Atheists clamor for proof of God’s existence. Give us hard, physical proof they say, and then we’ll believe. Is it possible to even have physical proof for a spiritual being? Why don’t they have the same desire for physical proof for Columbus or some other bit of ancient history that they take for fact? How do they know that Columbus existed? Did they see him? Did they talk to him? No, they haven’t. Maybe there’s some ‘evidence’ of his existence. A ship that is claimed to be the ship that Columbus came to America with. How do we know that that is true? Because somebody said so in a book.
Yet they are quick to thrust the Bible aside as just a book written by somebody as a fairy tale. Why don’t they treat these books that record the history of Columbus in the same manner? How can they be so quick to accept that Columbus was real and the things that he did actually happened based on a mere book? But there was more than one account, which weren’t connected in anyway, and these accounts, while not down to the specific detail, agree. This greatly increases the probability that Columbus truly did exist, and what he did truly happened. I agree that this makes the believability in Columbus easier to accept.
So why is it so hard to believe the Bible? It’s a collection of accounts, written about the same God over an amount of time that is truly astounding. Also, the four--four mind you--different accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were written by four different authors. Yes, atheists will argue, but three of those authors were ‘apostles’ of said Jesus, so that’s hardly believable. Maybe, but what about Luke? He wasn’t an apostle? He didn’t know Christ personally (Luke 1:1-4 points this out), and only became affiliated with the apostles after Christ’s death. While Matthew, Mark, and John (which were written in such a different style as to completely void the argument that one author wrote all three) contain many of the same parables and miracles, Luke contains a few that are exclusive only to Luke. This is because he wasn’t an eyewitness and therefore couldn’t write a biography from the same perspective as the other three did. Luke had to conduct research and interviews in order to put together an account of the life of Christ. That is why he was able to recount some of the things that the apostles had either forgotten about or hadn’t witnessed.
Atheists also argue that why is it the Bible that has to be the Word of God? Why can’t it be the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the many other books claiming a God exists? Can these other books boast the same ‘pedigree’ as the Bible? I think not. Do they expound on life as the Bible does? I think not. To even put those books on the same level as the Bible shows a complete lack of comprehension of what those books are and what the Bible is. Then again, ignorance is bliss, so if one doesn’t know what the Bible records and its (the Bible’s, not the history it recounts) history, then one can ridicule it and feel comfortable and justified in doing so. Man (in general) has always, and will always, ridicule that which he doesn’t understand; it’s a basic defense.
Again, others claim that the Bible is false and that we cannot base any sort of feasible argument for the existence of God on what is written within. Prove to me, without using the Bible, that God exists they say. This is ridiculous. Prove to me that amoeba reproduce asexually through mitosis without using a microscope. Prove to me that a bomb is destructive without using a bomb. Prove to me that a lawnmower cuts grass without using a lawnmower.
You know what; prove to me that the ‘big-bang’ and evolution really and truly happened. Don’t give me minor evidence that gives small support for a theory that has slowly been massaged to fit that minor evidence. Prove to me that matter can be created in a way that will support life, prove to me that life actually came from no life (through natural processes), prove to me that one (can’t be more than one, that doesn’t fit the theory) type of micro, one-celled, asexually reproducing organism evolved into the countless, many celled species that inhabit the world today. Prove to me that not only did that single organism evolve into those countless species, but prove that it evolved into a male and a female of each species who somehow had the proper organs to reproduce sexually even though that single organism reproduced asexually. Prove to me that these species are still evolving into better species. We can’t you reply, we don’t have the time. Ah…and there lies the irrefutable defense. For all this took place over a span that covered billions and billions of years; there is no way to prove this ‘theory’ in the course of known human history let alone in our lifetime.
One more point, where did we learn to speak and write? Who taught us? The only way we know how to do so is because we are around people who teach us. Without our predecessors, how would we know how to do those two things? We cannot teach ourselves these things. This is impossible. Have you ever known of a truly deaf (no offense in any way, shape, or form) person to speak (vocally) as fluently as one who isn’t deaf? If evolution truly happened, how did that one ‘person’ that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write? Maybe the monkeys, as his/her/its (take your pick) predecessors, taught he/she/it (again take your pick…mix it up, it’ll be more fun). So why don’t monkeys talk now? Maybe this ‘person’ taught his/her/itself? This ‘person’ was more intelligent than we are now, and was able to teach itself…oh wait, according to evolution, we progress, we don’t regress, so humans would have to get more intelligent with the passage of time, not less intelligent. Also, according to some of you, the reason there are more atheists is because humans have gotten smarter and have concluded that God is a myth that our superstitious and intellectually inferior ancestors created in order to explain the workings of the world. So there is no way that our ‘first’ ancestor could have been more intelligent than we are now.
