHY????
The part of the question, valid as it is, that isn't expressed is how much proof do you demand? If you demand that God appear to you and, for the purpose of argument, He does. Would you (or Waldo, chakka, etc. actually believe? I don't think so. An alternate or series of alternate explanations for the experience would be produced.
Look, I live (here, in the U.S.) perhaps 12,000 miles from you. Here's your task (along with the usual suspects... prove to me you exist. You can't afford a plane ticket, so you can't appear in person. You can however, have others attest to your existence. I can, then, make an educated determination based on the evidence you present of the likelyhood of the veracity of that evidence.
In actuality, don't we do exactly that in everyday life? I can tell you that George Washington was the first president of our country. I can tell you quite a bit about his life. All based on the evidence, all from writers who are long gone or from current historians who rely on precedents.
We know quite a bit about Tacitus for example. He was a person that lived contemporaneously with the Christ. He wrote extensively of the historical aspects of the Roman Empire. Our friends at Wikipedia tell us "...The surviving portions of his two major works�the Annals and the Histories�examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD. There are significant lacunae in the surviving texts..."
Contd.
Look, I live (here, in the U.S.) perhaps 12,000 miles from you. Here's your task (along with the usual suspects... prove to me you exist. You can't afford a plane ticket, so you can't appear in person. You can however, have others attest to your existence. I can, then, make an educated determination based on the evidence you present of the likelyhood of the veracity of that evidence.
In actuality, don't we do exactly that in everyday life? I can tell you that George Washington was the first president of our country. I can tell you quite a bit about his life. All based on the evidence, all from writers who are long gone or from current historians who rely on precedents.
We know quite a bit about Tacitus for example. He was a person that lived contemporaneously with the Christ. He wrote extensively of the historical aspects of the Roman Empire. Our friends at Wikipedia tell us "...The surviving portions of his two major works�the Annals and the Histories�examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD. There are significant lacunae in the surviving texts..."
Contd.
Contd.
But what they don't tell you is that the only surviving copies of parts of his works (there are no originals) are extremely late. One historian says "...The source manuscript for all extant copies of "Annals 11-16," come from but one collection (Mediceus II) which was written between 1038 and 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of
Monte Cassino (destroyed in WWII). Yet, few (least of all me) questions most of the truthfullness of his views. This same fact is true of almost all ancient historical documents. Yet, freely admitted, we know what we know today from their evidences.
Yet, many are not willing , at the very least, to attribute the same critical examination of the writings supporting the historicity of Yeshua. In my opinion, only because it deals with the natural outworking of the supernatural. I can almost guarantee that if Tacitus, et al wrote about similar types of occurrences, it would be equally derided by some.
Chakka35 will begin a drumbeat of non-validity of the extant wrtings, and that's OK. Incorrect in my view, but an alternate view adhered to by some misguided souls. We all have our biases, no? But the fact is the writings of the Gospels, Paul, Peter, James, etc., originated quite near, timespan wise. to the events. Evidence, recently uncovered (an still to be verified) indicates a copy of portions of Mark may have been written within 3 to 5 years of the events. We do have (in the British Museum) a verified copy of portions of the Gospels written near AD125. (By the way, the venerable Tacitus mentions Jesus, as do other non-Biblical authors).
Contd.
But what they don't tell you is that the only surviving copies of parts of his works (there are no originals) are extremely late. One historian says "...The source manuscript for all extant copies of "Annals 11-16," come from but one collection (Mediceus II) which was written between 1038 and 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of
Monte Cassino (destroyed in WWII). Yet, few (least of all me) questions most of the truthfullness of his views. This same fact is true of almost all ancient historical documents. Yet, freely admitted, we know what we know today from their evidences.
Yet, many are not willing , at the very least, to attribute the same critical examination of the writings supporting the historicity of Yeshua. In my opinion, only because it deals with the natural outworking of the supernatural. I can almost guarantee that if Tacitus, et al wrote about similar types of occurrences, it would be equally derided by some.
