Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[The Hungry Atheist]

The one difference is that the son of God walked this earth and performed miracles, died on the cross and rose from the dead and that was Jesus Christ.

Well, that's just one of the things cited in your particular Holy Book of choice. My Holy Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorns says a lot of other things too. You're not justifying anything. Is the Bible true just because the Bible says so? If that's the case, why can't the same be true of my Unicorn book?

[kimberly5699]

The one difference is that the son of God walked this earth and performed miracles, died on the cross and rose from the dead and that was Jesus Christ.

Well, that's just one of the things cited in your particular Holy Book of choice. My Holy Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorns says a lot of other things too. You're not justifying anything. Is the Bible true just because the Bible says so? If that's the case, why can't the same be true of my Unicorn book?

When you analyze the Bible itself you must be fair. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." You should not assume fraud or error unless you find contradictions of known fact. The biggest problem that the secular intellectuals find with scriptures is God and his supernaturalness. According to their system of thinking any supernaturalness is automatically thrown out. But at the same time the magic of evolution, the cosmic non-intelligent soup that by some miracle created the universe, is not thrown out. This is the result of a mindset, a biased mindset. The writers of the New Testament were eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:1-3; John 19:35; 2Pet 1:16; 1John 1:3; etc) They spoke to others who were eyewitnesses. (Acts 2:22, 26:24-28; etc.) At first they did not believe in Christ's resurrection, and admitted this very thing in their writings. (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:11,25; John 20:24-29) But later they saw the resurrected Christ and believed. (Luke 24:48; John 20:19-20; Acts 1:8, 2:24,32, 3:15, 4:33, 5:32, 10:39,41, 13:31, 22:15, 26:16; 1Cor 15:4-9,15; 1John 1:2) Later many of them died because of this belief. (Acts 7:58-60, 9:1; Heb 11:35-12:1; Rev 6:11) Tradition has it that 11 of the apostles were martyred for their belief. If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it? Even when they lived they gained nothing materially from their belief. They must therefore have believed it because they saw the things they wrote about.

[concerro]

...... Tradition has it that 11 of the apostles were martyred for their belief. If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it? Even when they lived they gained nothing materially from their belief. They must therefore have believed it because they saw the things they wrote about.

I can not speak for all atheist/agnostics but I am expecting for those to come back with this argument or something similar....
It is said, according to the bible, which happens to be the source in question that these people saw these things. Some people beleive the books of the bible were actually written several years after the events took place so even their stories are 2nd hand. Just becuase you say person x saw said events take place there is no proof becuase it was written by person y.
As for them dying for a beleif; just becuase you die for something that does not make it true, it only means you beleive it to be true. Many people have died for Islam and Christianity, but both of them cant be true due to thier differing beleifs on the role of Jesus. Many people have also died and suffered in the name of cults that are now known to be false. The deaths of the apostles only proved that they beleived, if in fact they died martyrs at all, but it does not prove their beliefs were correct.

We both know the pink unicorn book is not real but the point is that he has just as much reason to beleive in your God as you do in his pink unicorns until you can tell him why your beleif is more valid. To you God is real, but to him God is no more than existant than the pink unicorns that he is talking to you about. The only difference is that your God has more followers.

[kimberly5699]

...... Tradition has it that 11 of the apostles were martyred for their belief. If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it? Even when they lived they gained nothing materially from their belief. They must therefore have believed it because they saw the things they wrote about.

I can not speak for all atheist/agnostics but I am expecting for those to come back with this argument or something similar....
It is said, according to the bible, which happens to be the source in question that these people saw these things. Some people beleive the books of the bible were actually written several years after the events took place so even their stories are 2nd hand. Just becuase you say person x saw said events take place there is no proof becuase it was written by person y.
As for them dying for a beleif; just becuase you die for something that does not make it true, it only means you beleive it to be true. Many people have died for Islam and Christianity, but both of them cant be true due to thier differing beleifs on the role of Jesus. Many people have also died and suffered in the name of cults that are now known to be false. The deaths of the apostles only proved that they beleived, if in fact they died martyrs at all, but it does not prove their beliefs were correct.

