mr. neil, you get so upset for having to constantly repeat yourself, but i can't even get past your first paragraph without having to repeat what i said because you just back tracked: what i said above was that there is factual basis for most of the people in the bible (and for some of the events also) so you can only debate the stories. then you brought up greek and roman gods and the smurfs. and i say again-- you admitted that there are parts of the bible that are true and yet now you are comparing it once again to unreal stories with NO factual basis whatsoever. you aren't arguing to the point if you bring up the smurfs, fictional stories, etc. and use them as comparison to the bible... because we've already agreed that they aren't the same (due to the bible's occasional proven truth factor).

next you say you don't have to disconfirm the bible because it's up to the person making the claim. my point exactly is that you are also making a claim if you use the same evidence as someone else and come to a different conclusion (in this case you conclude the bible isn't accurate enough for you to believe while other people find it feasible).

to use a discrepency of numbers in two different verses is definitely NOT and airtight proof against the bible's validity. if you talk to any well-versed old testament buff (or professor, in my case) they will tell you that more likely than not, the numbers represented in the old testament were listed as a general idea, since no one sat around clocking things out at that time. and when one of the authors was at a loss for a specific number, they would apply a sacred one that landed in the same ballpark instead (hence the repeated numbers: 4, 7, 12, and their multiples... 4 stands for the created universe, 7 denotes perfection or completion, 12 stands for the "church," and numbers multiplied by ten [like 144,000 = 12x12x10x10x10, or 700 = 7x10x10 and 7,000 = 7x10x10x10] suggest an indefinite but very large figure). what i'm saying doesn't disprove your point, but it does leave the space for doubt in your reasoning. that means you still haven't given foolproof evidence against the things stated in the bible. so my prior point is still the one i'll present to you.

"then you brought up greek and roman gods and the smurfs. and i say again-- you admitted that there are parts of the bible that are true and yet now you are comparing it once again to unreal stories with NO factual basis whatsoever."

But there is factual basis in the Iliad, because it has the Trojan War.  And the Iliad uses Greek mythology.  So, you would have to concede that the Iliad has some facts in it, but you couldn't prove that the stuff with the Greek gods didn't happen.  You would simply reject it, because those parts of the story are unproven.
That's how I treat the Bible.

And who says the Smurfs don't have facts in it?  Granted, I can't name any off the top of my head, but the setting of the cartoon definately takes place in a defined era in world history; and all it would take is for the Smurfs to visit one historically confirmed place, and you have the sort of connection between fantasy and reality that the Bible has.
The Smurfs was probably a poor example, but there are other shows that do tie into history, but having a cartoon character do an animated walk-on in the middle of a historic event, such as the signing of the Declaration of Indepence, does not make the cartoon character a factual figure.
And having God and angels interacting with historical figures in a 2000+ year-old book does not make God or his angels real.
Basically, there is no reason whatsoever that any intelligent person should take the Bible as 100% accurate simply because a few things in it appear to have happened.  Again, what's wrong with dismissing things that there are no evidence of?  Why should things such as Noah's Ark or the Exodus even be considered?

"next you say you don't have to disconfirm the bible because it's up to the person making the claim. my point exactly is that you are also making a claim if you use the same evidence as someone else and come to a different conclusion (in this case you conclude the bible isn't accurate enough for you to believe while other people find it feasible)."

Here's the thing, though.  In most cases, I don't use "the same evidence" (i.e., the Bible) to come to a different conclusion, so your statement is false.  For example, when an inerrantist tells me that the world is 6000 years old and that all the animals once lived at the same time, I look at rock strata and fossil evidence, and I say, "No, I reject your assertion, based on what I happen to see in the natural world."
While I could feasibly make a pretty darn good argument against the story of Noah's Ark using data from within the Bible, it's actually the data outside the Bible that causes me to reject it.  And in this case, it would be up to the person making the claim of factual basis in Noah's Ark to provide suitable evidence for his claim.

"to use a discrepency of numbers in two different verses is definitely NOT and airtight proof against the bible's validity."