Chakka35 will begin a drumbeat of non-validity of the extant wrtings, and that's OK. Incorrect in my view, but an alternate view adhered to by some misguided souls. We all have our biases, no? But the fact is the writings of the Gospels, Paul, Peter, James, etc., originated quite near, timespan wise. to the events. Evidence, recently uncovered (an still to be verified) indicates a copy of portions of Mark may have been written within 3 to 5 years of the events. We do have (in the British Museum) a verified copy of portions of the Gospels written near AD125. (By the way, the venerable Tacitus mentions Jesus, as do other non-Biblical authors).
Contd.
Contd
Tacitus has but a small handful of extant, late copies, while there exists over 25,000 copies of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament to compare. Other than spelling errors and obvious,minor copiest errors, the extant copies are, word for word, the same, from beginning to end.
So, OK, does nay of this prove to you God exists... I doubt it. It, standing alone, didn't change my heart. But the evidence did demand a verdict, which made me make an honest inquiry. The evidence led to a relationship with Yeshua that has vastly improved my life, my relationships and my views of other's. (I'll be happy to address the issue of "who created God?" a little later... really it's quite simple).
Besides, if Theland abandons the fray, I don't want to be alone in facing the hordes of Huns...(said with great respect, by the way!)
Have a really nice day in your corner of the world!
Tacitus has but a small handful of extant, late copies, while there exists over 25,000 copies of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament to compare. Other than spelling errors and obvious,minor copiest errors, the extant copies are, word for word, the same, from beginning to end.
So, OK, does nay of this prove to you God exists... I doubt it. It, standing alone, didn't change my heart. But the evidence did demand a verdict, which made me make an honest inquiry. The evidence led to a relationship with Yeshua that has vastly improved my life, my relationships and my views of other's. (I'll be happy to address the issue of "who created God?" a little later... really it's quite simple).
Besides, if Theland abandons the fray, I don't want to be alone in facing the hordes of Huns...(said with great respect, by the way!)
Have a really nice day in your corner of the world!
Clanad - I doubt if I could ever abandon the fray, especially as generally it so good natured.
As to "who created God?" well, my belief is that God is cause and effect in Himself, and is eternal.
Illogical? Yes, to us created beings it must be. But the atheist must address the question of from where did the universe come from, and the laws that govern it? Science can never address this. it is impossible.
As to "who created God?" well, my belief is that God is cause and effect in Himself, and is eternal.
Illogical? Yes, to us created beings it must be. But the atheist must address the question of from where did the universe come from, and the laws that govern it? Science can never address this. it is impossible.
I thought the question was to prove that there is a God, not to be told that there is'nt.
I read a true story about (several on the same theme) the holocaust and how men and women met in the camps, or in the ghettos and fell in love.
In the face and in the midst of all the evil that man can produce, 2 people found one another in a throng of thousands and created hope.
I was travelling down Smithdown Road a few months ago, a lad about 12 years old rode through the traffic on his push bike sitting on the frame (holding tightly) was his sister (I assume) safety issues aside, if you saw the love between that little girl and her brother (I could smell it almost) light up that whole street with it's fleeting presence. Then you'd find it hard to doubt to the presence of a creator.
I despair at humanity sometimes, but then I see and experience love in this world and I'm refreshed. Love is the gratest gift God gave us, it defies logic, reason and sense. Man can claim it as his own if he wants, but love is a gift that is bestowed and can never be owned.
If any of the contributors (myself included) could prove conclusively either way then they would'nt be writing on here, they'd be recieving Nobel prizes and making millions on speaking tours in the finest cities of the world.
I read a true story about (several on the same theme) the holocaust and how men and women met in the camps, or in the ghettos and fell in love.
In the face and in the midst of all the evil that man can produce, 2 people found one another in a throng of thousands and created hope.
I was travelling down Smithdown Road a few months ago, a lad about 12 years old rode through the traffic on his push bike sitting on the frame (holding tightly) was his sister (I assume) safety issues aside, if you saw the love between that little girl and her brother (I could smell it almost) light up that whole street with it's fleeting presence. Then you'd find it hard to doubt to the presence of a creator.
I despair at humanity sometimes, but then I see and experience love in this world and I'm refreshed. Love is the gratest gift God gave us, it defies logic, reason and sense. Man can claim it as his own if he wants, but love is a gift that is bestowed and can never be owned.
If any of the contributors (myself included) could prove conclusively either way then they would'nt be writing on here, they'd be recieving Nobel prizes and making millions on speaking tours in the finest cities of the world.
