What Is The Evidence For And Against The Existence Of God?

[DavidLeon]

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of God and is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?

God in this case refers exclusively to Jehovah as creator of the heavens and earth. A supernatural being.

Guidelines for this debate: C&A guidelines, Wikipedia: Evidence of Absence and Argument From Ignorance.

[Stelar_7]

This is pretty easy. First off you have to ask if we can take any of the claims in the bible as evidence for the events in them.

Yes, and I think the answer to that question is obviously yes because the believers will attest to it's authenticity and the unbelievers will prescribe it as the most effect evidence against the existence of God. Either way it is the only direct evidence we have.

You want to accept it as evidence because people believe it? That's a pretty strange criteria. I'd accept it if there was independent verification. I suppose you also accept the Bagavad Ghita as evidence for Krishna then.

Thanks to the research of Bart Ehrman we know that significant portions of the New Testament are forgeries.

I'm not familiar with his work, but his conclusion seems off....

You should check out his work. He is a PhD and focuses his research on the bible. When he says forgeries he means exactly that, writings added to the cannon falsely attributed to another author distinguishable by linguistic analysis. He has a book on the subject but also extensive lectures available on You Tube. A simple search should produce anything you want to learn more about and I'm not going to attempt to convey that body of research here. Suffice to say forgeries is the word the relevant expert uses and supports with his research.

We also know that there is no singular book for the bible but many competing translations.

A corporal punishable offense to the Law of Moses was to be supported by at least two witnesses. Multiple translations is a very positive thing because it prevents monopolization of the text into one interpretation. It also gives a more balanced perspective on the possible interpretations and translations and minimizes translational bias.

Spoken like apologist copy paste. I don't much care about the law of Moses. Some is interesting but it's not a standard I'd agree to support. When I talk multiple bibles though, what I'm pointing to is that there is no consensus on even what ancient texts should be in it. You can see significant discrepancies in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic bibles from other Christian sects. Then you have divergent translations, and you have the insertions I mentioned previously.

There are no original documents.

How do secular works compare to the Bible?

...

Irrelevant

There are thousands of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible and the Christian scriptures only produced within a hundred years of the original.

False. There is no original "The Bible" the books contained in the various modern versions were not written to be compiled. They were compiled at the council of Nicea. What we call the bible is a collection of many other books, none of which are available in originals, many of which can be shown to have been doctored deliberately, many others changed in various translations. Again spend some time with Bart on this one and not apologists.

Likewise we have many books which lack an identified author. The gospels, for example, are anonymous and are apparently based on one another. Thanks again to Dr. Ehrman.

I don't see that as relevant. It's not academia, it's God. The writers weren't writing what they thought, they were writing God's word.

That assumes a god exists and that the god was active in the creation and maintaining of the book called The Bible. Unless you have some evidence for that, those are not assumptions I'm willing to accept.

Add to that the book is internally contradictory.

I've combed over about 400 alleged contradictions by atheists and critics of the Bible and almost every single one of them have been misunderstandings. There are contradictions in the translations of the Bible but that doesn't mean much of anything. The actual contradictions are mostly numerical copyist errors.

Then you admit there are contradictions that are not misunderstandings. Those are a problem you should focus on, not what some other atheists or whomever have said. You earlier argues these words were from a deity. The fact that there are contradictions indicates either a careless or incompetent deity. God is supposedly neither of those so contradictions undermine the claim that the scriptures are god breathed..

In Matthew we are told that all things are possible for God, yet in Genesis the same god, ostensibly, is unable to destroy Soddom because Lott hasn't left.

Unable? I don't think so. Unwilling and unable are two different things. He was patiently waiting for Lot's leaving.

That is not how the text reads. Genesis 19 21:22 NIV "21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.”"

That isn't a story of will, it's talking about ability. When god will or will not do something he is pretty clear. Furthermore It's god, not an A bomb or a volcano. It could place a ring of safety around Lot, or render him intangible or just have all the fire and heat not effect him ala Shadrack in the Furnace. Except in this instance, he can't because of? Not really being omnipotent? The contradiction stands.

