Why its pointless trying to prove god

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
BLIND faith, you have BLIND faith.

Most peoples faith in Christianity is not as blind as YOU want it to be. It starts with a feeling, then comes research and study of the Bible....when you gain enough spiritual knowledge, you step into faith.

Just so you don't get confused again "there is no scientific proof that anyone can provide you that proves God exists". Nor do I feel compelled to prove anything to you. That's not some angry statement meant to hurt you it's just the way it is.

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
wrong. Any christian will tell you that the bible was written by god.

Wrong. I am a Christian, and I believe that the Bible is a piece of literature written by man. Hence, they do not have to exist concurrently.

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
But they proved it didn't they, and in turn proved the Christian church and the bible wrong. Seeing as the bible says the world is flat and is the center of the universe.

Curious I missed that lesson in the Bible. Where exactly can I find the passage that says the earth is flat. I have hears the expression "to the four corners" and to the "end of the earth"....but that is far from a geography lesson.

reply to post by chissler


Written by man, but the words of god. If the words of god are wrong, then either god is wrong(impossible according to you guys) or it is a false god.

"The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed."

Originally posted by Dan5647
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

God is universal. He is worshiped as different gods in various cultures but he only exists as one. The Bible, Koran, and the Tanakh are the strongest evidence we have that proves God's existence.

If he doesn't exist, how did life start on this planet?
Darwin's Evolution theory has a loophole. If animals evolve into other new species, there has to be the first animals that existed before any other species for them to evolve. Creationism seems to make sense and fills in the missing information that we have all been trying to figure out.

You tell me, if there was no God, how did we end up on the right planet at the right living conditions which is able to sustain life, other than 100s of billions of planets out there that couldn't sustain life?

Hmmm..where to start? There are so many confused assumptions in your post.

Monotheism. Do you know what it is? It was a minority, or non-existant world view in religious circles for - oh, about 6,000 years up until about 1500 years ago. It's a very recent invention. So - no, monotheisim most emphatically does NOT prove god's existance.

In fact - if anything it proves just the opposite. How? Simple. If man worshiped MANY different gods for well over 6000 years before the coming of christianity/islam/the jews/etc - then WHO were they worshiping BEFORE the invention of montheisim?? MANY different gods, that's who.

AND - that means that MANY DIFFERENT gods created the world - at least according to your theories of creationism.

SO - that means all the 'creationists' who believe that nonsense are actually worshiping the WRONG GOD!! Because the god they believe created the world didn't even exist 6000 years ago

As for the details of 'Creationism vs. Evolution' - don't even go there please. It's so EASY to trash creationsim, it's almost too embarrassing...


Jimbo

[edit on 10-11-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by AncientVoid
Written by man, but the words of god. If the words of god are wrong, then either god is wrong(impossible according to you guys) or it is a false god.

Misinterpretation is not feasible? You seem to have conveniently left that out. Would that not be more logical?

Anyways, your post is exactly what is wrong with this whole discussion.

"you guys"

Who is "you guys"? I don't go to church, I don't pray, and I don't practice any organized religion. But, I don't spend my time shaming those that do. I don't believe in a lot of things that others do, but I'm not prepared to deny it's existence.

There are no "you guys". There is only "us". This proverbial fence that we've tried to build in order to justify our stance is pointless. There are no two sides. There is "us" and how we perceive our surroundings. At the end of the day, we are all human and we'll all suffer the same consequence. Dividing ourselves while we're on this earth is a waste of everybody's time.

Let's take down the fence, stop worrying about minor details, put the fingers back in our pocket, and just get along.

Kumbaya!

Ok, I'm just trying to lighten the mood. But a point is being made. Let's stop taking this so serious because if we have learned anything from history, it's that we shouldn't take this too serious. Too much blood shed over an issue that should not be dividing us.

Just a thought.

reply to post by jedimiller


''but what did jesus do? he preached the word of god and people believed him. now, did he prove that god existed? no. he could never do that, but people believed in him and he proved that god was real in the end, by ways of the bible. I am doing the same. I'm not saying i'm like jesus, but in A way i'm using his same principles and ideologies..that you should be happy and going to church may introduce you to god.''

