Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Evidence/Proof for God's existence(Question)

Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

I went on this website

http://realtruth.org...

And one of the things he said was the ALMOST perfect clock. It slips one second every 30 billion years. That is cool, but it is not absolute. An absolute God would have not allowed even that tiny a slip. Also, considering the possible time that the universe and been there, 30 billion years might not be that great.

Also, many arguments for God involves the ideas of perfection, for example, how perfect the world is, how complicated the human system is... etc.

That is all good, but it is perfect and complicated to OUR HUMAN STANDARDS.

Assuming God exists and he is everything he claims to be, then he also set those standards for us. He made us think these things are perfect and complicated. They are a relative term. Just like an ancient ape would find a computer complicated beyond belief, and perfect in its calculation of any kind. When they evolve to humans, we see the flaws a computer has. We can build them, and for a knowledgeable person it is not THAT complicated. It is also not perfect. If he exists and is everything he claims to be, it sounds like we are the apes and he is the man. If that is true, then all of these "evidence" that "proves" God's existence is invalid.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:13:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also to add,
If the Bible is not accountable, then is God(assuming an existence of that kind) still the Christian God?
If the Bible is accountable, then is God everything the Bible says he is, and all of its contradictions as well?
If the Bible is not 100% fact and truth, is it worthy of representing a God which is supposedly perfect?
Is God susceptible to human emotions? If so, why?
If God exists and is everything he claims to be, is he a rational or sentimental being? If he is sentimental, is he still perfect?
Phew, that's a lot of questions I know. They may or may not seem critical, but I hope they are, and I want to see Christians answer them, so I can better understand and kill that damned curiosity that's bugging me.
Thanks
The Random Guy
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:14:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

That's just one conception of God there are others. I think that this shows a bit of a human pi**ing contest. God is big, bigger, biggest........

My God can kick your Gods butt.


I went on this website

http://realtruth.org...

And one of the things he said was the ALMOST perfect clock. It slips one second every 30 billion years. That is cool, but it is not absolute. An absolute God would have not allowed even that tiny a slip. Also, considering the possible time that the universe and been there, 30 billion years might not be that great.

Also, many arguments for God involves the ideas of perfection, for example, how perfect the world is, how complicated the human system is... etc.

The world is not perfect. This is why christians have to invoke a fallen world to explain the existence of the imperfect world with a perfect God.


That is all good, but it is perfect and complicated to OUR HUMAN STANDARDS.

Assuming God exists and he is everything he claims to be,

Humans make claims about God, God or any non worldly being not so much.

then he also set those standards for us. He made us think these things are perfect and complicated. They are a relative term. Just like an ancient ape would find a computer complicated beyond belief, and perfect in its calculation of any kind. When they evolve to humans, we see the flaws a computer has. We can build them, and for a knowledgeable person it is not THAT complicated. It is also not perfect. If he exists and is everything he claims to be, it sounds like we are the apes and he is the man. If that is true, then all of these "evidence" that "proves" God's existence is invalid.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?

No, human beings make up stories. Part of that story is trying to please invisible powerful personal beings.............seems to lead to human sacrifice for some reason.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:16:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

Except that we humans cannot perceive an "absolute", because we are finite. Absolutes, like infinity, perfection, and God, exist for we humans only as ideals. We can't experience them as a reality and know that we are experiencing them, because human experience is limited, and human intellect is therefor relative.

We will never find absolute proof of an absolute God. We aren't capable of it.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?

The Bible provides an artifice for people to use to contemplate and "interact" with a God that is incomprehensible to us. It was never intended to be proof of anything. It was intended to help us find meaning and purpose in the great, unsolvable mystery of being.

To my mind, arguing over the existence of God, or any other absolute ideal, is foolish. It's an argument that no human can resolve, except through faith. And that's a matter of individual choice, not proof.

The real question is not, 'does God exist? The real question is do I want to believe that God exists, and if so, what would be the nature of that belief? Because the answers to those questions can greatly effect the quality of our lives.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 8:14:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

That's just one conception of God there are others. I think that this shows a bit of a human pi**ing contest. God is big, bigger, biggest........

My God can kick your Gods butt.


I went on this website

http://realtruth.org...

And one of the things he said was the ALMOST perfect clock. It slips one second every 30 billion years. That is cool, but it is not absolute. An absolute God would have not allowed even that tiny a slip. Also, considering the possible time that the universe and been there, 30 billion years might not be that great.

Also, many arguments for God involves the ideas of perfection, for example, how perfect the world is, how complicated the human system is... etc.