Similarly, in Judges, God is unable to deliver the plains to the Israelites because the defenders have iron chariots.

In the Bible God says that if Israel has faith he would lead them in battle to victory. They lost faith. Couldn't deal with the iron chariots (specifically, chariots with steel scythes). They reestablished their faith and God obliterated the iron chariots. I honestly don't understand why critics keep bringing that up when just a little research would clear it up.

Good job, right off the apologetics website agian however According to Judges 1:19 NIV

"19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron."

So they must have had faith, as God was with them, and he was not shy about abandoning the Israelites when their faith waivered. So you, or rather the apologetics website, are making up a story, adding to the bible which is a no no, trying to reconcile what clearly is a contradiction.

Job tells us God is "Perfect in knowledge" and yet back to Genesis, God is unclear of the goings on in Soddom and Gamorah and needs to send Angels to investigate.

Being perfect in knowledge doesn't imply that God is a fortune teller.

What an odd thing to say. God is described regularly in the bible and in apologetics as being Omniscient, or having all possible knowledge. Therefore a gap in god's knowledge is a contradiction. The being that Wrestled and argued with Abraham was not omniscient, it had to investigate rumors. That's another contradiction.

You also missed all the fun on all the rest I posted. The bible roundly disproves it's version of bible god via the law of noncontradiction. It calls him both all powerful and limited, willing to abide by and even orchestrating human sacrifice and also abhorring it. All knowing and also limited in knowledge.

By the tales of the book the being does not exist. Which should be expected given how the various stories were compiled. They were not meant to be put into the same tome. Yahwe and Jesus and Elohim were different characters in their original myths.

[unknown soldier]

What year did Jehovah allegedly create Adam?

I don't know.

What year was Adam's account officially recorded my Moses?

I don't know.

From Adam's creation until the death of the apostle John what percentage of man's history as recorded in the Bible was there direct contact with Jehovah and how widespread was that contact?

I don't know.

What is the purpose of praying to God and how is it typically abused?

I guess that God is lonely and needs somebody to talk to, but many people just want something from him and only bother with him then. God might feel used that way.

When did the Bible state that the events surrounding the establishment of the Christian congregation consisting of what we would describe as miracles, would cease?

I know of no such "cut-off date" for miracles, but a lot of people claim that there was such a time so they can explain away the dearth of miracles in the modern world where we can actually check if any miracles have occurred.

These are answers you should be able to give me if, like you say, there is no evidence. Can you do that?

I answered all of them although I honestly admitted when I wasn't sure or didn't know.

Anyway, I don't follow your logic. I see no reason why I would need to know what you asked if there is no evidence for prayer, miracles, or divine revelation. A lack of evidence for various Christian claims does not grant me the knowledge you asked for.

Because I can, which is why I think your logical conclusion is based upon a false premise.

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that since God got out of the miracle business a long time ago, then we cannot logically expect him to perform miracles for us today even if we pray asking him for the miracle. So you think I'm wrong for concluding that failed prayers and no miracles are evidence that God doesn't exist. The failed prayers and the dearth of miracles result from God "laying low" for now. My response is that I see no reason to believe that the Christian God ever decided to take a hiatus from acting miraculously, and he even promised to continue his magical ways "to the end of the age."

If you're right, and God exists but just doesn't bother with miracles anymore, it is unfortunate for those of us living today. We are denied the privilege of actually witnessing miracles and must settle for reading about them. I've often wondered why God performed all his wonders in "the old days" long before photography and video. Maybe he's camera shy.

And why I see evidence for the existence of God and you don't.

Another possibility is that you're deluded, and I'm not.

[DavidLeon]

What year did Jehovah allegedly create Adam?

I don't know.

What year was Adam's account officially recorded my Moses?

I don't know.

From Adam's creation until the death of the apostle John what percentage of man's history as recorded in the Bible was there direct contact with Jehovah and how widespread was that contact?

I don't know.

Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! the unbeliever insincerely demands and in the name of bad science he offers only ignorance, speculation and conjecture.

I guess that God is lonely and needs somebody to talk to, but many people just want something from him and only bother with him then. God might feel used that way.