Come on people! You’re not stupid or gullible by any stretch of the imagination. How can you believe this stuff? You know why? Because, for you, it’s better than believing in the alternative. I’m not sure why. I’m sure I could conjecture a few reasons, but it’s not like I can tell you more about you than you already know.
Now, I understand that there are those that have tended toward atheism because of a ‘religion’ that has been proven false or shown itself to be so contradictory (they ‘represent’ an unchanging God even as the ‘religion’ itself is changing to suit its needs) as to be no longer believable. This is understandable. It is similar (but on a level above and beyond) to that of one who has been let down in a relationship. It is very, very hard to believe that attempting another relationship is worth the heartbreak and shock that can result. It’s even more difficult when something that has given your life meaning is snatched away and you are left listless and without a purpose. However, the ache will ease with the passage of time, and eventually a cooler head will prevail and one will realize that just because one relationship turned sour (due to a false representation of who that person was—same as a religion falsely representing God) it doesn’t mean that another relationship will turn out the same way (not that I’m suggesting another ‘religion’; find God yourself).
slappy
Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!
by Slappy 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Slappy
-
Brother Apostate
Excellent post, Slappy!
Of course, the answer was written long ago:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. - 2 Peter 3:3-7
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. -2Timothy 4:3,4
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. -2 Thes 2:10-12
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. - John 1:1-15
Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' " 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' - Matthew 13:24-30
His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." – Luke 3:17
BA- Answering the question.
-
pseudoxristos
Slappy,
You covered such a multitude of topics that it would take considerable effort address each issue properly. Instead of trying to address each and every one of the issues you covered individually, may I suggest that you enter the following into your favorite search engine and first get a basic understanding of how it is believed that the Bible was put together.
Synoptic Gospels
Elohist
Yawhist
After doing a little basic research, you will find that you will have a better foundation to discuss these issues.
pseudo
-
startingover
So why is it so hard to believe the Bible? It’s a collection of accounts, written about the same God over an amount of time that is truly astounding. Also, the four--four mind you--different accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were written by four different authors. Yes, atheists will argue, but three of those authors were ‘apostles’ of said Jesus, so that’s hardly believable. Maybe, but what about Luke? He wasn’t an apostle? He didn’t know Christ personally (Luke 1:1-4 points this out), and only became affiliated with the apostles after Christ’s death. While Matthew, Mark, and John (which were written in such a different style as to completely void the argument that one author wrote all three) contain many of the same parables and miracles, Luke contains a few that are exclusive only to Luke. This is because he wasn’t an eyewitness and therefore couldn’t write a biography from the same perspective as the other three did. Luke had to conduct research and interviews in order to put together an account of the life of Christ. That is why he was able to recount some of the things that the apostles had either forgotten about or hadn’t witnessed.
After reading that paragraph I found no need to continue reading the rest. Educate yourself. -
Slappy
Will do pseudoxristos, thx for the tip. I would also thank you for saying...
and first get a basic understanding of how it is believed that the Bible was put together.
We can conjecture all we like, but when it comes down to it, can we say for sure?
startingover:
Typical response from one such as you. Don't like what you read, so you discredit the origin and leave it at that, somehow maintaining your sense of righteousness and superiority through it all. Congrats.
Brother Apostate:
And that is exactly what I don't understand. Those portions you quoted were written around 2000 years ago and it applies perfectly to circumstances today. What man can have such foresight?! No man can. Yet such wisdom and foresight is explained away by this explanation and that explanation.
slappy
-
SixofNine
"We can conjecture all we like, but when it comes down to it, can we say for sure?"
.
You seem to think the bible came from god, and you seem ridiculously and stupidly sure about that.
-
megs
So God exists because a book (the bible) says so? Using a scientific example, the Piltdown man existed for 40 years, it was considered to be every bit as real as the computer screen in front of you... Then evidence became available proving it to be a hoax. So despite it's existence being supported in multiple books by multiple people over an extended period of time, it wasn't true. How is the Bible different?
-
gymbob
Slappy,
Startingover is right.
I read everything you have posted, and your level of knowledge on the subject you speak of is sadly low. Geez, educate yourself!
-
-
LtCmd.Lore
First, what you don't seem to realize is that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I tell you I have ten bucks in my pocket, you'll probably believe me no questions asked. If I say I have a million dollars in gold in my pocket you'll probably require some evidence before you beleive me. IF however I tell you I have a baby fairy in my pocket, you'll definitely need some darn good evidence.
