Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

And he should know since he is powerless against it.

Atheists know the God created evil cannot be defeated, but it can be resisted.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Your problem you only quote from the KJV.


Isa 45:7

(BBE) I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

(CEV) I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this.

There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

 

[edthecynic]

Your problem you only quote from the KJV.


Isa 45:7

(BBE) I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

(CEV) I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this.

There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Evil comes from sin, sin came from a choice to obey God or disobey God. God gave us all the right to choose our path. Freewill was given to humans and Angels both chose to sin and disobey our creator.

I guess God could have not granted freewill but then we would have not obeyed him because we loved him and wished to do his will. Would you want a wife or husband just because you wanted them or would you rather have that husband and or wife that married you because they truly loved you ?

 

[numan]

Has anyone mentioned the watchmaker yet?

If no one else will do it, I will -- but, as I said before, the Ontological Argument is much more elegant.

The Watchmaker Argument is more correctly called the "Argument from Design."

The "watchmaker" version of it came from an 18th century divine by the name of Paley, so it often called Paley's Argument.

Paley wrote that if you found a perfectly functioning watch on the ground in a field, you would never imagine that such an intricate, cleverly designed machine could have arisen by "accident" -- by the blind concatenation of chance events. It would go against all probability to imagine that it was not the creation of an intelligent, conscious watchmaker -- enter God as the watchmaker.

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

Before Darwin, the awe inspiring subtleties and harmonies of the world around us were considered a proof of God's existence. Now we see how many of these harmonies could have arisen by blind, dumb chance.

Ironically, at this very moment, the incredible balance and harmony of the fundamental constants of physics have made some very hard-headed physicists wonder if they were not the product of a Divine Mind at the instant of Creation!

The incredible fine tuning of the fundamental constants of physics, which were in force in the first few instants of the Big Bang, if they had been ever so slightly different, would have made the universe as we know it impossible.

Of course, the fundamental constants might have arisen on a scale vastly greater than our observable universe, in unimaginable circumstances, before our "little" universe was born. Perhaps they arose by blind, dumb chance, by some form of evolution analogous to Darwinian evolution.

It is a nice point of philosophy whether, on such cyclopean and unimaginable scales, there is a real difference between a Divine Mind and blind, dumb evolution.
.

 

[Boss]

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

 

[Mom]

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

 

[daws101]

weren't those the same people that crucified JC ? - followers of the culprit Bible.

payback is not a souly Atheist affair, as for the Religious it is a matter for the destruction of Evil.

Since religions have been around for millennia and never so much as made a dent in "evil" isn't it about time you tried something different? After all isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results". Perhaps religion is the root of all evil and you are merely feeding the beast instead of destroying it. Just saying!

God warned us that evil would exist until the final judgement. How bout atheists do they have an answer on how to deal with all the evil in the world ?

getting rid of all the willfully ignorant zealots would be a good start ..

 

[daws101]

weren't those the same people that crucified JC ? - followers of the culprit Bible.

payback is not a souly Atheist affair, as for the Religious it is a matter for the destruction of Evil.

sure it is..
as to the crucifiers of Jesus his own people were not atheists...his god was and is their god.
the romans were the executioners they had their own gods, not atheists either.



spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance.

as to the crucifiers of Jesus his own people were not atheists

are you suggesting it was the Atheists who crucified JC ? - if numan implies bringing the crucifiers to Justice, the Religious will join his crusade.



spiritual evidence is non existent.

no blade of grass has been the same for 750 million years and never will nor any accompaniment of the Garden for all eternity.

ah no (snicker)
2. tell that to my lawn...

 

[numan]

Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time....The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this....

Well, well, well !! The Creationist vampire is finally revealed behind the cloak of the disinterested philosophic observer !!

Moreover, the crudity of your scientific knowledge is make clear.

No one who has carefully examined the progression from dinosaurs to birds, or has seen the clear evolution from Australopithecines to Homo erectus, then to Homo Heidelbergensis, then to both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens, would make such foolish statements.
.

 

[S.J.]

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

And the reverse holds true for Evolutionists. You reject creationism because you can't explain it with physical science. That's why you came up with the Big Bang theory, which is no more provable than one species slowly morphing into another.

 

[daws101]

Your problem you only quote from the KJV.


Isa 45:7

(BBE) I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

(CEV) I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this.