Again, with the moving of goal posts.  Nothing is ever proven beyond all doubt.  There's always going to be this special way to get around little problems.  Even when you have two verses saying the exact same thing with different numbers applied, you take a little time, and you can get the two to harmonize.
But what I didn't tell you is the reason why this one happens to be my favorite, and it's not just the simplicity of it.  It's also a good one, because it's one of those cases where a book in the Bible happens to be those to be corrupt, in light of comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the books of Samuel.
It is simply more logical to assume a textual error in the Bible.

But, I suppose we can play this little game, where I say something and then someone else says "Nuh-uh!  Because it can be interpreted differently."  Why, when looking at two verses that say the exact same thing with a numerical inconsistency, would anyone immediately try to come up with a harmonization unless they were committed to the doctrine of inerrancy?  That sort of argument is basically saying that the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
What you just did makes the words within the Bible completely useless, because they can be interpreted to mean anything should a particular problem arise.  How do we know what's alegory and what's factual if we have this freedom of interpretation?  It's completely useless.

Why not start with a fresh slate void of presupposition and find out what we can about the world we live in without lending credence to things of this nature?

---------------

Sept 20, 2004
Just thought I'd jump in and throw another one at ya.  Remember, if any two claims can be found in the Bible that directly contradict, then an error has been found.

At the end of Luke, specifically Lk. 24:50-51, we find that Jesus ascends to Heaven on evening of Easter.  However, in Acts 1:3 we find that the resurrected Jesus walked the Earth for another forty days.

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days..."

Elvis never took no drugs.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

Phew..... Thats coz I came to this debate and this site today for the first time googling for something and read through 10 pages of this particular one.

 

Mr. Neil, very well written. I beg to differ from you on two points. In one of your previous arguments you had said --

"Some creationists, such as Jason Gastrich and Eric Lounsbery, have suggested that God exists outside of space and time, thus he does not have an origin, because he is eternal.  And somehow, being eternal means that they are exempt from the creationist complexity argument.
The problem is that if you're going to argue that God exists outside of space and time, you're basically saying that God can't do work. Because that's the very principle of time. In order to do work, you have to have a period at which no work was done, a period of work, and then a period of completion. These are temporal ideals, which means that they require time. In order to do things, make decisions, and make a universe, God needs to exist in time.  Without time, God is inert.
So, in order to make God a creator, they have to bring him into time and space, and if he exists in time and space, then they have a contradiction in their complexity arguments, which defeats concept of God's creative hand as a universal necessity."

I am not sure I will be able to come across the way as I would want to since English is not my first language. But let me try.

Something (in this case God) which is supernatural, if there can be such a thing, can exist outside of time and space and yet have an impact on it. I hope I am making sense there. What I want to say is that if it is a superset of time and space, then it can live outside of time and space and yet be involved in time and space. Yes at that particular time, when such a thing gets involved in time and space, it is with in the realm of time and space.

 

and the second one? lol I lost it. And now I dont have the patience to search for it. Anyway.

 

Anoop.

Ofcourse the above is supposing that they claim God is both, within time and space and outside it.

 

Ofcourse that reminds me of the time space cone as illustrated by Stephen Hawking, which in turn reminds me of someone ranking him alongside Einstein in this debate. He is an intelligent mind, accepted. Great? I would differ. And infact he so reluctantly admitted to getting it wrong in case of the Black holes last year. Well English Media has always been terrific at it anyway.

 

Anoop.

Seems to me this was a fitting place to return to...

The only proof that needs to be shown that God exists is the fervent desire that burns within those who want to disprove His exitence.  Why do you care?  Are you trying to convert the poor theists to atheism?  I think that you feel deep down that you just have something to prove.

Other than that and other examples given I can't add anything to this 'debate'.  I believe in God not because of the trees or the bees.  Not because some preacher who wouldn't let me go home without hearing those last few verses.  I believe in God because of what He has done in my life.  What I see is nothing that could have just randomly happened.  There is a purpose and a meaning and a direction in my life.  I have a hope that you could not possibly understand unless you know Him.  That is my proof.  I can't prove Him to you because that is between you and Him.

