Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 352. (Read 845654 times)

Or by the devil himself.  

Those are dozens, if not hundreds of times that the bible has been edited and have things put it and taken out by humans, not by some god.

The contents of the Bible, the history of how it was written, its unity, the theme of salvation for mankind, the traditions of the Hebrews/Israel/the Jews regarding it, the way it depicts mankind, the science in it, the wisdom in it, the love in it, and the way that this all is brought together is way beyond probability regarding that such a book like this could exist.

Such things as "horrors, violence, death, and servitude" are found throughout the world today. They are depicted in many books, in movies, and throughout life. What sheltered life are you living in?

The late rabbi, Uri Harel, of Phoenix, Arizona, did many great studies on the Old Testament in its ancient Hebrew. The Old Testament canon is essentially the same as it has always been. One of the things that Rabbi Harel found is that there are only 12 small "spots" in the Old Testament where we are unclear as to the actual text. These 12 places change nothing regarding the meaning of the Old Testament.

The Romans did us a blessing by setting the New Testament in stone, so to speak. By directing the study and comparison of both O.T. and N.T., especially at the council of Nicea, they were able to do something that the Church wasn't willing. They were able to get rid of a whole lot of N.T. writings that at the time were contrary to the good sense of the O.T., and contradicted the pure message of the N.T. as well.

Perhaps the Romans went too far. Perhaps their scholars should have included a few books in the N.T. that they left out. However, those books wouldn't have added anything to the message, anyway.

The whole Bible was written, and exists, so that people can be saved. As usual, people don't want to be saved, but would rather go on groping throughout their lives, until it is gone, and only on their deathbeds do they start to recognize that they are lost, if then.



When science gets to the point that we understand more than just a smattering of what exists, we will easily see God in it. The problem lies in the fact that, just like now, the scientists will try to cover up the knowledge of God Whom they are finding more and more in science right now. This is being done today, in the fact that scientists often are unwilling to even allow for the existence of God, though more and more they see through their investigation, the technology of God built right into the universe. Rather, they cover Him up as much as they can.

Since the horrors and atrocities of life are happening all the time right now, if God happens to use some of it to get it to stop, He is righteous in doing it this way. Would you rather that Hitler had won WWII? We needed to fight fire with fire. God could up and destroy us for our wickedness and because of His righteousness. But He would rather save as many of us as He can.

If it weren't for God's laws written in our hearts and consciences, we ALL would be off committing worse crimes than God would ever think of. Thank God He is stopping the crimes, even though many of us don't recognize that it is He that is stopping them.



Sometimes science fiction writers include real science in their fiction stories. Sometimes science fiction readers believe completely fictitious stories as truth. To a rather ignorant person who happens to be looking on from the outside, it can be very difficult to determine what is truth.

So far, all of the science info that we have, that seems to disprove the existence of God, or that seems to disprove the truth of the Bible, can be shown to disprove the science itself, showing that such science is, or might be, fiction.

Other than that, there is a lot of propaganda hollering by a bunch of people who don't know anything at all, or who are out to deceive others for the sake of money.

That's right. Religious propaganda is almost as bad as science propaganda. The Bible is solid. Go there and learn how to be saved for everlasting life.

Never had a scientist knocking on my door telling me what I should be doing.

Never had a scientist knocking on my door telling me what I should be doing.

That's right. Religious propaganda is almost as bad as science propaganda. The Bible is solid. Go there and learn how to be saved for everlasting life.

The Bible is solid.

Absolutely. I had a bunch of them knocking on my door about a week ago. As soon as the door was open religion started spewing out of their mouths. "You should be doing this. You should be doing that." Oh dear, they was quickly sent away.
The saddest part of all was they forced some boy (7 or 8 years old, their son I presumed) to wear a bowtie and come with them. Poor kid was totally brainwashed into oblivion.

Other than that, there is a lot of propaganda hollering by a bunch of people who don't know anything at all, or who are out to deceive others for the sake of money.

What? The bible can't exist according to probability? That entire statement is wrong. I don't understand how you could love and worship a book that is full of horrors, violence, death, and servitude. The entire bible as we know it today was changed up by the Romans, so it was not written by God as some people believe.

Religions are spread primarily through family aka brainwashing, unlike science which changes over time as we learn and develop more, religion stays the same, which is why the bible contains so many horrors and atrocities commanded by God, such as raping women and killing priests for drinking wine(Fit to govern people with fear at a time when most were uneducated).

Also, a popular argument for theists is that since we know the difference between right and wrong, then God must exist right? Nope, that's wrong also. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" are inborn, biological. Mammals have it and so do we, it's simply a way to prevent species from killing each other off, and form bonds of trust in social settings.

Quite the contrary. My faith is stronger than ever, because I have been pushed into examining the evidences for my faith ever more strongly because of things written in this forum.

Set aside the ideas of belief and faith for a moment. Rather, look at only the evidences for the various religions including Atheism. The monotheistic view is strongest. The reason that it is strongest is, the Bible cannot exist according to probability, yet it does exist, in great numbers, in multitudes of translations. You can determining the odds of its existence by examining the way it came into existence along with the things that make it up, along with the traditions of the Hebrew people that it is truth. None of any of the other religions - not even atheism - can match the religion of the Bible in this way.

Whatever assumption(s) you are talking about above, let's continue making them. Why would I suggest this? Because the more there is an assumption, the more there has to be faith to believe in it. And the only way God accepts us is through faith. Let's hope any Atheists will suddenly make the jump to faith in God - for Whom there is way more evidence than no God - taking the strength of their faith with them.

If god Inspired man to write the bible, Then why not Satan inspired man to write false bibles.  You guys have no brains.

