Does God exist?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
WELCOME..:smile:
HERE dictionary
from arabic to english here :smile:
copy أدنى
and enter أدنى to dictionary
Last edited:
That's fine, I don't have an issue with that fact.
'Just a book' is a great use of words to try and diminish the fact that some parts of Scripture have been in circulation for over 3,000 years, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that circulation and discussion is going to end anytime soon.talloola;997568 [I said:
Having that 'Book' says more than what the absence of any writings would 'say'. You are of course free to reject anything written inside those pages. Understanding just what all those pages actually say is, well there are still differences even today.
Really, other than the issue with 'day' how is the sequence in Genesis 1 so different from what 'science' calls truth today. (in that tomorrow science could have a different 'understanding' of what our past was actually like)talloola;997568 [I said:
talloola;997568 [I said:
My whole point was that science does not have actual proof, so you are in some sort of error when you say 'scientific proof' that there is no God as defined by the Holy bible.
No I didn't, lack of existence is not the same as lack of proof of existence.
If some bones could be found around Jerusalem that dated back to the specific few years that Jesus was healing people (withered hand or reversal of leper's disease )that showed some sort of healing process that was much 'better' than any other bones showed would that be 'evidence' (not proof) that Jesus existed?
Other than the fact that the order of events given in Genesis is completely wrong? We've been over this before and you just denied it and offered elaborate circumlocutions and ad hoc hypotheses at variance with what Scripture plainly says is the order of creation.
Agreed, but doesn't it seem reasonable to you that if something as potent as a god exists, we ought to be able to prove it fairly readily without much room for dispute?
No. That first presupposes that Jesus' healing was less than perfect, which I don't think any fundamentalist would buy, and second it presupposes that the healings were miraculously done by Jesus. Finding such things would be evidence that something we don't understand was going on, it wouldn't justify a jump to Jesus. Do you think such evidence exists?
No AND Yes
Well, perhaps, as consciousness forms naturally in the universe, & the entire matix of stars togethe rcould form a kind of electric mind that communicates & thinks, & the entire Planet itself could be a kind of 'God' ... But in the classical description of being a creator; No. - If so, who created God?
Well, perhaps, as consciousness forms naturally in the universe, & the entire matix of stars togethe rcould form a kind of electric mind that communicates & thinks, & the entire Planet itself could be a kind of 'God' ... But in the classical description of being a creator; No. - If so, who created God?
And, of course, who created 'who' created god, and who created who created who
created god, and --i'm my own grampa;-), or maybe a monkey's uncle
Nope, other way around, according to evolution. You can`t be a monkey`s uncle, but a monkey many generations back is *your* uncle many times removed... :lol:
Yes, I know you were being facetious
the god not created of nothing ,
the god do not created ,
the worlds create of nothing ,
the god always refound ,
nothing like him ,
above he is all thing ,
Last edited:
Everybody has a form of bias to some extent. When something is read that bias kicks in and puts a slant on the understanding received by what was just read.
No offense meant but when you read Ge:1 the bias that God doesn't exist plays a bit of a role. Too bad if we have gone over this before but if Scripture had one meaning everybody would have the same opinion after reading it.
One of your objections is the placement of the sun at day 4 (or whatever), you do not or cannot accept any other opinion on what Scripture says. For instance after I read it I can 'understand' that the Earth existed as a body with the moon and the sun in basically the same relationship. That is light, the reason the sun and moon are talked about later is that their role in 'time' was not covered before day 4. Day 4 covers their reason for being their, it doesn't indicate that they were created only at that time.
Completely wrong? Are you serious or can you not see this progression.
1. Earth, sun and moon exist in raw form. The sun provides the light and the earth's rotation provides for the darkness.
2. Temperature comes to a level that supports water in liquid and vapor form
3. Seas and dry land first begin to appear (only a portion of 1% of the surface of the earth needed to qualify, fully covered by the end of day6). Grass and trees appear.
4. Seasons and days explained that are a result of things already in place, it is not the creation of these things it is the explanation of (part of the reason) they were created in the first place.