We both know the pink unicorn book is not real but the point is that he has just as much reason to beleive in your God as you do in his pink unicorns until you can tell him why your beleif is more valid. To you God is real, but to him God is no more than existant than the pink unicorns that he is talking to you about. The only difference is that your God has more followers.

The point is there are archeological discoveries that support the writings in the bible which therefore proves it to be true. The lastest being the Walls of Jericho.

[concerro]

...... Tradition has it that 11 of the apostles were martyred for their belief. If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it? Even when they lived they gained nothing materially from their belief. They must therefore have believed it because they saw the things they wrote about.

I can not speak for all atheist/agnostics but I am expecting for those to come back with this argument or something similar....
It is said, according to the bible, which happens to be the source in question that these people saw these things. Some people beleive the books of the bible were actually written several years after the events took place so even their stories are 2nd hand. Just becuase you say person x saw said events take place there is no proof becuase it was written by person y.
As for them dying for a beleif; just becuase you die for something that does not make it true, it only means you beleive it to be true. Many people have died for Islam and Christianity, but both of them cant be true due to thier differing beleifs on the role of Jesus. Many people have also died and suffered in the name of cults that are now known to be false. The deaths of the apostles only proved that they beleived, if in fact they died martyrs at all, but it does not prove their beliefs were correct.

We both know the pink unicorn book is not real but the point is that he has just as much reason to beleive in your God as you do in his pink unicorns until you can tell him why your beleif is more valid. To you God is real, but to him God is no more than existant than the pink unicorns that he is talking to you about. The only difference is that your God has more followers.

The point is there are archeological discoveries that support the writings in the bible which therefore proves it to be true. The lastest being the Walls of Jericho.

I know that some of the events that took place in the bible are true just as some of it's parables are good, but it has areas that are not yet proven to be true and since it is supposed to be a divine book, instead of just another one of man's books it is held to a higher standard. It is all or nothing, so until someone is able to explain the parts that dont make sense such as the punishment of all mankind for adam and eve, and the contradicting verse where god says each man is responsible for his own sin then it will not be taken seriously except by christians

[The Hungry Atheist]

Sorry, I'd like to back up a second again and ask kimberly to clarify a few points.

Your arguments that the Bible is more reliably truthful than my Unicorn book seem to centre around the fact that the things the Bible says are verifiable. So, presumably, you would claim that there's enough evidence available, independent of the Bible, to demonstrate that it's true - so true, in fact, that it couldn't possibly have been written by men alone. Is this correct?

If so, doesn't this once again contradict your theory about believing without seeing? You only believe the Bible because there's incontrovertible proof, you claim. You're demanding evidence to justify your belief. If there really is observable evidence for God which justifies a belief, isn't this really just another kind of "seeing", much like my belief in wind and x-rays?

If it was all a lie, if they made it up, why did they allow themselves to die for it?

Do you also agree that this is in fact a rather weak argument, given how many instances exist of other people dying for their own alternative beliefs, some of which must certainly be untrue?

[mrmufin]

The point is there are archeological discoveries that support the writings in the bible which therefore proves it to be true. The lastest being the Walls of Jericho.

There is also a wealth of evidence that the city of San Francisco exists, that it had a police force in the 1970's, and that police force had homicide inspectors. All that doesn't make Dirty Harry a documentary account of events. Thus, it is not an entirely implausible notion that even though the bible may describe some real places and some real persons, it may not be wholly reliable.