You don't need books to show you the way--but it undoubtedly helps as you come into understanding through the use of KNOWLEDGE. You have to also understand your "enemy" and the rule-books by which he SERVES Satan. In a small attempt at offering more insight into that rule-book I have to bring forth commentary on the subject of THE TALMUD of the MEN OF ZION from which came the PROTOCOLS OF ZION. The HOLY BIBLE, AS ARE ALL OF THE "BIBLES" OF YOUR RELIGIONS, was WRITTEN BY THE SAME AUTHORS! Your truth is within the holding MINDS of yourselves as you INNATELY KNOW TRUTH TO BE. I can point out the errors and deliberate deceits of these "books" and the "authors" but YOU HAVE TO DISCERN AND JUDGE.

Let us suppose that you have a pile of apples and you want to sort out the good ones from the bad ones. You want to put the good ones in a pile by themselves and throw the bad ones away. This is a useful thing to do, obviously, because the bad apples tend to infect the good ones and then the good ones become bad, too. Descartes thought our beliefs were like this. The bad ones tend to infect the good ones, so we should look them over very carefully, throw out the bad ones if we can, and then—or so Descartes hoped—we would be left with just a stock of good beliefs on which we could rely completely. But how are we to do the sorting? If we are to sort out the good ones from the bad ones, then, of course, we must have a way of recognizing the good ones. Or at least we must have a way of recognizing the bad ones. And—again, of course—you and I do have a way of recognizing good apples and also of recognizing bad ones. The good ones have their own special feel, look, and taste, and so do the bad ones.
But when we turn from apples to beliefs, the matter is quite different. In the case of the apples, we have a method—a criterion—for distinguishing the good ones from the bad ones. But in the case of the beliefs, we do not have a method or a criterion for distinguishing the good ones from the bad ones. Or, at least, we don’t have one yet. The question we started with was: How are we to tell the good ones from the bad ones? In other words, we were asking: What is the proper method for deciding which are the good beliefs and which are the bad ones— which beliefs are genuine cases of knowledge and which beliefs are not?
And now, you see, we are on the wheel. First, we want to find out which are the good beliefs and which are the bad ones. To find this out we have to have some way—some method—of deciding which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. But there are good and bad methods—good and bad ways—of sorting out the good beliefs from the bad ones. And so we now have a new problem: How are we to decide which are the good methods and which are the bad ones?
If we could fix on a good method for distinguishing between good and bad methods, we might be all set. But this, of course, just moves the problem to a different level. How are we to distinguish between a good and a bad method for choosing good methods? If we continue in this way, of course, we are led to an infinite regress and we will never have the answer to our original question.
What do we do in fact? We do know that there are fairly reliable ways of sorting out good beliefs from bad ones. Most people will tell you, for example, that if you follow the procedures of science and common sense—if you tend carefully to your observations and if you make use of the canons of logic, induction, and the theory of probability—you will be following the best possible procedure for making sure that you will have more good beliefs than bad ones. This is doubtless true. But how do we know that it is? How do we know that the procedures of science, reason, and common sense are the best methods that we have?
If we do know this, it is because we know that these procedures work. It is because we know that these procedures do in fact enable us to distinguish the good beliefs from the bad ones. We say: “See—these methods turn out good beliefs.” But how do we know that they do? It can only be that we already know how to tell
the difference between the good beliefs and the bad ones.
And now you can see where the skeptic comes in He’ll say this: “You said you wanted to sort out the good beliefs from the bad ones. Then to do this, you apply the canons of science, common sense, and reason. And now, in answer to the ques- tion, ‘How do you know that that’s the right way to do it?’, you say “Why, I can see that the ones it picks out are the good ones and the ones it leaves behind are the bad ones.’ But if you can see which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones, why do you think you need a general method for sorting them out?”
5 — We can formulate some of the philosophical issues that are involved here by distinguishing two pairs of questions. These are:
A) “What do we know? What is the extent of our knowledge?”
B) “How are we to decide whether we know? What are the criteria of knowledge?”
If you happen to know the answers to the first of these pairs of questions, you may have some hope of being able to answer the second. Thus, if you happen to know which are the good apples and which are the bad ones, then maybe you could explain to some other person how he could go about deciding whether or not he has a good apple or a bad one. But if you don’t know the answer to the first of these pairs of questions—if you don’t know what things you know or how far your knowledge extends—it is difficult to see how you could possibly figure out an answer to the second.

The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible". The bipartisan document known as Public Law 97-280, was signed on October 4, 1982 by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, President of the Senate - Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond, and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. It reads as follows:

    WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

    WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

    WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;

    WHEREAS many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the Rock on which our Republic rests";

    WHEREAS the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

    WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: NOW, THEREFORE, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

You keep evading the basic conundrum. If absence of faith can not exist, how can faith exist? If you think you have faith, but refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other states of mind, all you have is a tautology.

Quite the contrary. My faith is stronger than ever, because I have been pushed into examining the evidences for my faith ever more strongly because of things written in this forum.

Yes. and with that assertion you have eroded your own faith. If disbeluef is a belief, and atheism is a religion, then the concepts of belief, faith and religion are meaningless. What use is a concept or an idea if you can't define or even imagine its negation?

And the implied assumtion, was the one of monotheism, at length discussed above. A polytheist could take your assumption and still remain religious, as a monotheist which you are, you can't.

There you go, stating something that is completely contrary to the evidence above. Why do you think that I have refused the existence of religion? Wasn't it I who brought to light the fact that Atheism is a religion? Wasn't it I who showed how it is a religion by comparing it to the dictionary definition of the word "religion?" What are you saying about yourself when you can't even follow the written pattern?

You keep using the word "religion", whose existence you have refused. I think "refuse" may be a more acceptable word than "deny", certainly less harsh, but the underlying logic still stands.