Good point, 123everton and even more directly; why should we recognize love? Or anything good? As a matter of fact, the central question is; why is there an expectation and recognition on us human's part of good and evil? Certainly, there's no evidence that any animal experiences any such emotions. How can evolution explain such emotions since the phenomena has no value for the survival of the species? Why is the recognition of god so universal in any society? Archaeology recognizes that every civilization, every civilization, that ever developed has as a distinctive marker, religion centered on a "god". That's really an astounding fact, when one thinks about it. I don't think it's easily explained by throw off statements such as "men were just trying to explain the natural world that they didn't understand..." That's just to pat when the nature of the "gods" and religions of history are studied...
Anyway, thanks for the input!
Anyway, thanks for the input!
Clanad, just for starters:
1. I don't care what evidence you produce to start with, just produce some. Human discovery starts with someone mooting an idea. This you theists have done.
They then have to produce some evidence that that idea might have something to it. Rational people can then pounce upon that first bit of evidence and delve deeper to find more. You have produced no evidence that God exists, so there is nothing to work on. How could a fellow like me pursue the God idea with research and a probing mind when you give me no more reason to accept your mooted God than you could for me to accept Santa Claus?
2. Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus; his dates were AD55-117. (Of course we don't know the dates of Jesus' life, if he existed at all. But if he was born during the reign of Herod then his birth could not have been later than 4BC.)
3. Tacitus says no more than a dozen words about Jesus and, since he was writing early in the 2nd Century, at least three of the gospels were available already. He gives us no first-hand information.
Christians always quote historians like Tacitus, Suetonius. Josephus, Pliny, and so on all of whom lived and wrote late 1st/early 2nd century. They never mention Philo or Justus who were writing about Palestine and the Jewish religion during the first part of the 1st century and say not one word about Jesus.
4. I am genuinely delighted that you can answer the question �Who made God?�, a question I have been putting to creationists for about 20 years. I have never had a satisfactory reply and sometimes (as in Theland�s case) no reply at all. To hear also that the answer is �really quite simple� intrigues me. Please speak, Clanad.
Cheers.
1. I don't care what evidence you produce to start with, just produce some. Human discovery starts with someone mooting an idea. This you theists have done.
They then have to produce some evidence that that idea might have something to it. Rational people can then pounce upon that first bit of evidence and delve deeper to find more. You have produced no evidence that God exists, so there is nothing to work on. How could a fellow like me pursue the God idea with research and a probing mind when you give me no more reason to accept your mooted God than you could for me to accept Santa Claus?
2. Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus; his dates were AD55-117. (Of course we don't know the dates of Jesus' life, if he existed at all. But if he was born during the reign of Herod then his birth could not have been later than 4BC.)
3. Tacitus says no more than a dozen words about Jesus and, since he was writing early in the 2nd Century, at least three of the gospels were available already. He gives us no first-hand information.
Christians always quote historians like Tacitus, Suetonius. Josephus, Pliny, and so on all of whom lived and wrote late 1st/early 2nd century. They never mention Philo or Justus who were writing about Palestine and the Jewish religion during the first part of the 1st century and say not one word about Jesus.
4. I am genuinely delighted that you can answer the question �Who made God?�, a question I have been putting to creationists for about 20 years. I have never had a satisfactory reply and sometimes (as in Theland�s case) no reply at all. To hear also that the answer is �really quite simple� intrigues me. Please speak, Clanad.
Cheers.
I must agree with Chakka. Additionally, it's incomprehensible that believers are talking about love, since there is little evidence of love being in abundance when the biblical God was around, and if anyone thinks otherwise, then they're kidding themselves. The Old Testament holds evidence enough that this God wasn't quite all he is cracked up to be. Although from reading some of these posts it would appear that some believe the ability to love is somehow inextricably linked to faith in the biblical God, I would point out that believers don't have a monopoly on love.
Angel, Good question - and to everyone else, good debate.
Angel, Good question - and to everyone else, good debate.
At no point do I claim a monopoly on love for believers or anything else, the very fact love exists as an emotion is an indication of Gods existence to me.
Naomi you're a creationist, you may have included evolution into your philosophy, so why not give your take on creation with due regard to your spiritulism?
Naomi you're a creationist, you may have included evolution into your philosophy, so why not give your take on creation with due regard to your spiritulism?