I would like to suggest to those who are trying to prove to these very incredible intellectual people that God exists to just stop.  You can't say anything to them to change their minds because they aren't listening to what you want them to hear.  The best thing you can do for them is to stop and let them agree with themselves until they get sick of being right so much and finally start to deal with life.

I think this has sufficiently been debated at length. But I would still like to continue this. I have enough free time.

You said,

"The only proof that needs to be shown that God exists is the fervent desire that burns within those who want to disprove His exitence."

Judgemental. That's the only word I could think of. How do you know it is for that very reason I am doing that? I can not speak for others. Its just a debate right? But more importantly, who asks the little children to go to the church or temple or a mosque and pray? All the theists. So who has that "burning desire"? The children do not believe in God, for the simple reason that they have no idea of the concept of God. They are taught the concept.

Again you said, " believe in God because of what He has done in my life.  What I see is nothing that could have just randomly happened.  There is a purpose and a meaning and a direction in my life."

Well give me the purpose, the meaning and the direction. Why is there no life in this solar system? If you can not prove God's existence by logic, "supposedly God's biggest gift to mankind", I refuse to believe in the concept. You say it can not be by chance. The other post here said "look at the probability". Well please look. How many planets did not get formed? How many galaxies could not get formed? How do you know about those? To discuss probability you will not only have to take all the planets in all the solar systems in all the galaxies, in this universe or all the universes but also all the planets, the solar systems, all the galaxies and all the universe(s) that did not get formed. Anyone has any idea, what numbers are we dealing with here!!! Probability, yeah right.

Logically and / or scientifically prove me God's existence. What you feel is absolutely your business. I wont ask you to stop believing in God because that is none of my business. But we are here to debate, so lets debate and not question each others motives.

 

Anoop.

I'm sorry.  I must be wrong about your motivation.  Would you do me the honor of sharing your motivations for this debate.  If you would rather private message your answer to me that would be fine.

From where I stand, err... sit, all I can think about is "why do you care?".  Are you actually hoping to find proof for the existance of God or is your reason for being here just to get some sick entertainment value out of people trying to justify their faith.

You can't honestly expect to have someone give you proof of God.  Like the words I write could prove that to you.  Do you think I could hand you an envelope or evidence bag of proof of God?  I'm sorry, I can't do anything for you, and neither can anyone else.  The only one who can prove God is God Himself.

You're right, I was being judgemental.  But that's human nature right?  People who say that you don't judge a book by the cover are weird librarians, or people who read the backs.  I realize that I'm a terrible person in a lot of ways, that is exactly why I know there is a God.  Because He is the hope of something better than going around condescending.  He is my hope of caring about people who all my common sense and gut intuition are fervently against.

You're wrong, parents don't ask their kids to go to church(well not early on).  I hated church when I was a kid.  So much siting, and you had to be quiet, and the other kids were weird, they ate homemade fruit rollups, what else can I say.  One day though, things changed.  I started listening to what was being said.  I was still fairly young when this happened, and I can see a path that God has been leading me on to get me closer to Him as I've grown.  The reason I go back to explaining my experience isn't to aggravate you, or to cause you to roll your eyes in annoyance.  I'm attempting to make the point that God is a personal God.  That is why you can't have proof in the way you and others want it.

You want to know that you may believe, and I believe that I may know.

There's nothing wrong with taking your kids to church.  Some people choose to baptise their kids, some dedicate their kids and some just let their kids decide.  It doesn't matter what you do really.  Baptism doesn't make you super spiritual or something, it is just a public statement that you believe in God.  The importance doesn't lie in the religion, in the rules and rights that get so much focus.  The true importance is in that relationship with God.  How can you have a relationship with someone who you can't see or hear or feel?  You're right, it's crazy.  It's like trying to have an imaginary friend or something, that is sure stupid, huh?  Good thing nothing is dependant on us.  God wants to have a relationship with everyone, and he's the one reaching down to us, not the other way around.  All we do is respond to Him in His call.  Respond and you get a relationship and grow, if you don't respond your heart gets hardened and you block Him out(but don't worry, He doesn't quit so easy, He'll keep knocking and you can count on it getting louder).