At least this makes sense and has some truth to it.

I know of no such "cut-off date" for miracles, but a lot of people claim that there was such a time so they can explain away the dearth of miracles in the modern world where we can actually check if any miracles have occurred.

Or, the cut off date was when the last of the apostles died, which is traditionally believed to be the year 100 CE. And your "scientific" explanation of modern day enlightenment is nonsense. The primitive world wasn't full of supernatural phenomenon. The prophets and then apostles were operating on God's holy spirit when accomplishing specific things that needed to be done and so when it was necessary they could perform supernatural acts. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 28-30; 13:8)

I answered all of them although I honestly admitted when I wasn't sure or didn't know.

Anyway, I don't follow your logic. I see no reason why I would need to know what you asked if there is no evidence for prayer, miracles, or divine revelation. A lack of evidence for various Christian claims does not grant me the knowledge you asked for.

You said "People could easily have made up everything in the Bible, and the reasonable conclusion is that people made up the Bible." Your estimation of the Bible is based upon pagan mythology adopted by apostate religion. You probably think that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, that the soul is some part of us that goes on existing after we die, either going to heaven or to an underground fiery torment, that God is everywhere at once, that God can see in the future like looking through a crystal ball, that he knows when you are good and bad, that he knows what you're thinking, that he does magic, that him and Jesus and the holy spirit are three separate persons in one, that Jesus died on the cross and then his dead body walked around, that the Christians celebrated Easter and Christmas. None of this stuff is true, so more or less, your criticism of the Bible is based upon nonsense that really has nothing to do with the Bible. And you don't even know what the word God means. You probably think prayer means asking God for your team to win the Superbowl, or not to let some loved one die. You probably think a miracle is a moldy patch on a patio or piece of toast that looks like the traditional portrait of Jesus. You probably think that divine revelation is trippin' balls on shrooms. You probably think that the Bible was written by bronze age goat herders and at the same time think it was written 600 years later.

I know. I used to be like you. For the first 27 years of my life. Then I educated myself.

If I understand correctly, you are arguing that since God got out of the miracle business a long time ago, then we cannot logically expect him to perform miracles for us today even if we pray asking him for the miracle. So you think I'm wrong for concluding that failed prayers and no miracles are evidence that God doesn't exist. The failed prayers and the dearth of miracles result from God "laying low" for now. My response is that I see no reason to believe that the Christian God ever decided to take a hiatus from acting miraculously, and he even promised to continue his magical ways "to the end of the age."

My parents were unbelievers. They never told me Santa delivered presents all over the world from the North Pole. They told me the truth. I used to marvel at kids my own age believing the Santa myth. They were told it and believed without question. Then they were told it was a lie and believed that without question. Without question or reason. You do the same sort of thing with God and the Bible. People believe that six million Jews were gassed in the Holocaust. They weren't. Not one. People think George Washington was the first president of the US, and he had wooden teeth. People think 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

If you're right, and God exists but just doesn't bother with miracles anymore, it is unfortunate for those of us living today. We are denied the privilege of actually witnessing miracles and must settle for reading about them. I've often wondered why God performed all his wonders in "the old days" long before photography and video. Maybe he's camera shy.

That's so clever. It would have been easier for God to perform "miracles" if he had operated with today's technology. Give it some thought, unbeliever.

And why I see evidence for the existence of God and you don't.

Another possibility is that you're deluded, and I'm not.

Yeah? I don't think so.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #33]

As I seem to recall you have been either unable to answer or understand science that defeats the myth of Gods. Only debating with people who do not know.

I gave a list, you didn’t understand the implications, I explained, you ignored.
God does not exist, I have told you why.
I can not get you to read those things you do not wish to, I suppose.

[DavidLeon]

You want to accept it as evidence because people believe it? That's a pretty strange criteria. I'd accept it if there was independent verification.

[laughs] Independent verification? You mean, like, if a third party believes it?

I suppose you also accept the Bagavad Ghita as evidence for Krishna then.

No, because there isn't any reason to believe it. It's a nationalistic propaganda piece.