5. Sea creatures and air creatures first appear.
6. Rest of created things exist by the end of this day.
Ignoring day 4 you say all the rest in in the wrong order?
Only if He wanted proof to be available. The God of the Bible is a God of life, the way He shows Himself to men is by interacting with them on a very personal level. He could have build some great structure or whatever but because the way the 'story goes' (and that is what Scripture is about, there is a God and this is the reason He is currently absent) but it would be empty from His 'dynamic' presence. No use going into any detail of why He isn't 'in-your-face' active today but Scripture does say He is away from earth at the moment. The time for 'doing things' is apparently later'
I didn't mean to indicated less than perfect. Say a person was crippled, that would usually indicated some malformation of the body and most likely involving some bone. In healing them the bone may have been made 'right' but still carried signs of 'not being right' at some point.
If more than one could be found that all could be dayed accurately (is that even possible today) to a specific few years only you would still deny texts that exist that already spoke of such events. How objective is that, really?
I don't know if anybody has examined any bones that closely. As upset as the 'rulers' were of Christianity I would think any material that supported the existence of Jesus would have been destroyed in some fashion.
What percentage of all written material from back then exists today?
Shouldn't that be the point of it? You're doing your ad hoc hypothesizing and circumlocutions again. Seems to me that if Scripture really is a message from god, one meaning is all it should have, unless he's deliberately trying to confuse us for some inscrutable reasons of his own. Genesis has earth existing before the stars, birds and whales created before insects and reptiles, flowering plants before animals, light and darkness are created on the first day and separated but no light-producing objects are produced until the fourth day, plants arrive on the third day before there's a sun to power photosynthesis... That's almost precisely the reverse order. The Biblical writers hadn't a clue about how things really happened, they got it wrong.
Well that's a surprise. I've always been told he's present everywhere, all the time. I've never heard that claim before, I have no idea what to make of it. I know Mormons make a similar claim, that god withdrew from here because he was vexed by what his creatures were getting up to, and then returned to speak to Joseph Smith after he'd got over his fit of pique, but I doubt you'd give the Book of Mormon any more credence than I would.
There are no texts other than the Bible that speak of Jesus' healings, and they were written at least several decades afterwards by people who did not know Jesus and did not witness the events they reported. They were repeating folklore and hearsay, and they're not even consistent among themselves. Paul's letters, which most scholars agree predate the gospels, provide no biographical information about Jesus at all, they don't even cite the things the gospels report Jesus as saying that would have supported the case Paul was trying to make. How likely are any of them to be accurate? And unfortunately, no, dating that accurate is not possible. The supposed events are recent enough that carbon dating would be the appropriate technique, but it'll have error bars of plus or minus 50 years at least, it's not possible to pin it down to the three year period of Jesus' ministry.
Probably not much, but there's really no way to know. The Romans, however, were obsessive record keepers, and there is no clue in their records that Jesus even existed. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus at all, the Bible is really all there is, and it was clearly written by people with an agenda.
Well, yeah, now that you mention it, on a couple of those animal shows, I saw a
monkey or two who reminded me of relative or two.;-)
I'm really not trying to play tricks on you or anybody, I paused while reading and asked myself why is the sun and moon mentioned here rather than at day 1, which is where it would seem to belong. That was the answer I came up with, all the factors that put earth's orbit where it is today were not fully in place. The final piece that defined time as we keep.
Time is also more important to breathing things than things that just grows and grows in that they have generations. If it is important to living things then it should be mentioned before living things. Chapter 2 might now be important if it just covers events after time is said to begin, because it's focus is on the life created after that is 'covered in detail more' later on.
There is one message only, that men have more than one 'version' would seem to indicate there are errors in understanding what was said, not on God's part but on our part. That doesn't mean He made it easy to understand without some thought and some discussion. At some points it is almost too matter-of-fact, at other time full of way-too-much-detail in that the reader finds it long-winded
Really, wasn't this the order given
Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Created the heaven which is home for Angels, that would also seem to make Angels somewhat older than man. Everything created was done so by the end of the 6th stated day. Light was created on day 1, could that not be the sun (which was not given a name, only what it produced was given a name)?
