the bad design of a monkeys butt.. is a stronger proof of the non-existence of god. You should have used this stronger proof to support your idea.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, in the eyes of monkey, it's a beautifull design. The monkey might not like Jeniffer Lopez's as much. See, god knows what he's doing.
thats why he did not see it a proof of non-existence Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think that god(s) is/are something that need to be proved or refuted. You believe or you don't. What is the point of sitting around and debating the existence of a creator? You're just coming up with empty words, and really, you can twist any facts and refute anything you want to. Go live your man. And people-UNICORNS EXIST DAMMITT!!
Well no. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof and all that... None of history's claims are as fantastic as the Bible's, and is generally based on original sources told my multiple people and supported by archeology.
Sounds like you are speaking of the Bible. "based on original sources told my multiple people and supported by archeology." Archeology is constantly making new finds to show the veracity of the bibles claims. Usually a few years after some liberal claims that "such and such" could never have happened, archeology uncovers that the event did occur, so show the liberal claimant a fool once again. Lets look at the Gospel of Luke. He prefaces he book by saying he interviewed eyewitness for their testimony, and used extant written records of the time, to make his report. Quoting Luke 1:2-3 2Exactly as they were handed down to us by those who from the official] beginning [of Jesus' ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word [that is, of the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God], 3It seemed good and desirable to me, [and so I have determined] also after having searched out diligently and followed all things closely and traced accurately the course from the highest to the minutest detail from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus. Luke was acting as one of the first investigative reporters.
There is no evidence of these fantasic claims, just some of the historical facts. There's alot of Greek/Roman fiction which is based on history but has gods and demons added to the story. That doesn't make the gods/demons real. There are people today that do investigative reporting of alien abductions. 2000 years from now the Raelian movement will probably use some of these documents as proof.
No... The Bible is the single source of all the stories. The vast majority of the Bible is NOT supported by archeology and history. Only speculation about stretched assumptions. Did you know that there is not a SINGLE MAP that dates back to Jesus' purported lifetime with a town called Bethlehem on it? But there are quite a few maps of the area in the time that DO NOT have Bethlehem on it! Bethelem was not founded until after his "birth". Same goes for the New Testament. The archelogical evidence suggests that the first book was not written until late 2nd - early 3rd century CE. These were Jesus' conteporaries? How could a "first hand" account be written 250 years AFETR it occurred?? Also, what about the historical data? There were several hundred historians active at the time of Jesus' "life". They documented EVERYTHING. We have papers that document one person selling a goat to another and exactly how much it cost. Wedding certificates... Contracts... Current events... It is one of the most widely documented points in distant history. Why did no one even mention a single miracle that Jesus performed? There was ONE SINGLE unclear reference to someone that MAY fit Jesus' description recorded by Josephus. That single entry is very suspect and is widely bel;ieved to be counterfeit (even by many Christians). You'd think that these events would be quite an historical event. Where are they (other than in the Bible)? Some people speculate thar Ramses was the Pharoah depiceted in Exodus. This is just speculation. There is no direct evidence supporting it. For example?
bible written in the 2nd or 3rd century? wrong You state that archeology shows that the first books weren't written until the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That seems strange. Marcion, a heretical theologian had created a list of books that he had accepted as canonical, which means they had to be previously extant, prior to 150. The list included 10 of Paul's letters, and an editted copy of Luke's gospel. I have no idea where you got your disinformation, but someone has definitely led you down the garden path. Examples of recent archeological evidence: The discovery of the tomb of Eli the Priest, mentioned in the book of 1st Samuel. Eli died around 1200 BC. The discovery of an assyrian (modern day Syria-Iraq) mentioning the name of King David. In telling the story of how the Assyrian king defeated the descendants of King David. The discovery of the ossuary (bone-box) of James, the son of Joseph, the bother of Jesus. Written in an Aramaic script only used from about 20 BC to 70 AD. Those these names were rather common in and of themselves, they would be rare in this type of order. It would also be highly rare, to list the name of a brother, unless the brother was well-known.
Re: bible written in the 2nd or 3rd century? wrong Then enlighten me. Provide me with links to the "proof". I am open minded. I actually would like it if someone proved sopme of this shit to me. Whether FOR or AGAINST Christian doctrine, I would like verifyable proof, rather than conjecture and presumptions. And what about the other points I raised?
