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.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:11 pm

[Replying to post 320 by jcb]

Well see now you are involving a contradiction.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1 clearly states under no uncertain terms that the plants grew and bore seed and fruit.

The Gen 2 contradiction does not get you out of the hole here.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:22 pm

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 320 by jcb]

Well see now you are involving a contradiction.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1 clearly states under no uncertain terms that the plants grew and bore seed and fruit.

The Gen 2 contradiction does not get you out of the hole here.

Herd yielding seed and tree yielding fruit only explain what kind they are. Nowhere does it say they grew. Chapter clearly says when they began to grow.

We are way off base here from the topic of the sub-forum DTW. I suggest we take it to another sub-forum

mwtech · Post by **mwtech** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:22 pm

jcb, you seem to think that if people could understand the Bible in a way that it had no contradictons, it would somehow make them realize God exists. Even if the bible contained no contradictions at all, it wouldn't mean it was true. It isn't hard for humans to write a book that doesn't contain blatant errors and contradictions. Plenty of well respected authors do just that. Why would removing the contradiction prove God's existence, even if you could do that?

mwtech · Post by **mwtech** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:26 pm

jcb wrote:
DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 320 by jcb]

Well see now you are involving a contradiction.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1 clearly states under no uncertain terms that the plants grew and bore seed and fruit.

The Gen 2 contradiction does not get you out of the hole here.
Herd yielding seed and tree yielding fruit only explain what kind they are. Nowhere does it say they grew. Chapter clearly says when they began to grow.

We are way off base here from the topic of the sub-forum DTW. I suggest we take it to another sub-forum

I will gladly discuss this wherever you move it, but since it is still here...
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Earth bringing these things forth is very indicative of growth. What else do you propose this to mean? Also, how does a thing yield seed without first blooming? It can contain a seed, but yielding indicate that it produces or provides the seed. Is this a translation error? If so, what word would be better suited here?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:31 pm

[Replying to post 321 by jcb]

"
asah

to do to make to produce

that is the word the KJV derives yield from

the plants produced seed and fruit

you need a grown plant to produce seed and fruit it does not just describe the "kind" of plant.

I can dedicate a thread to this if you wish to debate this further

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:37 pm

mwtech wrote: jcb, you seem to think that if people could understad the Bible in a way that it had no contradictons, it would somehow make them realize God exists. Even if the bible contained no contradictions at all, it wouldn't mean it was true. It isn't hard for humans to write a book that doesn't contain blatant errors and contradictions. Plenty of well respected authors do just that. Why would removing the contradiction prove God's existence, even if you could do that?

I said 3 things about Bible contradictions
1. The Bible has multiple contradictions.
2. The contradictions are one thing that have driven people away from the Bible.
3. All contradictions in the Bible are explained and understood by other verses of the Bible.

I do not think the lack of contradiction would make anyone realize God does exist. It MAY make some realize there is truth in Bible and encourage them to search for what God is and how God exists. At present people just say' because both being the opposite can't be true, none can be true. If science takes this approach they will never find what is true or not.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:51 pm

[Replying to post 325 by jcb]

1. The Bible has multiple contradictions.
2. The contradictions are one thing that have driven people away from the Bible.
3. All contradictions in the Bible are explained and understood by other verses of the Bible.

1 and 3 seem to be a contradiction.

if I understand 3 correctly that all contradictions are explained and understood(i.e. resolved) that is essentially saying there are no contradictions.

A contradiction cannot be understood,resolved, explained;If they could that would be contradictory to the nature of contradictions.

contradiction

the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

if you can resolve to contradictory statements to having on or similar meaning(s) then they cease to be a contradiction. If you believe that all biblical contradictions can be understood/explained. Then you don't believe there are contradictions. maybe a better way to phrase it would be "there appear to be contradictions" vs "there are contradictions"?

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:02 pm

[Replying to post 324 by DanieltheDragon]

Now you are creating contradiction with Genesis 2:5. Both as described can't be true, yet both must be true as described. If there is one contradiction in the word of God that has no explanation in the Bible, nothing in the Bible is worth a micro fraction of the paper it is written on. throw it all away and enjoy life to the best of your ability, because tomorrow we all will die, and we can only hope there is some sort of existence after this life.

Your choice on the thread. But it would be easier to debate whatever you don't agree with in the New Testament, which has a clearer explanation of scripture.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:22 pm

[Replying to post 327 by jcb]

Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both clear in their meaning it is very direct an unambiguous. I am not creating a contradiction it just happens to be there. I only used Gen 1 as an example on how to test the veracity of scripture we don't have to use just gen 1 bringing gen 2:5 is bringing in contradiction which I did not point out.

Both as described can't be true, yet both must be true as described.

To the HIGHLIGHTED red why must both be true? Why should I consider both to be true?

mwtech · Post by **mwtech** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:22 pm

jcb wrote: [Replying to post 324 by DanieltheDragon]

Now you are creating contradiction with Genesis 2:5. Both as described can't be true, yet both must be true as described. If there is one contradiction in the word of God that has no explanation in the Bible, nothing in the Bible is worth a micro fraction of the paper it is written on. throw it all away and enjoy life to the best of your ability, because tomorrow we all will die, and we can only hope there is some sort of existence after this life.

Your choice on the thread. But it would be easier to debate whatever you don't agree with in the New Testament, which has a clearer explanation of scripture.

So by scholarly analysis of the language used in the Bible, he has created a contradiction? How do you propose we go about deciding what the words mean? Throw sticks in the air and base our answer on the pattern they fall in?
You say both must be true as described. No, they don't. They don't have to be anything. It was poorly written and therefore contains two contradictory accounts.

As for debating the New Testament instead, just picking a topic easier for you to defend won't make this one go away. There is still a contradiction in the opening chapters of the Bible. How can we possibly take it seriously? I would say its a bit melodramatic to toss our Bibles aside and live life to the fullest with the expectation of death the next day. I think I will continue just as I have been for 18 years. No need to hope for an afterlife. This one will do me just fine.