There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the "INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

is it just me or does owning 13 different "versions" (odd choice of words ) for other than monetary or historical interest seem kinda extreme..?

 

[numan]

'

And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.

S.J., can't you find some other territory where angels fear to tread?
.

 

[S.J.]

'

And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.

S.J., can't you find some other territory where angels fear to tread?
.

Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom? I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.

 

[daws101]

Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems

by Donald Morgan

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.—more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And—in spite of what the Gospel authors say—biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories—stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional—were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

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

But is the Bible, nevertheless, the work of God? Is it a valid guidebook? How can we know?

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect—accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout—as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

Fundamentalists, in fact, hold this to be true. Using a circular argument, they say that because the Bible is without error or inconsistency, it must be the work of God, and because it is the work of God, it must be without error or inconsistency. It seems not to matter which proposition comes first, the other is thought to follow.

Notwithstanding the fundamentalist viewpoint, however, the Bible does contain a number of real problems. And some of these problems are absolutely fatal to its credibility.

Many passages relate God-ordained atrocities; such passages are unworthy of the Christian God. Some biblical precepts are both unreasonable and unlikely since they are in obvious disagreement with common sense as well as the qualities of character which are attributed to God. Some biblical statements are absurd in that they represent very primitive beliefs. The believability of many biblical stories—stories that are crucial to Christianity—are discredited by numerous inconsistencies. The picture is further complicated by the many different and conflicting interpretations that are often given to a specific passage by sincere, well-intentioned believers.

While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book.

The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity—the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground.

Note to reader: this Introduction is but one of eight chapters which originally made up a single, unified document. For purposes of increased compatibility with the Internet, the document was broken into eight separate files. The evidence referred to above can be found in the related files using the links below.
Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems

 

[legaleagle_45]

As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

Here is what I find fascinating... According to the most widely accepted scientific theory, it is impossible to know what occured prior to the Big Bang... not merely that scientists do not know what happened, but it is impossible for us to know what happened.

Of course, other theories are postulated, such as the one by Hawking who asserts that asking what happened before the big bang is akin to asking what is south of the South Pole. His reasoning being that both time and space began with the Big Bang and so it makes no sense to speak of "before the big bang".

Theories gaining ascendancy such a string or mesh theory assert the collision of such strings or membranes as the cause of the big bang.

Others assert a theory involving a living evolutionary universe which is spawned by black holes and favors the creation of universes which provide for the maximun number of bilack holes. The idea being that in an absolute void, matter appears spontaneously and continously. However such matter is equally destroyed because matter and anti matter are created equally. On the edge of a black hole some of that spontaneously created matter would fall into the black hole allowing some matter to survive its creation. Eventually, such a black hole will reach critical mass and be destroyed in a big bang creating a new universe.

 

[daws101]

'

And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.

S.J., can't you find some other territory where angels fear to tread?
.

Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom? I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.

Got any actual proof that evolution is not correct..?
I don't mean subjective fairy tales and pseudoscience..

 

[numan]

'
How do we know there is a God? --- The Bible tells us so.
How do we know the Bible is true? --- Because it is the Word of God. · ·

Don't forget all the historical errors that occur in the Bible.

One of my favorite is that in the Book of Genesis, the camels of Abraham are described.

The mythical Abraham was supposed to have lived sometime between 2000 BC and 1500 BC.

Camels were not domesticated until around 1000 BC.

Clearly, that passage was written well after 1000 BC by someone who did not know when camels were domesticated.

I mentioned this to a fundamentalist once, and without missing a beat, he said, "Well, that shows how much more advanced Abraham was than anyone else of his time!"

What can you do with such mental zombies?
.

 

[S.J.]

'

And once again, the ignorant accuse the wise of folly.

S.J., can't you find some other territory where angels fear to tread?
.

Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom? I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.

Got any actual proof that evolution is not correct..?
I don't mean subjective fairy tales and pseudoscience..

The burden of proof is on you. By your standard, you should have to prove God doesn't exist. Can you do that?

 

[Mom]

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

And the reverse holds true for Evolutionists. You reject creationism because you can't explain it with physical science. That's why you came up with the Big Bang theory, which is no more provable than one species slowly morphing into another.

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

 

[S.J.]

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

And I reject evolution because I see zero proof that life just happened through random chance, or that non-living organisms suddenly became living organisms with intelligence and reason, without an intelligent force involved.