Perhaps the bible is easy for non-Christians to dismiss because... well, because it reads so darn much like fiction, what with a talking serpent and a 600 year old man building an ark and other such tough-to-fathom fare.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Xanadu Moo]

concerro:
I know that some of the events that took place in the bible are true just as some of it's parables are good, but it has areas that are not yet proven to be true and since it is supposed to be a divine book, instead of just another one of man's books it is held to a higher standard. It is all or nothing, so until someone is able to explain the parts that dont make sense such as the punishment of all mankind for adam and eve, and the contradicting verse where god says each man is responsible for his own sin then it will not be taken seriously except by christians.

Much of the Bible is symbolic. Its primary purpose is not to be a historical account, nor is its primary purpose to be a scientific guide. If you try to use it for those purposes, it will not satisfy you. It is a guide for living righteously, anecdotally about those who did and those who didn't, as well as explanations on the nature of God and his covenants with us.

As to contradictions, many of the commandments were specific to the situation but not universal, while others are absolute. While it's true we are supposed to live by the word of God, we're instructed that not everything is to be taken literally. That's what prophets and leaders are for, to give us proper interpretation and to expound on the written word.

Also, with many different authors, descriptions of similar things will come across in different ways. Likewise, they can be decribing different things that come across as being similar. Secularists use these examples as sticking points. But the semantics is irrelevant to the message. The Bible is the last text that we should be parsing.

Regarding Adam and Eve, their transgression introduced sin into the world and made it a place where we would all be susceptible. I don't know which religions believe that we're punished for Adam's transgression, but that's not what I believe. Maybe you're looking at the wrong Christian religions.

Hungry Atheist, I don't understand your pink unicorn book argument. Your example is based solely in science fiction, and then you're comparing it to a book that has weathered intense scrutiny for 2000 years and been the most highly regarded text in western civilization among the majority of the population. I don't really get your point. I want to cry red herring.

[ENIGMA]

Hungry Atheist, I don't understand your pink unicorn book argument. Your example is based solely in science fiction, and then you're comparing it to a book that has weathered intense scrutiny for 2000 years and been the most highly regarded text in western civilization among the majority of the population. I don't really get your point. I want to cry red herring.

Intense scrutiny for 2000 years? That's a laugh riot.

Maybe for the last couple of centuries perhaps, but I must inquire about the source of said scrutiny for the times beforehand? Would you be referring to the serfs who were barely surviving between the lack of resources and whims of their masters who's outspokeness in such controversial issues is well known? Or perhaps the heretics who were being made to repent by the Inquisition might have a few problems with some trivial point? Maybe some of those dead "witches" in the various witch trials throughout Europe and those in the US might have a few objections to the idiocy of some verses?

Please do enlighten us as to the source or sources of the "intense scrutiny for 2000 years".

[The Hungry Atheist]

The Pink Unicorn argument is a perfectly valid comparison up to a point; beyond that it becomes about interpretation of evidence.

My reason for bringing them up was that kimberly5699 seemed to be suggesting that her belief was justified even without supporting evidence. I wondered if my belief in the Unicorns could be similarly valid. Now, I don't think that any belief can actually be justified without sufficient supporting evidence, but once you start examining the arguments in favour of the respective books, that's when it becomes a genuine, significant, important discussion about what is likely to be true, rather than mere speculation about God, unicorns, fairies, whatever. Personally, I don't think the Christian God gets much further than being mere speculation, but that's all about availability and interpretation of evidence.

What happens when we look at the evidence? Well, my Unicorn book gives a description of the Universe and the history of the world which matches up much better with what we actually observe around us than the account in the Bible, so score one to the Unicorns. On the other hand, although I agree with Enigma that you give the last two millennia of Christians rather too much credit for "intense scrutiny", the Bible has done really rather well for itself, whereas the Book of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is something I just made up, so that puts the Bible out in the lead.

And obviously the arguments go on, and on, and on, but the point I was trying to make was that this kind of critical analysis and logical assessment of observable evidence is necessary if we're going to have any idea what the truth is, and that kimberly's claim that "greater is he that doesn't see and still believes than he who has seen" is not useful.