Was it the big bang? Our galaxy does not experience day and night, that is specific to a non light giving heavenly body, only our sun can do that. Even light given by the molten rocks would qualify as a form of light but it does not allow for night and day nor would it be the 'right color' for grass and trees.
Chapter 2 is not any help in this topic but Proverbs 8 does say a few things about the early days, even before anything at all was created.
Proverb:8:22:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
Proverb:8:23:
I was set up from everlasting,
from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
Proverb:8:24:
When there were no depths,
I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Proverb:8:25:
Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
Proverb:8:26:
While as yet he had not made the earth,
nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Proverb:8:27:
When he prepared the heavens,
I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Proverb:8:28:
When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Proverb:8:29:
When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Vs:27 would seem to predate things happening on earth.
Day 5 covers life in the water and in the air. I'm sure you noticed that He gave them a place to live before He created them. For the birds trees would have been there for food and shelter. The crawly things of the earth are in the part that covers life on land. That is how they were separated, by 3 different living places on earth,not by date of birth. Water, air, earth, 3 short paragraphs on each one that explains the sequence of creation of life. Newer and newer forms of life an then it stopped. What went on from that point was the same species as were alive at that one point.
The story is subject based, as is a lot of other parts of Scripture by subject rather than time. The verse where Satan is told about his punishment is a good example. Two seperate bruises (apparently seperated by a set time), the verse is subject based and it usually followed importance over linear time. The bruise to Satan's head is more important to the overall story than how Satan bruised Christ's heel. Had it been meant to be taken as linear time or even sequence of events the order would have been reversed.
Any idea what 'after their kind' means when creation is the subject?
What do the 4 beasts that are around the throne look like?
The food before the feeder, that is not unique. Oxygen went through the same process didn't it? Did it start as a product or a by-product? It was there before being consumed by some life-form.
So you can have light but no light producing objects, aren't you taking that point past extreme?
Did you know that if the earth was shrouded in a mist until the end of the flood nobody would have even known the sun was there, there would have been only diffused lighting.
What about the light created on day 1? Plants certainly obey the day/night cycle and that was inplace before the appearance of liquid water, does it mean that it is more important to the settings needed that supports life as we know it?
Does that mean you understood almost nothing God had to say to you?8O
I don't know what the Egyptians would have taught Moses, Daniel certainly wrote about things he didn't understand. How can a person do that on their own. I can understand that happening if God is telling them to write something down that is meant for other people 1,000's of years in the future, but without God how could he do it?
No doubt He knows what is going on, but He can't/won't interfere at the moment. He sticks to what He has laid out. He gave Christ a little bit of power, and mostly it was only enough to show a few that He had actually been sent by God. The purpose of His first coming was to die. The 2nd coming will be with full authority from God to reclaim earth and all it possessions (past and present when referencing life).
I don't give it any credibility at all, if He had returned He would still be here and the time for writing words was already past by the time the current books in the Bible were written. There is nothing new to be said.
I'm not sure who gave the NT books their titles but I doubt it was the actual authors. There are two instances where only a few were shown something, the vision on the mountain and the resurrection of a girl. The books that cover those events should be the ones who saw those events.
With all respect, if some information is given that points to eye-witness accounts it should be you that is showing that the person is lying. How you would go about that I have no idea but it should require more than just a statement by you.
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Amen.
1Jo:1:1:
That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled,
of the Word of life;
1Jo:1:2:
(For the life was manifested,
and we have seen it,
and bear witness,
and shew unto you that eternal life,
which was with the Father,
and was manifested unto us
1Jo:1:3:
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,
that ye also may have fellowship with us:
and truly our fellowship is with the Father,
and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Would Romans mention that in some tax record?
The one place where they are very consistent is the actual words Jesus spoke, you would be hard pressed to find any variance in His "quotes" in the 4 Gospels.