You should check out his work. He is a PhD and focuses his research on the bible. When he says forgeries he means exactly that, writings added to the cannon falsely attributed to another author distinguishable by linguistic analysis. He has a book on the subject but also extensive lectures available on You Tube. A simple search should produce anything you want to learn more about and I'm not going to attempt to convey that body of research here. Suffice to say forgeries is the word the relevant expert uses and supports with his research.

First strike against him is his PhD, which means he was taught a transmogrified version of the Bible by ideologues who think God doesn't exist. Second strike is forgeries. Authorship is traditionally attributed because the writers didn't think it was relevant. It isn't. Third and final strike against him is "linguistic analysis." A pseudo science equal to fingerprinting and lie detectors. Stylistic variations are nonsense. All one has to do is look at them to see this.

Spoken like apologist copy paste. I don't much care about the law of Moses.

Then why are you here?

Some is interesting but it's not a standard I'd agree to support. When I talk multiple bibles though, what I'm pointing to is that there is no consensus on even what ancient texts should be in it. You can see significant discrepancies in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic bibles from other Christian sects. Then you have divergent translations, and you have the insertions I mentioned previously.

Are you talking about the apocrypha? They aren't harmonious and so aren't included in the cannon.

There are no original documents.

How do secular works compare to the Bible?

...

Irrelevant

You will believe Caesar's Gallic War without question but not the Bible? Your understanding of the timeline of the ancient world, of ancient history, is based almost entirely on the works of an Egyptian priest and historian named Manetho, and you reject the Bible?! [laughs] Okay.

There is no original "The Bible" the books contained in the various modern versions were not written to be compiled. They were compiled at the council of Nicea.

The books were compiled in scrolls and the Jews had their own cannon (pretty much the same as the current so called Old Testament) long before Nicea. The pagan council of Constantine was hardly instrumental in the compilation. Jewish thinking was perverted by the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE just as the Christian teachings would be under the influence of Constantine the Great in 325 CE.

What we call the bible is a collection of many other books, none of which are available in originals, many of which can be shown to have been doctored deliberately, many others changed in various translations. Again spend some time with Bart on this one and not apologists.

Oh, please! Everyone knows the Bible is a collection of 66 books written by over 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years and of course there isn't original documents, they were written as long as 3500 years ago. The list provided by Bruce demonstrates that the Bible is far better preserved than contemporary secular histories. Evidence.

Likewise we have many books which lack an identified author. The gospels, for example, are anonymous and are apparently based on one another. Thanks again to Dr. Ehrman.

I don't see that as relevant. It's not academia, it's God. The writers weren't writing what they thought, they were writing God's word.

That assumes a god exists and that the god was active in the creation and maintaining of the book called The Bible. Unless you have some evidence for that, those are not assumptions I'm willing to accept.

Ehrman isn't aware that there is a difference between God's inspired and infallible word and the uninspired fallible translation of that which we know as the Bible?

That is not how the text reads. Genesis 19 21:22 NIV "21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.”"

That isn't a story of will, it's talking about ability. When god will or will not do something he is pretty clear.

It's about God keeping his promise. He can't lie. He can't break his word.

[unknown soldier]

Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! the unbeliever insincerely demands and in the name of bad science he offers only ignorance, speculation and conjecture.

Would you prefer that I pretend I know the "correct" answers to your questions or that I honestly admit that I don't know? If I must offer "only ignorance, speculation and conjecture," then that limitation on my part just might be the result of a woeful lack of evidence for Christian claims.

At least this makes sense and has some truth to it.

So God is vulnerable to having his feelings hurt if he feels used? I understand that God may become indignant if we become too demanding, and he might then refuse to grant our prayer requests. That might explain why so many children starve. Their crying for food ruffles God's feathers, and he won't feed them for that reason.

Or, the cut off date was when the last of the apostles died, which is traditionally believed to be the year 100 CE.

Why did God go on vacation at that time? Can you support your assertion with a Bible passage?

And your "scientific" explanation of modern day enlightenment is nonsense. The primitive world wasn't full of supernatural phenomenon. The prophets and then apostles were operating on God's holy spirit when accomplishing specific things that needed to be done and so when it was necessary they could perform supernatural acts.

