Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:14 pm

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:14 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 306 by jcb]

those can be some reasons but they are not all encompassing. There are quite a few logical failures depending on your particular belief systems that make such a god a logical impossibility.

The big reason for me though is I don't take things on face value I need an evidence based reason to believe in something. I am also ok admitting when I don't know.

There very well could be a god(s)/supernatural entity/higher intelligence that created everything; but I don't see any good evidence to support this so I see no reason why I should believe in it. In other words the arguments supporting god(s)/supernatural entity/higher intelligence are not convincing to me in order to believe them.

I am happy to see you still have an open mind. Either today or tomorrow I am going to start a new thread in Theology. I hope the thread remains Bible based. Posts outside the Bible will only be a distraction.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:25 pm

jcb wrote: [Replying to post 307 by DanieltheDragon]

I am not quitting but I will try to find a sub-forum where I can use the Bible (KJV) for explanation.

You can use the Bible on C&A, but it will not be considered authoritative except on Christianity or Judaism. Read the guidelines for C & A. Among other things you will learn that many debaters here are very experienced and are more familiar with the Bible, whether they are theists or non theists, than most Christians. In fact, there are non theists here who have had formal training in the Bible, including former Christian ministers.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:36 pm

[Replying to post 311 by Danmark]

Exactly what I am looking for. But what I hope to do is prove or disprove the Bible with the Bible and not sources outside the Bible. (Myself of coarse, wanting to prove.) This does not fit the guidelines of C&A.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:53 pm

[Replying to jcb]

you can seek to do that all you want. However, you are not going to convince anyone the bible is true relying only on the bible except for people who believe the bible. So proving the bible with the bible becomes a moot exercise unless you can first establish that the bible is true.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:02 pm

jcb wrote: [Replying to post 311 by Danmark]

Exactly what I am looking for. But what I hope to do is prove or disprove the Bible with the Bible and not sources outside the Bible. (Myself of coarse, wanting to prove.) This does not fit the guidelines of C&A.

Right. But you've got a very difficult, to me, impossible task you've set for yourself.
For many of us, we did not leave Christianity because of doctrinal disagreements between Biblical authorities or believers, but because of the Bible itself. For many, the way to understand the Bible most poorly and to reject it entirely as 'the Word of God,' is to read it and take it literally; to believe the myths of Genesis actually happened historically.

mwtech · Post by **mwtech** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:10 pm

Proving the bible with the bible is just like proving Harry Potter exists using the Harry Potter books. It just makes no sense. If you intend to just have a theological discussion with other believers, it might be applicable. If you are witnessing to someone or trying to convert them, you might as well quote them the story of Hercules to convince them to follow Zeus.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:03 pm

[Replying to post 314 by Danmark]

To prove what you call the myths of Genesis it has to be proven beyond a doubt that God exists without the use of the Bible. Not an easy task outside the Bible. Correctly understanding the contradictions in the Bible, I feel, will lead to understanding God and that God does exist.
No Christian has ever accepted anything I have shown them in the Bible in the past, even when they recognized it it is true, with their own eyes and in their own Bible. I am totally against all Christianity and what they teach in present day. With the Bible I can show Christianity does have drastic misunderstandings on multiple subjects in the Bible, including the existence of God. Whether it is accepted or rejected as true after recognizing it is true is a decision only the individual can make. The problem is, after recognizing something is true the first thing that pops into mind is accepting it as true means they have to reject what they believed is true. The other simultaneous thought they have is rejecting what they belief is true means rejecting the truth and all hopes for eternal life. This is exactly what happened with a JW clergyman: what he seen to be true completely destroyed the foundation of his beliefs.
I don't claim to correctly understand everything in the Bible. It was given to me to understand God and the purpose and goal of creation with the scriptures that support it. I can explain both in less than the space of this post. If I were to do so I'm almost certain you will say I am a complete whacko. Even now you may think and say I am a complete whacko. The same was said of scientist in the past and even today. In time they did prove they were not complete whackos. I can only hope to have the same opportunity.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:23 pm

[Replying to post 313 by DanieltheDragon]

It seems to me that if a person cannot show a sceptic the Bible is true with the Bible, they will never prove it is true outside the Bible. I say the challenge is on the Bible with the Bible. I am KJV like more than half of all Christians, according to a survey made a few years ago. With KJV I can prove it is drastically misunderstood and is true. To do this with a Christian is almost impossible. Personally I prefer the challenge with an open minded sceptic, or better still, a scientist, because they are and must be open minded. The reason they maintain their position on God and creation is all they hear is more of the same, which quite obviously is seriously flawed.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:34 pm

[Replying to post 318 by jcb]

There are ways to prove the validity in the truth of scripture without using the bible to prove them. You can take what the bible says about the world and we can make observations to see if they are accurate

take genesis 1 for example the plants are created before the sun.

Plant a seed in the dark and see if you can get a fruit bearing plant or tree to grow.

this is an easy way to test the truth of scripture without using the bible to prove the bible.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:02 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 318 by jcb]

There are ways to prove the validity in the truth of scripture without using the bible to prove them. You can take what the bible says about the world and we can make observations to see if they are accurate

take genesis 1 for example the plants are created before the sun.

Plant a seed in the dark and see if you can get a fruit bearing plant or tree to grow.

this is an easy way to test the truth of scripture without using the bible to prove the bible.

Very true. But if you go on to read in Chapter 2 it says,
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It does not say anything began to grow until after the seventh day, when God caused it to rain. If you do a word search of the Bible on rain, water and baptism you will find in some uses the words have nothing to do with the liquid we know as rain and water. The second chapter of Genesis is nowhere close to what is written in the first chapter: and still both are true exactly as written.

Question.. Do you reject both are and can be true? or, Do you search for how both can be and are true? A close minded sceptic will say both can't be true, therefore neither account can be accepted as true. The period up to the flood and immediately after, as written is what John the Baptist preached many things about: so much so, many thought he was the Christ/Messiah.