gabbagabbahey said:Well, you can't get more bothersome to someone than to damn them to an eternity of torture, whether you are actually present for the festivities or not. : )
I don't understand. Why not?
gabbagabbahey said:Well, you can't get more bothersome to someone than to damn them to an eternity of torture, whether you are actually present for the festivities or not. : )
gabbagabbahey said:People often think atheist means someone who says they know that there is nota god. IMO all the word means is it is someone who has not seen any (strong or verifiable) evidence for it. And no, that does not mean they are agnostic, because that's implying that you feel that it is a 50/50 proposition. Are you agnostic about leprechauns? I mean, you can't prove they don't exist...
Pale Horse said:I would hope this discussion and discourse, at least to this point is different. No one here is claiming any victory as it were, which I quess is a win for all, up to this post? Or maybe I should say, no one's being moronic yet?
IAdventurer01 said:Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.
Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.IAdventurer01 said:Fair enough, it certainly is a word with a lot of excess baggage. Still, taking your definition: if atheist as someone with no strong evidence of a god, I think my point still stands, and perhaps is enforced by your more lax definition. Beyond the lines between individual religions, there is an additional line between those who feel there is evidence for a god and those whom do not. Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.
A Tom Clancy novel can describe the real-life U.S. political climate down to a frightening detail, yet it still is and will be nothing but a work of fiction.Pale Horse said:For those that have read the Bible, its detailed predictive prophecy (from a statistical analysis) is stunning to say the least. The book of Isaiah has amazing insights about the heavens that couldn't be proven until around the 1920's. The book of Job too has insight into our solar system and its neighboring galaxies though it was written 2000 BC+/-. This sort of evidence is consistent to the Bibles claims that its contents are inspired by God. I do realize though that even ardent skeptics will say this doesn't constitute proof. For reasons I care not to share at this time (which are far better that the supposed ones coming), I'll still say up to this point, I agree.
These "universal laws" most scientists refer to are actually called the "laws of physics". For the known universe to exist, there needs to be a framework that ensures that certain things always happen the same way. If there wasn't, anything or any of us could just poof out of existence at any given moment.Pale Horse said:The Bible is the standard of standards.
Consider the law of logic: A true claim can not contradict another true claim. This law is the same everywhere and applies at all times, without exception. If we take the Biblical world view, we see the claim that God's mind is the standard for all knowledge. Expanding on that, there can never be an exception to a law of logic because the claim is "the law of non-contradiction" and God's mind is Sovereign truth. If we are then, as the Bible claims, made in His image, we confirm/and conform to that law.
What if you reject that claim? That's a fair question. I would ask what then is the basis of the foundation of our laws? I mean, scientists accept these laws are 'universal' but to my knowledge, not one scientist I've met has universal knowledge. How can that be answered rationally if not for the revelation of God omniscient? I'll leave this here to percolate.
Those laws that are referred to here, are called the laws of probability. Some of them are based on the laws of physics, others simply to observation of the events that have happened before. The logic is that because something has happened, it has a fairly good chance to happen again. However, it does not happen always.Pale Horse said:The Bible is the foundation of science
Similar to the above science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. From a Biblical world view, God tells us. This is unique, because the Bible claims God is beyond time, therefore he is not subject to it. Why does that matter from a scientific standpoint? Because the scientific method refutes the fallacy of begging the question. That is: How can we know the future will be like the past? Because past success is a good indicator or future success. This is maddening logic, and it is circular unless you use a Biblical world view to that vicious cycle.
God created man in his image. That means a man can use logic and science because man is God. No man can know what God knows, but all men do. Yet there are things out there we can fairly certainly say that no man knows. Which means that either man is not created in the image of God, and therefore not a God himself - or that God, who can by this logic only know what the man knows, is not omniscient.Pale Horse said:The God that is dismissed by men
If we make the claim that only the Bible has the ability to make sense of the standards of knowledge (like those above), then what of the paradox to those who reject the claims of the Bible, do they have no knowledge? How can one reject the truth of the Bible, while simultaneously relying on that truth From a Biblical worldview we are taught that God 'hardwired' that truth in each one of us. As a result there are some who are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed in us, all while denying the God that makes such knowledge possible. This fact that (doubters and skeptics) are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. And it is consistent with the claims there in. It can be reasonably said that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.
The Bible is the Word of God, because it is the Word of Man, who in turn, is God. Therefore, the knowledge in the Bible is the knowledge made by possible by man.Pale Horse said:The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. Essentially, the proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.
Finn said:Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.
However, it could also be understood as someone who is not under the protection of any deity, e.g. not a member of single religion. And yes, I've heard many people use it in this sense in modern times as well, whether they've been aware of this deeper etymology or not.
Proof of having done good deeds is not proof for the supernatural claims in the bible or of the truth of Christianity. Also, for every one good deed that has been done in the name of Christianity , I can match, and raise you two bad deeds that have also been done in it it's name. Trust me, you don't want to start down that path.
Originally Posted by Indyfan82
Perhaps none of this would serve as proof to the veracity of The Bible, but it should speak as proof to its transformational power in the person of Jesus Christ.
The proof of the Bible is the question of the OP. Essentially, how can I be expected to believe the power of JC, if the book about him itself isn't true.
It's a completely vaild stance. I mean, look how many twi-hard lives have been changed by Edward Cullen. Evidence of change is not evidence of proof.
Indyfan82 said:King David was called "a man after God's own heart" and yet he sinned against God by committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband murdered. God punished him for that (the illegitimate child he had with Bathsheba died, for one thing- his whole family experienced a ton of heartache and grief as well later on down the road.)
Indyfan82 said:The point of this is just to say that while it does not serve to prove The Bible is true- because people have also attested to other books and beliefs that have changed their lives as well- (for the good or the bad)- but it should at least help to lend credence to the transformative power of Jesus Christ.
That's really the only point I was trying to make with that.
kongisking said:Yet another example of God being a murderer of innocent children.
Pale Horse said:Innocent:
Mickiana said:It didn't literally happen.