Impossibble Challenge #2

[Confused]

This is a play off #1 but I am separting the threads because I don't want the two to become mingled so that only one side is presented..

Here the challenge: Prove God exists using only scripture.

Atheists, agnostics, etc.... can refute with science when appropriate, but remember, the goal is to prove God exists.

[Confused]

why is scripture limited to only theists? i don't think you have to believe in God to read the bible. besides im sure you will get much more interesting posts if don't raise limitations. but hey, your thread i suppose

Because theist are claiming the foundation of their belief on scripture and vague terms such as faith. Atheists are refuting those claims with science and logic. For this challenge, the Theists must prove their God exists by using scripture only. Athiests can refute with science and logic to disprove the theist.

In challenge #1, atheist are allowed to use logic and science to disprove the need/existence of a God while theists are entitled to refute it with scripture. The point of these impossible challenges is that every theist claims they are correct and their underlying foundation is scripture. So fine. Prove it.

[Confused]

Can atheists only use science to refute or can we also use scripture?

Atheists can only use logic and science, a theist can give a rebuttal with scripture only at which point you may use logic to dispute that scripture.

Not so! A theist can use extra-Biblical historical evidences and other types of logic to support scripture. For instance:

THE SUN DARKENED AT NOON

Circa 750 B.C.

According to Amos 1:1, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah (767-739 B.C.), and Jeroboam, king of Israel (782-753 B.C.). The name "Amos" is derived from the Hebrew term meaning, "lift a burden," or "burden-bearer" (note Isaiah 9:4, speaking of the coming Messiah as one who would carry our burdens, and also Matthew 11:28). His calling by God was to foretell of pending judgments upon a number of surrounding nations, and particularly of a coming judgment upon Israel. As is common with other Biblical prophets, along with the promise of impending judgment, God also gave Amos a glimpse of events that would soon occur in the life of the coming Messiah, though the significance of what was prophesied may or may not have been made known to Amos. And so it is in the Old Testament book of Amos that we find a prophecy that for many centuries was looked upon with wonder and curiosity:

"'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....I will make that time like mourning for an only son, and the end of it like a bitter day.'" (Amos 8:9-10)

It probably wasn't until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 32 A.D. that the prophecy of Amos took on clarity and meaning, for in Matthew 27:45 Jesus had just been nailed to the cross when the Bible records:

"From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land."

Just as the "Star of Bethlehem" marked the birth of Christ, so now God brought forth another celestial miracle to pronounce His death. This prophecy is one of those that is beyond the control of mortal man, and as such it dispels the theory that Christ could have manipulated events so as to make it appear that He was the Messiah. But is there any evidence that this really occurred? Did the sun go dark at noonday? In his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Volume 1, pages 81-87), Josh McDowell provides the following historical evidence that what took place at Calvary was more that just fanciful mythology:

Concerning the Samaritan-born historian Thallus, circa 52 A.D: (The writings of Thallus no longer exist, yet were alluded to by the historian Julius Africanus, as follows): "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me - unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died."

Likewise, Africanus wrote concerning the writings of another first century historian by the name of Phlegon: "....during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by the historian Origen in his work, "Contra Celsum," book 2, sections 14, 39, and 59: "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse that took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Christ....and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar." Apparently at one time there were historical accounts of the strange darkness that came over the land that were kept in the official archives of Tiberius Caesar, though they are likely lost to history.

Finally, the 2nd century Roman born jurist and theologian Tertullian referred to a Roman archives report of an "unexplained darkness that took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, as can be seen in the archives of Pontius Pilate."

The darkness spoken of in the book of Matthew occurred between noon and three P.M. in the afternoon (from the sixth to the ninth hours, as the Jews were noted as referring to the sixth and the ninth hours of daylight). Note that a solar eclipse will take less than an hour to complete, and a total solar eclipse lasts just a few minutes. This, coupled with the fact that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon (the moon would be on the 'other' side of the earth), provides further evidence that what occurred was something other than an eclipse of the sun. Just what it was no one can say for sure, just that from recorded historical sources there was a strange darkness during the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. From God's perspective, it surely was a time of mourning for His only begotten son.

Jesus once said, "I am the light of the world." So it shouldn't be surprising that during his death there might be a time of darkness over the land.



REFERENCE

McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Vol. 1). Thomas Nelson
Publishers. Nashville. 1972.