Why don’t they have the same desire for physical proof for Columbus or some other bit of ancient history that they take for fact?
There is nothing miraculous about Columbus.
Yet they are quick to thrust the Bible aside as just a book written by somebody as a fairy tale. Why don’t they treat these books that record the history of Columbus in the same manner?
We have original letters from Columbus written in his own handwriting to other contemporaries. Including his will. And none of these defy logic or science. http://www.bartleby.com/43/2.html
As opposed to copies of translations of copies of copies of Bible books with anonymous authors. Most of which violate multiple physical laws and defy logic.
So why is it so hard to believe the Bible? It’s a collection of accounts, written about the same God over an amount of time that is truly astounding.
"Written about the same god"Highly debatable!
OT God: Vengeful, Jealous God of War, capable of creating everything, flooding the planet and stopping the sun. Eye for Eye, and all that.
NT God: Loving, Happy God of Peace, barely able to do anything more impressive than Chris Angel. Totally abolishes the Eye for Eye rule.
Also, the four--four mind you--different accounts of the life of Jesus Christ were written by four different authors. Yes, atheists will argue, but three of those authors were ‘apostles’ of said Jesus, so that’s hardly believable.
You are confused. There is no evidence that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In fact most of them were written long after Jesus died by anonymous authors.
Atheists also argue that why is it the Bible that has to be the Word of God? Why can’t it be the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the many other books claiming a God exists? Can these other books boast the same ‘pedigree’ as the Bible? I think not.
Well they do boast it.
However I do agree that they have as little going for them as the Bible.
Do they expound on life as the Bible does? I think not.
You've clearly never read any of the Qur'an.
But even if you were right, I fail to see why that lends any credence to the Bible at all.
To even put those books on the same level as the Bible shows a complete lack of comprehension of what those books are and what the Bible is.
If you think the Gospels were written by Apostles than you know a lot less about the Bible than I do.
Prove to me, without using the Bible, that God exists they say. This is ridiculous.
Well I wouldn't say that... I'm not going to limit the resources you are allowed to use to prove your hypothesis.
However if you base your argument on the premise that whatever the Bible says is true, then you're not going to accomplish anything until you FIRST prove this premise.
You know what; prove to me that the ‘big-bang’ and evolution really and truly happened. Don’t give me minor evidence that gives small support for a theory that has slowly been massaged to fit that minor evidence. Prove to me that matter can be created in a way that will support life, prove to me that life actually came from no life (through natural processes), prove to me that one (can’t be more than one, that doesn’t fit the theory) type of micro, one-celled, asexually reproducing organism evolved into the countless, many celled species that inhabit the world today. Prove to me that not only did that single organism evolve into those countless species, but prove that it evolved into a male and a female of each species who somehow had the proper organs to reproduce sexually even though that single organism reproduced asexually. Prove to me that these species are still evolving into better species. We can’t you reply, we don’t have the time. Ah…and there lies the irrefutable defense. For all this took place over a span that covered billions and billions of years; there is no way to prove this ‘theory’ in the course of known human history let alone in our lifetime.
Irrelevant.
Even if we had NO alternative theory WHATSOEVER, that STILL doesn't make "God Did It" a logical conclusion.
Even in the complete absence of an alternative, you can't just make something up. (Or use what somebody 4000 years ago just made up) And assert it as correct without any evidence.
This would be the equivalent of finding a strange rock formation you can't explain, and then assuming Leprechauns built it.
One more point, where did we learn to speak and write? Who taught us?
... Well I'm not sure about everyone else, but my parents taught me.
Without our predecessors, how would we know how to do those two things?
We'd make up our own language.
We cannot teach ourselves these things. This is impossible.
On what do you base this assertion?
Have you ever known of a truly deaf (no offense in any way, shape, or form) person to speak (vocally) as fluently as one who isn’t deaf?
No. Instead they MAKE UP A NEW language, like Sign Language.
And Blind People read with Braille... This fact blows your last assertion out of the water. Braille was INVENTED in 1821 by Louis Braille. That's right, he taught himself this.. He didn't learn it from anybody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braille
So why don’t monkeys talk now?
Because Monkeys are not yet as smart as (most) humans.
However they DO have primitive language abilities.
Because, for you, it’s better than believing in the alternative.
How do you figure that? You think I don't WISH I could live forever?
That would be great! Why would it be better for me to die than to live forever?
I’m not sure why.
Me either, that's stupid. But wishful thinking doesn't make something true. So as much as I wish there was a god and an afterlife. (And I most certainly DO.)
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Lore - W.W.S.D