Romans 1v20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. 21 Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Please excuse my translation it is a bit old fashioned.  But I felt I should toss some scripture in.  You can read the first chapter of Romans if you'd like to find the context of this versage.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to give you a free bible.

A little more application of logic would help.

You said, "From where I stand, err... sit, all I can think about is "why do you care?".  Are you actually hoping to find proof for the existance of God or is your reason for being here just to get some sick entertainment value out of people trying to justify their faith."

Just looked for the meaning of the word Debate and I am copy/pasting it for your reading pleasure.

a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

I don't see anything written there that might hint at any kind of entertainment value, "sick" entertainment value is a far fetched supposition. It was a debate started by someone, and I liked the thoughts being exchanged. Whether or not they entertained me, I would be glad to tell you if you insist on wanting to know that because I thought debate is well.... a debate... an exchange of ideas.

Do I think you are hell bent on turning everyone a believer in God? Yes? No?.... Well the answer is I dont know. I hate jumping at conclusions. This is a debate and you are more than welcome to share your thoughts. What your intentions are, is none of my business. So I do not think about it. I am not sure if you read my very first few lines. I did say I have enough free time. So I hope hence on we will refrain from seeking each other's intentions for this debate. You want to believe in God, please do. I do not intend to convert you.

This is going to be a long one. But before that, you will have to pardon my knowledge of English and Christianity as neither is English my first language nor Chritsianity my religion by birth. I was born to a Hindu family in a small village in India. So I hope you do not mind, if I draw analogies across the two faiths.

You said "You can't honestly expect to have someone give you proof of God.  Like the words I write could prove that to you.  Do you think I could hand you an envelope or evidence bag of proof of God?  I'm sorry, I can't do anything for you, and neither can anyone else.  The only one who can prove God is God Himself."

Right, that then is no good for me. If one says, God is the ultimate truth, the one and the only, I would not accept that, just because more than 90% of people in this world are saying the same thing, and too based on only a book (Bible, or the Quran or the Hindu scriptures). If God only can prove himself. let him. What is stopping him? Am I or the others who want the proof, not worthy enough. Perhaps I am not. But others? Or he does not have time for us? I refuse to believe in a concept just because I am told it's true. Just as you would not buy a car or a machine just because the saleman tells you its very good.

You said, "I realize that I'm a terrible person in a lot of ways, that is exactly why I know there is a God.  Because He is the hope of something better than going around condescending.  He is my hope of caring about people who all my common sense and gut intuition are fervently against."

Well, instead of condescending, why not try to introspect and become better? One doesn't need a God for that.

You said "You're wrong, parents don't ask their kids to go to church(well not early on).  I hated church when I was a kid.  So much siting, and you had to be quiet, and the other kids were weird, they ate homemade fruit rollups, what else can I say.  One day though, things changed.  I started listening to what was being said.  I was still fairly young when this happened, and I can see a path that God has been leading me on to get me closer to Him as I've grown.  The reason I go back to explaining my experience isn't to aggravate you, or to cause you to roll your eyes in annoyance.  I'm attempting to make the point that God is a personal God.  That is why you can't have proof in the way you and others want it."

Now that is not true. Kids dont go by themselves. Almost all the kids are told to go to churches or temples or mosques. Whether early on or not is immaterial. The reason was about the "burning desire" and it has no relevance now to the topic of the debate, as I hope we have agreed that we will not question each other's intentions.

And on the personal God thing, well There is supposed to be only one God right? The ultimate truth? Yes, he can share a personal relationship with someone, just as you and I share the warmth of sun rays, the chill in the winter, but its the truth right? For everyone to feel, see, touch, hear, measure? For so long that this universe has existed and forever in God's existence, a single proof of its existence? Is it too much to ask? The world will be a much better place to live in with that proof, with people convinced that there is a super cop who will punish them or reward them suitably, after life.