Errmm..one small problem with this: no-one can prove Jesus existed either...

Jimbo
'

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by AncientVoid
Written by man, but the words of god. If the words of god are wrong, then either god is wrong(impossible according to you guys) or it is a false god.

Misinterpretation is not feasible? You seem to have conveniently left that out. Would that not be more logical?

No, because a powerful almighty god wouldn't have stupidly not known about this and let it pass. It is you that's being illogical. Either way the religion is wrong.

Originally posted by chissler
Who is "you guys"?

Those that say he is perfect and almighty

[edit on 10-11-2007 by AncientVoid]

Originally posted by AncientVoid
No, because a powerful almighty god wouldn't have stupidly not known about this and let it pass. It is you that's being illogical. Either way the religion is wrong.

I'm being illogical? Free will exists. Contrary to popular belief, man is fallible.

Are you and I discussing this? Or are you responding as if I were saying something that's better suited to serve your agenda?

I'm confused.

Because you don't believe what you're saying, and well; I don't believe it. So why are you citing it? Neither of us believe it, yet you continue to cite it. Why? Because it helps feed your agenda.

Unfortunately, no progress can be made on this front.

It was fun though.

reply to post by chissler


It is you that can't admit that this religion might be wrong. How did it get from earth orbiting the Sun to Earth being in the center of the universe? Misinterpretation is an lame excuses for the flaws. Maybe god is misinterpreted as all powerful and god is actually nature and nothing more in the start.

How does free-will exist with a powerful god like that? Explain please.
Cite what? What are you talking about?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by AncientVoid]

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by Damien_Hell
BLIND faith, you have BLIND faith.

Most peoples faith in Christianity is not as blind as YOU want it to be. It starts with a feeling, then comes research and study of the Bible....when you gain enough spiritual knowledge, you step into faith.

Just so you don't get confused again "there is no scientific proof that anyone can provide you that proves God exists". Nor do I feel compelled to prove anything to you. That's not some angry statement meant to hurt you it's just the way it is.

So I guess you don't know the difference between faith and blind faith. Faith is me having faith that my internet is gonna stop lagging. I have no proof that it is, but it has b4 and I have faith it will again. Having blind faith is me saying, Jackie Chan is gonna bust through my window and beat up a ninja that is behind me *looks around* (phew) There is no proof that any of those series of events is going to happen, there is no presendence or anything like that. Its in blind faith if I believe that its going to happen. There is no proof of god so belief in him is in blind faith

Originally posted by AncientVoid
"The shape of the earth

Not a very strong argument....it's not a planetary geography lesson. Circle, sphere...and all of the kingdoms which could mean all of Canaan or Satan supernaturally shown him the whole of the earth. Whatever your interpretation it is just that and far from a solid proof.

We take that similar attitude we could surmise that the earth is being held by pillars or it's a physical square.

Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

[edit on 10-11-2007 by linkjoy124]

But it did say circle. A square is still flat.

Damien_Hell it's been fun but I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read any of the posts in this thread.

Have a good evening everyone.

you realize in the Bible Isiah knew the earth was around, 700 BCE? While for hundreds of years after people still that it was flat?

Look at Isiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell"

In the original Hebrew "circle" means SPHERE. How does a simple man, in 700 BCE know that the earth is round?

Originally posted by AncientVoid
But it did say circle. A square is still flat.

Right, which should lead one to believe the writers were not giving a geography lesson.

I can't believe we are actually arguing about this...

Ok now that is really my last post...

Originally posted by linkjoy124
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

1 thing correct doesn't make up for all the flaws. The chance is still there right? It's like winning lotto the first time you purchase it, still a chance.

From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document.

The fossil record provides confirmation of this.

How do fossils determine that animals weren't cross-breeding (which is impossible thats why we dont have cogs or dats (cat and dog))

In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

Your a few decades behind on your fossils

The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

1 in 3,628,800 are very realistic odds

Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life? Are scientists themselves convinced that this could happen?

So you don't believe ANYTHING can happen by chance? Thats a pretty messed up view of the world

Damien_Hell it's been fun but I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read any of the posts in this thread.

Well that proves YOU haven't cause if you had you would see I have all the things I'm replying to in neat little quote boxes

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Damien_Hell]