People like me......right. The reason for this original post, was due to being a inquisitor of Religon, and I have logically sought my way through the jumbles, and problems of it all. When I was pondereing the existence of God, I tried to really think about why it was necessary for his existence, how it could be possible, and what proof there was for it. Here's a summation of it... Q1: If God exists who created Him, and what proof is there of His existence? Nothing needs to create God, because he is the Given Absolute/Axiom that is simply assumed to exist. There is no proof that 1+1=2 exists, yet it is ASSUMED that 1+1=2. But if I have no proof that 1+1=2, then....i guess....it must not equal 2...... Q2: Why do we need a God? Becuase there is no explanation for our existence, the universe's existence, nor is there any explanation for why our universe has order, and why there are laws of which all things abide by. Q3: How could it be possible?? If stating something's existence based on assumption is not possible, then LOGIC itself is not possible.
Exactly, that is why people made up gods, why can't people just admit they don't know why there is a universe? What does the word "god" have to do with anything?
Becasue the Universe is finite, in its energy content, it must have come from a source that is infinite. Because the universe has a finite energy content, it must have had a starting point, and something to start it. Because the universe is incredibly organized to a high degree of precision, we can see that there was inteligent design behind it. Many variables set precisely, so that life could exist on earth.
See, I don't think that the uiniverse is so organized or precise at all. I think that the universe just IS. Energy interracts with matter. Matter interracts with matter. Heat, magnetism, light, gravity... All of it simply reacts with one another. It doesn't take an intelligent design to have an interraction that causes a baloon to pop when stuck with a pin. It doesn't take an intelligent design to have a rock weigh more than a feather. Just take simple concepts like that and expand on them. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Simple mechanics. Nature seeking balance. The earth wasn't designed for us to live on. We developed to live on the earth. If any one of countless variables did not occur as they did we would not exist. That does not mean that an intelligent designer created it for us, it just means that we lucked out (or not, depending on your perspective. My perspective is that the Earth and all her other inhabitants were unlucky.)Some other animal would have emerged as the dominant species and would eventually have been having these same arrogant ideas that this world was crated for THEM.
There is a huge difference between the directly perceiving world (physically and soul) and the indirect one (spiritual world). The basic difference is very simple: the perceivable world is limited and the unperceivable one is unlimited. If you know the differences between the two, you become able to understand how they can co-exist in the universe. We are all those three together: Body: physical body Soul: heart, mind, will and emotions. Part of the perceivable world. Spirit: life itself. Your life. The way this works is like that: You are a spirit you have a soul you live in a body. So you, spirit, is connected to your body by your soul, which is the part of yourself that is conscious. Spirit ...| soul ...| body Comparing with a car... Spirit (you, the driver) ...| soul (the wheel, pedals, and so on, what gives you control over it) ...| body (the car itself, the engine and all its parts) In the Bible, you must know to recognize when someone is speaking about the soul or the spirit, because those things are two totally different things that we should watch for. Jesus says: "I'm the bread of life." and He also uses the term "living water". So when He tells you to eat from Him, you should not think about His body, but His Spirit. You must know to differentiate the two, otherwise you are not able to understand it. To find God, one must become conscious of his/her spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one that usually helps with that. So basically, history goes like this: Heavens always existed. God always existed. God comes and creates earth. Earth has a beginning and has an end, but the Word of God stands forever. Heavens and God are unlimited and earth and all that is in it is limited. So the basic thing to remember is: The universe is limited, so it must be created from unlimitdness in order to exist.
If it is "unperceivable" how do you know? And PLEASE PLEASE give me a more creative and intelligent response than simply "The Bible tell sme so". Simple logic unconfined by the assumptions of others. Just you. Try it.
why are the people here turning their attention once again to the bible when the answer is in their butt. One of the main arguments was that the human being was designed so wonderfully. It turns out to be a lie. Why bother to refute the rest? case closed?
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. There doesn't need to be evidence against God, the fact that there is none for him, is proof enough. You claim that this is not a logical idea, yet this is one of the foundations of critical thinking, please explain how you mean this. And by the way your #3 is encompassed within #2, it's redundant.