Say an Apostle was given 4 quotes at 4 different locations in 4 hours. When total recall came it had the quotes bang on but the order of the 4 visits were not exact or that they were exact but they had slightly different hourly times.
And why should it, there are already 4 that cover that part, how many would it take to convince you, 40? 400?
If you have 4 witnesses in almost any court that is pretty sufficient, back then it only took 2 to get a person stoned to death.
For one thing they are not exact replica of each other, that is a point in their favor, not one against them. If 4 people tell you the same story word for word, would you believe any of them?
I doubt there are any bones up for that type of dating anyway (let alone close examination). Still, not many myths get a world dating system that contains His name.
(Before Christ)
Years are reckoned as before or after the Nativity, those before being denoted bc (before Christ) and those after by ad (anno Domini, “in the year of the Lord”). Chronologers admit no year zero between 1 bc and ad 1.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/58542/before-Christ
They should have stayed with the Jewish dating system6
Okay, pull up the tax registry for that part of the Roman Empire for the years that might have been His birth. I'm pretty sure the Temple also kept meticulas records of the birth and deaths, pull up those ones also and once we eliminate every single name as not belonging the parents of a child named Jesus we can safely assume at least 1 page has been lost.. Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem after her purification period was over after giving birth. Just a matter of putting those names in a sorting program and you should be able to line up all the names. If this can't be done then the Romans could record but they cound not keep records. That lack of access means the documents that would answer such a question are just not available today. That does not mean they never existed.
Would a long list of requests for specific records bring any results? I doubt the Romans paid much attention to Jewish domestic life, they were concerned with coins, they made sure all were accounted for, that is what taxes are. A levy laid on an income made during a business transactions. A fisherman was not taxed on the fish caught, it was on the fish that were sold.
And what was their agenda. To create a 'way of life' that existed throughout all generations. A generation based on a larger family than just blood relatives (usually the ones who had the most influence on how the next generation of their specific blood-line would conduct themselves). An agenda based on who was the most efficient for any certain task coming from a much larger population base than just blood relatives. Unfortunately for the world, that is not the way things are run these days, but then again, that is just the way things are supposed to be.
God is an intelligent invisible force, a force of natural law and order. .all things.
Adam and Eve theory. is methodical...............
Believing in the existence of a supreme invisible power of theological resemblance is healthy.
The Composition of the whole cosmos, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies,big bangs,and universes expending rapidly, some force has to be responsible for that infinite creation.
Adam and Eve theory. is methodical...............
Believing in the existence of a supreme invisible power of theological resemblance is healthy.
The Composition of the whole cosmos, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies,big bangs,and universes expending rapidly, some force has to be responsible for that infinite creation.
So god can't set down a message clearly enough that everybody will understand it the same way? An omnipotent, omniscient being should have been able to do better than that, in fact it should have been a trivial task for him to set it down clearly and comprehensibly with no possibility of dispute about what he meant.
I'm not going to discuss any further the order of creation, you're impenetrable on the subject. The Bible sets out an order for the creation of various kinds of plants and animals and astronomical objects which is simply and obviously wrong.
Yes, it means exactly what it says, animals produce offspring that resemble themselves.
God has never said anything comprehensible to me, and it's been many decades since I tried to say anything to him either. Everything I've been able to discover about how things work tells me there's nobody listening. God is a creation of human imagination and has no reality outside that, as far as I can tell.
No, it's not certain Daniel was writing about things he didn't understand, all that's clear is that he wrote about things we now find difficult to understand. That's typical of apocalyptic writings, they're couched in metaphors the people at the time would have understood but the meanings have been lost to us. Much of Revelation is that way too, as we've discussed before. They're about the political situations that existed at the time of writing, there's no good reason to assume they were written as messages to people thousands of years in the future.