The world is not perfect. This is why christians have to invoke a fallen world to explain the existence of the imperfect world with a perfect God.


That is all good, but it is perfect and complicated to OUR HUMAN STANDARDS.

Assuming God exists and he is everything he claims to be,

Humans make claims about God, God or any non worldly being not so much.


then he also set those standards for us. He made us think these things are perfect and complicated. They are a relative term. Just like an ancient ape would find a computer complicated beyond belief, and perfect in its calculation of any kind. When they evolve to humans, we see the flaws a computer has. We can build them, and for a knowledgeable person it is not THAT complicated. It is also not perfect. If he exists and is everything he claims to be, it sounds like we are the apes and he is the man. If that is true, then all of these "evidence" that "proves" God's existence is invalid.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?

No, human beings make up stories. Part of that story is trying to please invisible powerful personal beings.............seems to lead to human sacrifice for some reason.

Thanks for your thoughts.
According to your answers, then by having different standards, different interpretations, and made up stories for whatever purpose, it would automatically invalidate them as a proof of a all-mighty, and perfect God, wouldn't it? These might be valid for a God that is by all means powerful, but not perfect. Power can exceed God.
Therefore to prove God's existence, people would need more absolute evidence in order for them to make valid claims about the one who is supposedly absolute.
Hopefully my logic is still intact...
Thanks
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:51:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:16:16 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

Except that we humans cannot perceive an "absolute", because we are finite. Absolutes, like infinity, perfection, and God, exist for we humans only as ideals. We can't experience them as a reality and know that we are experiencing them, because human experience is limited, and human intellect is therefor relative.

We will never find absolute proof of an absolute God. We aren't capable of it.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?

The Bible provides an artifice for people to use to contemplate and "interact" with a God that is incomprehensible to us. It was never intended to be proof of anything. It was intended to help us find meaning and purpose in the great, unsolvable mystery of being.

To my mind, arguing over the existence of God, or any other absolute ideal, is foolish. It's an argument that no human can resolve, except through faith. And that's a matter of individual choice, not proof.

The real question is not, 'does God exist? The real question is do I want to believe that God exists, and if so, what would be the nature of that belief? Because the answers to those questions can greatly effect the quality of our lives.

EXACTLY. I agree with you. The reason why I started this post is that most people are still arguing about the Absolute God. The Absolute God, according to our logic, is either incomprehensible or non-existence, either of which we cannot define and debate as humans, for it is beyond us.
Many people link verses from the Bible to a fact that the world is known to, and say that God has already spoke about this. But since the Bible is in no ways an empirical evidence for the existence of an Absolute God, then it is invalid to use it at all.
Now we have to ask, for all the debaters on the existence of God, what exactly is the definition for that God?
Is he omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent, perfect, and absolute? Or is his power being debated only on relative terms?
I would say that an absolute God is incompatible with the Bible, which is not absolute. And a God who is not absolute might not be the God at all.
Wow I've just completely destroyed my own brain. I'm so confused with myself... Hopefully that argument is coherent. I'm gonna get something to drink
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 8:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:44:49 PM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:14:53 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 8:06:47 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
What I find interesting is, God is suppose to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, without limits and boundaries. If so, shouldn't proof for God's existence be completely absolute, otherwise it cannot be true? Because He is absolute, therefore things that can prove Him should also be absolute?

That's just one conception of God there are others. I think that this shows a bit of a human pi**ing contest. God is big, bigger, biggest........

My God can kick your Gods butt.


I went on this website

http://realtruth.org...

And one of the things he said was the ALMOST perfect clock. It slips one second every 30 billion years. That is cool, but it is not absolute. An absolute God would have not allowed even that tiny a slip. Also, considering the possible time that the universe and been there, 30 billion years might not be that great.

Also, many arguments for God involves the ideas of perfection, for example, how perfect the world is, how complicated the human system is... etc.

The world is not perfect. This is why christians have to invoke a fallen world to explain the existence of the imperfect world with a perfect God.


That is all good, but it is perfect and complicated to OUR HUMAN STANDARDS.

Assuming God exists and he is everything he claims to be,

Humans make claims about God, God or any non worldly being not so much.


then he also set those standards for us. He made us think these things are perfect and complicated. They are a relative term. Just like an ancient ape would find a computer complicated beyond belief, and perfect in its calculation of any kind. When they evolve to humans, we see the flaws a computer has. We can build them, and for a knowledgeable person it is not THAT complicated. It is also not perfect. If he exists and is everything he claims to be, it sounds like we are the apes and he is the man. If that is true, then all of these "evidence" that "proves" God's existence is invalid.