WRONG!!! You may claim that at the time of Christs death these events happened according to scripture. If your faith is strong, you dont need outside historians to back this up. Now should an athesit point out that X, Y, and Z make no such obserations of this event, you may only then respond outside of scripture. But remember, you pupose isn't to prove that certain events in the bible is true, but to prove that the bible says there is a God adn back it up with scripture. It is then up to the atheist to disprove it with science and logic.

[Easyrider]

WRONG!!! You may claim that at the time of Christs death these events happened according to scripture. If your faith is strong, you dont need outside historians to back this up.

I may not need them but they are there nevertheless. The information I provided counters your argument that "a theist can give a rebuttal with scripture only..."

Now should an athesit point out that X, Y, and Z make no such obserations of this event, you may only then respond outside of scripture. But remember, you pupose isn't to prove that certain events in the bible is true, but to prove that the bible says there is a God adn back it up with scripture. It is then up to the atheist to disprove it with science and logic.

Why try to pigeonhole people into performing according to your criteria? Extra-Biblical evidences, when available, have long been used to validate the Word of God. Now if the atheist wants to make their own arguments based on either what the Word of God says or doesn't say, or even on extra-Biblical information, then that's fine also. It's all part of the debate.

[Cathar1950]

Extra-Biblical evidences, when available, have long been used to validate the Word of God.

Yes and poorly I might add.
It is often used to validate but ignore that which refutes it.
Even you calling it the "Word of God" excludes outside considerations due to your bias and one way flow of information.
They have also been used to refute the claims and show the record to be less then historical and mostly apologetic in nature.
It makes a poor starting point.

[Easyrider]

Extra-Biblical evidences, when available, have long been used to validate the Word of God.

Yes and poorly I might add.
It is often used to validate but ignore that which refutes it.

If you feel froggy cite your best example. Otherwise that's just more wishful thinking on your part.

[Cathar1950]

Extra-Biblical evidences, when available, have long been used to validate the Word of God.

Yes and poorly I might add.
It is often used to validate but ignore that which refutes it.

If you feel froggy cite your best example. Otherwise that's just more wishful thinking on your part.

You are giving me a false choice.
Show me how it validates the word of God or why the bible is the word of God.
The conquest of Canaan is a good example, no evidence. Damascus is still standing. There is nothing that validates anything as the word of God. That is a belief.
Show me froggy.

[Easyrider]

The conquest of Canaan is a good example, no evidence.

Wrong. There's a whole body of archaeological work concerning the destruction of Canaanite cities, such as Jericho, Hazor, etc., and how they match up to the Biblical record. There's scholars on both sides of the issues. No doubt you have never read any of that.

[upallnite]

Were you going to reply to me Easyrider or concede?

[Confused]

WRONG!!! You may claim that at the time of Christs death these events happened according to scripture. If your faith is strong, you dont need outside historians to back this up.

I may not need them but they are there nevertheless. The information I provided counters your argument that "a theist can give a rebuttal with scripture only..."

Now should an athesit point out that X, Y, and Z make no such obserations of this event, you may only then respond outside of scripture. But remember, you pupose isn't to prove that certain events in the bible is true, but to prove that the bible says there is a God adn back it up with scripture. It is then up to the atheist to disprove it with science and logic.

Why try to pigeonhole people into performing according to your criteria? Extra-Biblical evidences, when available, have long been used to validate the Word of God. Now if the atheist wants to make their own arguments based on either what the Word of God says or doesn't say, or even on extra-Biblical information, then that's fine also. It's all part of the debate.

Perhaps you should return to the OP to see the criteria I have listed for this debate. If you cannot prove God exists based on that criteria, or refute upallnite based on scripture, then feel free to not participate. I labeled this Impossible Challenge for a reason. I set criteria for a reason. Most Christians make claims of their faith based on scripture. That is the foundation for your belief. Is it so unreasonable to ask for proof of your foundation? If you must go outside scripture to prove Gods existence, then there must exists some serious flaws in you scripture which leads to a fairly shaky foundation.

[Easyrider]

Perhaps you should return to the OP to see the criteria I have listed for this debate. If you cannot prove God exists based on that criteria, or refute upallnite based on scripture, then feel free to not participate. I labeled this Impossible Challenge for a reason. I set criteria for a reason. Most Christians make claims of their faith based on scripture. That is the foundation for your belief. Is it so unreasonable to ask for proof of your foundation?

Define proof.

If you must go outside scripture to prove Gods existence, then there must exists some serious flaws in you scripture which leads to a fairly shaky foundation.

Nope. God's Word is what it is. The dedicated skeptic will always be busy conjuring up something new to keep them from receiving the truth with joy.