"Now that is not true. Kids dont go by themselves. Almost all the kids are told to go to churches or temples or mosques. Whether early on or not is immaterial. The reason was about the "burning desire" and it has no relevance now to the topic of the debate, as I hope we have agreed that we will not question each other's intentions. "

I am sorry about the aforementioned bit. It was something you had stated as a proof for God's existence and I rebutted saying, it's the parents who take their children to the places of worship that have that buring desire. So I guess this line of argument is very much alive, afterall.

 

God can't know his own future and have free will to change the future at the same time.>>

God has no 'future' in so so terms. He has always been, and always will be. God knows what he will do, he knows if he will change the future or not, and he knows what will happen after he changes the future. Example: God knew if he changed the course of history and sent his son Christ Jesus to earth, that many would still not believe and turn their backs. He did it for the ones that would believe. God has complete control over everything. Boggle your mind a bit? Try to explain this. If evolution were in fact true, what would the beggining have evolved from? It couldn't have evolved from nothing, because you can't get something out of nothing.
If he knows, then he's not free to change it, but if he can change it, then he doesn't know.>>
Why would you say that if he knows he cannot change it? He can change it, knowing exactly what would happen after he changed it, and all of those prophcies have been fufilled, He chanegd the course of history with his son Chirst Jesus, He knew exactly what would happen after that.
If he can change history, and if he knows what will happen after he does that, than does he not still have complete understanding and control of the future, though he is capable of changing it, knowing what will happen after he changes it, and knowing even before he changed anything thing, that he will?

---

~Catalina~

>>Try to explain this. If evolution were in fact true, what would the beggining have evolved from? It couldn't have evolved from nothing, because you can't get something out of nothing.

So where did God come from? You can not have one set of rules for one and another set of rules for another. You can not say he has always existed because then I can say Universe has always existed. Big Bang is just a phenomenon (and mind you its not a confirmed theory), that has happened, if it has indeed happened. The space where the universe is expanding right now has always existed.

Can God create a stone, that he can not lift?

God was created in such a way that one can neither prove nor disprove his existence.

lets the religious folk get off the hook more easily.

whoever wrote the bible was a genius.

---

whoever wrote the bible was meant to be guided by god. Then why no mention of the dinosaurs?

---

Insanity, a sane response to an insane world.

<<Try to explain this. If evolution were in fact true, what would the beggining have evolved from? It couldn't have evolved from nothing, because you can't get something out of nothing.>>

 

So very true.  In fact, one of the fundamental "rules" of science is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (hint hint).  But in 1953, a pair of gentlemen in the scientific community carried out one of the most beautifully simplistic experiment designed to uphold a THEORY (ahem).  What theory was that?  That it could have been possible that life did begin out of such simple things a methane gas, ammonia, hydrogen, and a little bit of water.  Ya'll should check it out.  Its not just for a science geek like me ;) 

Miller and Urey made a model of what it is generally believed (in the scientific community) Earth and its atmosphere were like.  They put methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor together and added some electricity to simulate lightning.  Eventually, they forced the gases down through a cooling tube, condensing it, and made a simulated "rainfall."  After analyzing samples of that "rain," the most amazing part of the discovery was this: the simple, very un-life-like compounds had formed some new ones.... and you know what's funny?  They were amino acids.  Yeah, those little building blocks that makes up proteins... Surely you're familiar with those.  Those things that dictate every action and inaction taken within any organism's cells?  Yup, same little buiding blocks out of 2 stinky gases, a little water, and some of the same stuff that's helping to keep our sun burning.  Oh, and toss in some electricity too.  But that reminds me, how small do you have to break things down before you lose the concept of life?  What I mean is, an organism is alive, I am alive (I hope?) But an electron is not.  That's one thing the experiment did not show. 

But then again, another scientific THEORY is one based upon the idea that any and all experiments are tainted because even the simplest, most unobtrusive form of measurement alters what really happens.  Oh well, Let's just say I generally prefer the one about the simplest explanation usually is.

And the simplest explanation is?