Interesting word you open with, chakka35 mooting, defined as
n.
1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.
tr.v. moot�ed, moot�ing, moots
1.
a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. .
2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2.
a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
So, I'm not sure in which case you mean to be taken.
On the face of it, the evidence you seek is, well... self-evident. How do you explain the importance and prominence of Jesus if not as an historical individual?
Do you really mean to explain away all of the references to Him by a wave of the hand, metaphorically speaking?
While you're exactly correct on the dates for Tacitus, the phrase "contempraneous with" certainly applies to any ancient historian living and writing within a generation of the subject.
It's always interesting to see how writer's such as Tacitus are respected and the fabric of their writings are interwoven with our understanding of the era, yet when such a writer dares touch on "religion", more specifically, Jesus, he is not to be trusted.
Contd., of Course
n.
1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.
tr.v. moot�ed, moot�ing, moots
1.
a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. .
2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2.
a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
So, I'm not sure in which case you mean to be taken.
On the face of it, the evidence you seek is, well... self-evident. How do you explain the importance and prominence of Jesus if not as an historical individual?
Do you really mean to explain away all of the references to Him by a wave of the hand, metaphorically speaking?
While you're exactly correct on the dates for Tacitus, the phrase "contempraneous with" certainly applies to any ancient historian living and writing within a generation of the subject.
It's always interesting to see how writer's such as Tacitus are respected and the fabric of their writings are interwoven with our understanding of the era, yet when such a writer dares touch on "religion", more specifically, Jesus, he is not to be trusted.
Contd., of Course
Contd.
For at least a feigned attempt at brevity, I'll happily discuss with you Philo of Alexander and Justus of Tiberias, with two comments. Firstly, are there any contemporary writers of the two that mention them? I find none, yet they are acredited as sterling examples of historical recorders. How do you know that they existed? You're willing to take them at face value, probably because they fill a niche in your bias. The problem with that is, you're accepting, on faith, that they are who they say they are. Ironically, what is known of Justus comes mostly from his political and literary enemy, Josephus Flavius; so that an exact biography of him can not be given. Ironic, because you appeal to Justus, of whom we know almost nothing other than references in Josephus who is derided when he writes of the Christ!
As for Philo, "...although many of Philo's writings have survived, little is konwn about his life. We do not even know when he was born or when he died. The few facts about his life come from occasional hints in his own books and a small number of external references (e.g., Josephus mentions him)...." (Source: Early jewish Writings) Additionally, he lived in Alexandria, not Jeursalem, apparently was a Jew of the tribe of Levi and a Pharisee... not exactly a neutral observer, no?
All writers of that era, as in later eras dominated by autocratic emperors, had as their first goal non-irritaion of their mentors and rulers. It's valid to ask why none of the New Testament writers or other Jews of the time mention Philo or Justus, isn't it?
Contd. Once More
For at least a feigned attempt at brevity, I'll happily discuss with you Philo of Alexander and Justus of Tiberias, with two comments. Firstly, are there any contemporary writers of the two that mention them? I find none, yet they are acredited as sterling examples of historical recorders. How do you know that they existed? You're willing to take them at face value, probably because they fill a niche in your bias. The problem with that is, you're accepting, on faith, that they are who they say they are. Ironically, what is known of Justus comes mostly from his political and literary enemy, Josephus Flavius; so that an exact biography of him can not be given. Ironic, because you appeal to Justus, of whom we know almost nothing other than references in Josephus who is derided when he writes of the Christ!
As for Philo, "...although many of Philo's writings have survived, little is konwn about his life. We do not even know when he was born or when he died. The few facts about his life come from occasional hints in his own books and a small number of external references (e.g., Josephus mentions him)...." (Source: Early jewish Writings) Additionally, he lived in Alexandria, not Jeursalem, apparently was a Jew of the tribe of Levi and a Pharisee... not exactly a neutral observer, no?
All writers of that era, as in later eras dominated by autocratic emperors, had as their first goal non-irritaion of their mentors and rulers. It's valid to ask why none of the New Testament writers or other Jews of the time mention Philo or Justus, isn't it?
Contd. Once More
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Water Problems In The South West
News34 mins ago
You've Gotta Admire The Creativity Of...
News34 mins ago