Key question is, are the information in the Bible accountable as a probable proof for God's existence, despite the contradictions it has?

No, human beings make up stories. Part of that story is trying to please invisible powerful personal beings.............seems to lead to human sacrifice for some reason.

Thanks for your thoughts.
According to your answers, then by having different standards, different interpretations, and made up stories for whatever purpose, it would automatically invalidate them as a proof of a all-mighty, and perfect God, wouldn't it?

That's not my argument. We live in a world God or no God where anyone can make any claim about God.

That's all I need to reject mere assertions about "God".

Like I have said before, if we lived in a world where some kind of "God" existed, and when people start talking sh*t about God, God takes them aside and smacks the sh*t out of them.

But we don't live in that world so..........here we are.

These might be valid for a God that is by all means powerful, but not perfect. Power can exceed God.
Therefore to prove God's existence, people would need more absolute evidence in order for them to make valid claims about the one who is supposedly absolute.
Hopefully my logic is still intact...
Thanks
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:30:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

And yes! it is high time we look with fresh eyes lol.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:13:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...

"Christian" just means that I believe what Jesus taught.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:14:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:13:27 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...

"Christian" just means that I believe what Jesus taught.

why?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:14:44 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:27 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...

"Christian" just means that I believe what Jesus taught.

why?

That's not important for you.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 11:20:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:16:17 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:14:44 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:27 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...

"Christian" just means that I believe what Jesus taught.

why?

That's not important for you.

yes it is....it is absolutely important for me to know.
see, i am an american citizen, but before that a human being, who has been marginalized by people who believe in what the bible or what jesus taught...
so yes i as an american, a human being, i reserve the right to know why it is christians in this country find it acceptable to marginalize people like myself....

so why do you believe what jesus taught?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 11:20:05 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:16:17 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:14:44 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:13:27 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 11:11:39 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/28/2014 9:19:29 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 7:52:49 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:59:02 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:55:39 AM, Justpassingby wrote:
At 4/28/2014 6:37:48 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
These verses are Christianity in a nut shell.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The problem with examining the Biblical God with a scientific (material) approach is that the nature of God is not compatible with science, beyond that I doubt that God wants to be scrutinized in a lab, Here in the verses above we have a key to understanding where to start.

Then it would mean we need to consider spirituality and intangible evidence? That is all good, except Atheists and often Agnostics would not find these valid as they have no belief in such things, just like a Christian might claim that scientific evidence is not a valid approach to understanding the Biblical God.
On that note, it would mean the two cannot debate since they share nothing as common ground...

Sure they could debate, we have been without physical evidence for some time.

Maybe that explains why debates like often end with no clear results. One claim it cannot exists due to lack of physical evidence, the other claims it must exist due to clear and concise spiritual(Sort of) evidence.

Yeah I would say that is a large part of it, on the other hand the scriptures are clear in this respect some of it seems rather obvious to me. Christianity is very spiritual by nature and here is a basic principle I'm sure you have read it....

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

you don't have to be a christian to be born again...

"Christian" just means that I believe what Jesus taught.

why?

That's not important for you.

yes it is....it is absolutely important for me to know.
see, i am an american citizen, but before that a human being, who has been marginalized by people who believe in what the bible or what jesus taught...
so yes i as an american, a human being, i reserve the right to know why it is christians in this country find it acceptable to marginalize people like myself....

so why do you believe what jesus taught?

Nope wrong again, I never marginalized you and I'm a Christian and actually did the opposite, I told you I loved you and because I know my own heart I know YOU are wrong. I AM no better than you
Romans 4, 5

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:51:53 PM, Justpassingby wrote:

EXACTLY. I agree with you. The reason why I started this post is that most people are still arguing about the Absolute God. The Absolute God, according to our logic, is either incomprehensible or non-existence, either of which we cannot define and debate as humans, for it is beyond us.
Many people link verses from the Bible to a fact that the world is known to, and say that God has already spoke about this. But since the Bible is in no ways an empirical evidence for the existence of an Absolute God, then it is invalid to use it at all.
Now we have to ask, for all the debaters on the existence of God, what exactly is the definition for that God?
Is he omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent, perfect, and absolute? Or is his power being debated only on relative terms?
I would say that an absolute God is incompatible with the Bible, which is not absolute. And a God who is not absolute might not be the God at all.
Wow I've just completely destroyed my own brain. I'm so confused with myself... Hopefully that argument is coherent. I'm gonna get something to drink

Excellent! *thumbs up*