I didn't, and wouldn't, suggest anyone was lying, only that they were mistaken. First, eyewitness testimony and memory are notoriously unreliable, second, folklorists have thoroughly documented how stories get passed around and embellished and inflated. Spend some time at the Urban Legends pages, snopes.com, you'll see it's still going on. That's what people are like. Just listen to somebody describe an event you also witnessed a few years ago, see how closely your memories match. Or if you keep a diary perhaps, go back and refresh your memory of some long ago significant event in your life and see how closely your current memories match what you wrote at the time. You will almost certainly find many differences in the details. Ever heard of the Angel of Mons? Look it up, it's well documented. It started with a fictionalized account of a real battle in the first world war in which St. George appeared over the field with an angelic host fighting for England, and years later veterans who were there reported memories of seeing the apparitions.
I wouldn't put a number on it, but that's not the point. There were historians around at the time of Jesus, and the Bible makes his activities look like a pretty big deal in the Palestine of the time, but there are no contemporary historical accounts that corroborate any of it, the Bible is the *only* source. What we do know is that it was a time of great unrest in that part of the Roman Empire and what eventually became Christianity was just one of many similar cults that grew out of that. There are reports of other figures credited with things similar to what was credited to Jesus, like casting out demons, healing the sick, even rising from death--Appolonius of Tyana, for instance--and there's no reason to think any of them are true. No doubt you will next ask why Christianity survived when none of those other cults did, in a way that implies the hand of a deity must be responsible. There is a sensible answer to that, but I won't offer it until/unless you ask.
It has always struck me as odd that no religious scripture contains any information that wasn't common knowledge at the time it was written. It would have been so easy for a deity to provide some real, useful information of immediate practical value that nobody could have known at the time that would have strongly supported claims of their divine origin. But there's nothing like that. Why, for instance, weren't we told 5000 years ago that sepsis is caused by living creatures too small to see that can be killed by heat and pine sap and soap and alcohol and so on? Without that knowledge, people die horribly from relatively minor injuries. It would have spared us much misery and death if god had seen fit to share that little bit of information with us, but he didn't. That's just one bit of the information that's led me to conclude that god, if he exists at all, which I don't believe, doesn't much care about us.
Some things written in the OT were meant to be obscure for a time. The Jews weren't given details about God also including Gentiles as equal persons in salvation. It was written a round-about-way that would only be apparent in hind-sight. If they hadn't insisted to God that they also have a king (like all the other Nations around them) rather than just a 'spiritual leader' the first visit as High Priest would have been it, no need for two comings, 1 as Priest, the other as King.
At least let me state all my reasons for having a slant on creation that ends with God being 'quite possible' even though I didn't quite see it for myself.
God will hold some things back that are part of promises to be kept later but I doubt very much that He would withhold information on some question about some particular verse.
That still leaves coming up with an alternative answer for each and every thing that Scripture attributes to God. Not a small list either.
I can be found to be wrong about certain things but Scripture explains all those things like this.
Da:8:26:
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true:
wherefore shut thou up the vision;
for it shall be for many days.
Da:8:27:
And I Daniel fainted,
and was sick certain days;
afterward I rose up,
and did the king's business;
and I was astonished at the vision,
but none understood it.
The one that says 'sealed till the end' could refer to the writing of Revelation (those words open up new understanding that was witheld from being written down in Daniel)
Maybe we have made the Bible 'more complicated' than it really is. What you read is what you get.
The Jews were clueless about what the coming of the Messiah would actually be like, they expected the very thing that was written in their writings about the Messiah coming as King.
There is nothing crouching in this verse.
2Th:2:2:
That ye be not soon shaken in mind,
or be troubled,
neither by spirit,
nor by word,
nor by letter as from us,
as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Daniel was written how many years before the coming of Christ?
It wasn't 'just around the corner'.
Nor was this,
Ex:12:41:
And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years,
even the selfsame day it came to pass,
that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.
That is why an eye-witness should be more accurate that the 4th or 5th version. 20 eye-witness might agree that a car came from 'the right' but vary in most other minute details like color or other part of the 'incident'
Would there be a difference in accuracy depending if it was your favorite friend or your worst enemy?
Wouldn't that depend on the actual topics. If you remember liking bell-bottom pants and can find some pictiures that verify you wore them the the memory is accurate for that point. That doesn't mean you will rember where you were when you bought your first and last pairs. You might recall what song was on the radio when your wife/girlfriend said she was pregnant many years later.