I understand all that (kind of), but you're really not explaining why God quit the miracle business. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but he only seems to act under circumstances that we are unable to check. His acts "are long ago and far, far away." Can you explain why his miracles are so remote? It seems to me that under such obscure circumstances miracle stories could easily be fiction.

You said "People could easily have made up everything in the Bible, and the reasonable conclusion is that people made up the Bible." Your estimation of the Bible is based upon pagan mythology adopted by apostate religion. You probably think that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, that the soul is some part of us that goes on existing after we die, either going to heaven or to an underground fiery torment, that God is everywhere at once, that God can see in the future like looking through a crystal ball, that he knows when you are good and bad, that he knows what you're thinking, that he does magic, that him and Jesus and the holy spirit are three separate persons in one, that Jesus died on the cross and then his dead body walked around, that the Christians celebrated Easter and Christmas. None of this stuff is true, so more or less, your criticism of the Bible is based upon nonsense that really has nothing to do with the Bible. And you don't even know what the word God means. You probably think prayer means asking God for your team to win the Superbowl, or not to let some loved one die. You probably think a miracle is a moldy patch on a patio or piece of toast that looks like the traditional portrait of Jesus. You probably think that divine revelation is trippin' balls on shrooms. You probably think that the Bible was written by bronze age goat herders and at the same time think it was written 600 years later.

I understand that your version of Christianity differs from other people's versions, but I don't see how your version is any more accurate than the versions others espouse. All you do is assert without justification that it's "true" Christianity. I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should agree with you regarding theology.

I know. I used to be like you. For the first 27 years of my life. Then I educated myself.

Nasty! I do try to educate myself. In what way is your knowledge superior to mine?

My parents were unbelievers. They never told me Santa delivered presents all over the world from the North Pole. They told me the truth. I used to marvel at kids my own age believing the Santa myth. They were told it and believed without question. Then they were told it was a lie and believed that without question. Without question or reason. You do the same sort of thing with God and the Bible.

Recovering from theism is similar to realizing that Santa is a myth. However, I was told there is no Santa, but I found out for myself that there is no God.

It would have been easier for God to perform "miracles" if he had operated with today's technology. Give it some thought, unbeliever.

Hmmm. Maybe today God could fly a B2 bomber and "rain down fire from heaven" dropping nukes on sinful places like Las Vegas and Hollywood.

[DavidLeon]

Would you prefer that I pretend I know the "correct" answers to your questions or that I honestly admit that I don't know? If I must offer "only ignorance, speculation and conjecture," then that limitation on my part just might be the result of a woeful lack of evidence for Christian claims.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answers, and if accompanied with the facts, speculation and conjecture. There isn't a lack of evidence there is only assumption based upon a deliberate avoidance of the evidence.

So God is vulnerable to having his feelings hurt if he feels used? I understand that God may become indignant if we become too demanding, and he might then refuse to grant our prayer requests. That might explain why so many children starve. Their crying for food ruffles God's feathers, and he won't feed them for that reason.

Children are starving on a planet that is abundant with food because mankind rejected God's leadership for their own. They continue to do so.

Why did God go on vacation at that time? Can you support your assertion with a Bible passage?

I gave you the Bible passages and he didn't go on vacation, he no longer needed to use those devices to get his message across.

I understand all that (kind of), but you're really not explaining why God quit the miracle business.

Miracles are like parlor tricks to impress those weak in faith. They were signs. And it wasn't a business.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but he only seems to act under circumstances that we are unable to check. His acts "are long ago and far, far away." Can you explain why his miracles are so remote? It seems to me that under such obscure circumstances miracle stories could easily be fiction.

Do you really think that if you saw a miracle you would leap for joy and praise God? Just think about your criticism and the basis for the conclusions you draw. You seem so confident when affirming your beliefs with nonsense only because you think what you criticize is nonsense. It's just a joke? But you don't know what you're talking about?

The miracles you read in the Bible weren't designed for you. You can't check them. They didn't impress the faithless even then, and the ones you see today are illusions. Not very good ones. Those in the Bible were for those living when the Bible was being written. Before there was a Bible.

What does God want from the righteous? It is measurable in faith. Why? Because if you don't have faith then you don't want what it can deliver so where does that leave the modern faithless? Right where you are. THAT is a miracle you can witness. Without talking serpents, burning bushes or dividing seas.

I understand that your version of Christianity differs from other people's versions, but I don't see how your version is any more accurate than the versions others espouse. All you do is assert without justification that it's "true" Christianity. I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should agree with you regarding theology.

You aren't going to agree with anyone on theology. What little research it would take for you to see the immortal soul came from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas from the winter solstice long before Christ, Easter from the pagan goddess of fertility Astarte whose symbols were the rabbit and the egg and the phallic cross, the cross from Constantine etc. All of these things come from ancient Babylon and were introduced into the apostate church to attract the pagan. Am I some cooky little hippie that makes this up?

Hell

"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclpaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276)

"Hades . . . it corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell' " - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2 p. 187)

"First it (Hell) stands for the Hebrew Sheohl of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament . Since Sheohl in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation." - Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28)

"Much Confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheohl and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81)

"The word ( sheol ) occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinction there, so 'hell' ( KJV ) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together . . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [ in Jonah 2:2 ] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the fish." - A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida, 1978, p 37

Immortal Soul

"Nepes [Hebrew nephesh; translated soul] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the OT means not a part of man, but the whole man - man as a living being. Similarly, in the NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)." - 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

Trinity

"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica: (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - The New Catholic Encyclopedia: (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." - The Encyclopedia Americana: (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient religions." - Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." - Dictionary of the Bible: (New York, 1965), p. 899.

I know. I used to be like you. For the first 27 years of my life. Then I educated myself.

Nasty! I do try to educate myself. In what way is your knowledge superior to mine?

Every way. Effort. What I was saying is that I used to assume the Bible was stupid because the stuff I heard about it was stupid so I just assumed it. Then I looked further. Not just to what I wanted to see, except for in that what I wanted to see was the truth. Whatever that may be. Now you can come to a different conclusion than I did with as much effort, that's fine, but don't just make up stuff because whenever unbelievers do that they are wrong. You can't guess your way through it and make a convincing argument. You can get slaps on the back from other unbelievers because you think like they do but who wants that?

Pull yourself together, man!

Recovering from theism is similar to realizing that Santa is a myth. However, I was told there is no Santa, but I found out for myself that there is no God.

During certain times of the year there's a Santa on every corner and one at the mall. (If the mall is still open) If you found out there is no God you should explain it to other people. Go on a book tour with Richard Dawkins. Because so far they haven't been able to prove it. You didn't find out there was no God you probably just traded one God for another.

It would have been easier for God to perform "miracles" if he had operated with today's technology. Give it some thought, unbeliever.

Hmmm. Maybe today God could fly a B2 bomber and "rain down fire from heaven" dropping nukes on sinful places like Las Vegas and Hollywood.

Now you're thinking!

[Tcg]

First strike against him is his PhD, which means he was taught a transmogrified version of the Bible by ideologues who think God doesn't exist.

A bit of research into his education will reveal how humorous this unsupported opinion is. His main teacher/mentor for his PhD was Bruce Metzger.


Tcg

[brunumb]

Effort. What I was saying is that I used to assume the Bible was stupid because the stuff I heard about it was stupid so I just assumed it. Then I looked further. Not just to what I wanted to see, except for in that what I wanted to see was the truth.

How do you look further when the Bible is all that you've got? Just what did this extra effort entail?

[DavidLeon]

Effort. What I was saying is that I used to assume the Bible was stupid because the stuff I heard about it was stupid so I just assumed it. Then I looked further. Not just to what I wanted to see, except for in that what I wanted to see was the truth.

How do you look further when the Bible is all that you've got? Just what did this extra effort entail?

You look further than what you've assumed or been told the Bible says. You compare translations and if necessary research the original Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek. You look at the historically documented influence and adoption of contrary teachings.