Repeating a lie often enough it becomes 'fact' is still used today.
Since Jesus wasn't showing Himself to Gentiles at that time why would there be records about Him anyway? Roman soldiers are mentioned on a few occasions. If there are records those would be likely places to look for verification. One had his daughter healed, would that have been written down anywhere.
There was no revolution against Roman authority. The 'revolt' that resulted in the destruction of 70AD gets a few lines in history. In the few years that Jesus preached the Gospel he wouldn't have been noticed by Rome as worth mentioning.
Let's save this for a bit later but before this thread is finished.
How about bringing the right amount of rain for each crop planted?
I'm pretty sure that death thing has God operating under a limited set of options right now.
Ummm, those people would still be dead, no matter how death occurs, (nobody lives past old age presently) it is something that is found to 'be avoided'. That only works for a set period of time. Perhaps God finds all death repulsive, the exact method does not affect that feeling. Disease and war would be different instruments of death but since death was present before these things were they are not the 'cause of death'.
Since even now it is pre-mature for eternal life why would God be offering good health but still allowing us to die only a few years later.
That would be something that would have to be judged after all is said and done. It is the exact method that makes it appear that He doesn't care, for if He did, it would all be over already, or some other objective would be mey that is absent today..
I'm not sure I agree, the last word from God? Gabriel was sent to your people to provide the Book in the Arabic language, or so the preface of my Koran says.
What makes you think this makes it the last word? Gabriel came before and you assume that he can't come again?
I'm not a Mormon, but they follow the teachings of their Prophet, just as you follow yours.
Ellen White had some insight to share which the Adventists will attest to, was she not devinely inspired? Who are you to say.
In my view, Prophets are for their people in their generation and for the discernment of future generations, but the world moves on as it should.
God lives and Heaven is active in our daily lives, for those who have ears it is written....
Funny, I would have thought for those who have eyes, it would be written. Ears are for hearing, not seeing.
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, there might as well not be any gods and whatnot because there simply is NO evidence supporting their existence outside of the human mind. People might as well believe that David Copperfield can actually make a train car disintegrate into air. Again there is a preponderance of logic that says he can't and an extremely huge lack of evidence that says he can. The resulting rationale is that he only makes it APPEAR as if he can.
So, as Delos McKown once said, "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, there might as well not be any gods and whatnot because there simply is NO evidence supporting their existence outside of the human mind. People might as well believe that David Copperfield can actually make a train car disintegrate into air. Again there is a preponderance of logic that says he can't and an extremely huge lack of evidence that says he can. The resulting rationale is that he only makes it APPEAR as if he can.
So, as Delos McKown once said, "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
muslims 88% Are NOT Arabs.
“The Arabs are just 12% of the Muslim population of the world. There are only about 150 million Arab Muslims in the world. The majority of Muslims are not Arab. In fact there are more Indonesian Muslims than Arab Muslims.”
Note: "Muslim" means - one who submits to God's Will in peace (Islam).
quran no say the quran just arab ,
he say quran for all people ,
It critical matter of faith for Muslims to believe in the original revelations that came down to Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus, just as it is is important for Muslims to believe in the revelation of the Quran that came to Muhammad, peace be upon him
, peace be upon him. The key word here however, is "original." As we all know the origin of the Bible is clouded with centuries of copying, translating and passing down information, now long lost with only copies of manuscripts remaining to remind us of what once was the Bible.
Additionally, it should be noted that Muslims do not seek to destroy the Christians or Jews belief in the Word of God, rather it is an obligation for Muslims to call to what is right and to halt that which is evil. Certainly, causing the "People of the Book" (as the Quran refers to Christians and Jews) to fall into disbelief and leave off any faith in God at all,
Last edited:
I do believe that placing something in 'your head' to keep you on the straight and narrow,
is a wise thing to do, and call it what you want, but once you start believing that what you
placed there is actually everywhere, then you are in trouble.