What is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?


ArtificialGrape
08-13-2011, 15:23
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape

Triple7
08-13-2011, 16:13
Posting on my phone sucks I'll cover this tknight

packsaddle
08-13-2011, 16:14
Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

the existence of atheists.

Shinesintx
08-13-2011, 16:17
"Christ, not philosophy"...but if you want to reject Him, thats your choice. I am fine with whatever you choose.

BradD
08-13-2011, 16:17
LOL. This is your idea of target practice? Was it raining at your place so that you could not go to the range today? :rofl:

Sent from my DROIDX

ArtificialGrape
08-13-2011, 20:35
LOL. This is your idea of target practice? Was it raining at your place so that you could not go to the range today? :rofl:
No, I'm a member of an indoor club. :cool:

creaky
08-13-2011, 20:38
The miracle known as the Nation of Israel.

creaky
08-13-2011, 20:39
No, I'm a member of an indoor club. :cool:

Indoor? I figured you for an outdoor kind of guy.

AlexHassin
08-13-2011, 21:55
Ok so I’ll play for fun. And devils advocate.
First cause, there needs to be something to start all other things. this original cause starts all other processes that are self continuing in the world around us
If I can have a second
Mankind’s idea of the infinite. Nothing around us is infinite, it can approach it but nothing is the hottest, the coldest, the longest, excreta. God, really any god is this giving us our infinite refrence point

Arc Angel
08-13-2011, 22:19
Me!

(I don't need anymore evidence.) ;)

Blast
08-13-2011, 22:23
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape

And your best argument that no God exists?:yawn:





sourgrape has it bad.:rofl:

ArtificialGrape
08-13-2011, 22:48
And your best argument that no God exists?:yawn
It's quite well trodden ground that I can no more prove that God does not exist than you can prove that Santa, Zeus, Ganesh, Quetzalcoatl or el chupacabra don't exist.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
08-13-2011, 22:51
Indoor? I figured you for an outdoor kind of guy.

I do prefer outdoor -- it is Colorado after all -- but the indoor range is only 15 minutes away, so it's much easier to run out, send 200 rounds down range and get back.

CodyBoy
08-14-2011, 01:58
It's quite well trodden ground that I can no more prove that God does not exist than you can prove that Santa, Zeus, Ganesh, Quetzalcoatl or el chupacabra don't exist.

-ArtificialGrape


Santa does not exist!

I have waited up on Christmas eve and there never was a Santa.

Sure it's fun to believe when you're a kid but then you realize it is your parents that provided all those gifts because they love you.

And why would a parent love their children if there is no God and all is for naught?

Because there is a God and all is not for naught!

ArtificialGrape
08-14-2011, 03:04
Santa does not exist!

I have waited up on Christmas eve and there never was a Santa.

Sure it's fun to believe when you're a kid but then you realize it is your parents that provided all those gifts because they love you.

And why would a parent love their children if there is no God and all is for naught?

Because there is a God and all is not for naught!
Do you somehow believe that because Santa did not visit your house, and your parents had to cover for him so that you didn't feel bad, it proves that Santa does not exist?

Animal Mother
08-14-2011, 03:48
Santa does not exist!

I have waited up on Christmas eve and there never was a Santa.

Sure it's fun to believe when you're a kid but then you realize it is your parents that provided all those gifts because they love you.

And why would a parent love their children if there is no God and all is for naught?

Because there is a God and all is not for naught! Maybe you were on the naughty list and your parents didn't want you to feel bad.

Mister_Beefy
08-14-2011, 04:14
The complexity of life on this planet.

Some may think it all just happened by chance, I don't.

BradD
08-14-2011, 05:35
Probably my own conversion experience. When you witness something like that, it's pretty convincing. See morning glory thread.

There are others, but the most interesting one to me (not sure if I'd say it is second place) are some of the judgments in Revelation. Some would've seemed ridiculous 2000 years ago or even 100 years ago, but seem probable now.

Sent from my DROIDX

GreenDrake
08-14-2011, 05:39
What does Christianity say of Pagans? The Pagans had/have all kinds of gods and their religion was hijacked by Christianity in a recruiting effort along with the Druids to make Christianity more appealing. With so many religions out there, which ones don't claim to be the one and true ONLY religion? It's kind of like sports teams with a guilt base.

muscogee
08-14-2011, 08:02
The miracle known as the Nation of Israel.

Self fulfilling prophecy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

NMG26
08-14-2011, 08:22
"Christ, not philosophy"...but if you want to reject Him, thats your choice. I am fine with whatever you choose.


Actually this would be an example of why God is not Christian. You think like your doctrine. There is a disconect and an acceptance of separation. It is tribal rather then universal. Like the tower of Babel, God separates mankind.

People really do want to "come together". The only thing that stops us is duality. Us verses them.

Smacktard
08-14-2011, 13:14
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape


The Bible tells me so! ArtificialGrape, if you could only believe, your life would be great and your soul saved.

...

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-16-2011, 02:44
Some of the basic arguments have been around for awhile and a couple were mentioned.


Cosomological. Concerns first cause.

Ontological.

Teleological.

There's also the one about purpose. I forget the name for it, but it comes down to why you get up in the morning. Nothing on earth can cover that forever. Pretty persuasive that somebody's gotta be up there.

RC-RAMIE
08-16-2011, 08:29
The Bible tells me so! ArtificialGrape, if you could only believe, your life would be great and your soul saved.

...

Ever thought maybe his life is great already.

It gets old hearing how sad and angry I must be because im not a christian.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ksg0245
08-16-2011, 08:59
Ever thought maybe his life is great already.

It gets old hearing how sad and angry I must be because im not a christian.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

He was kidding.

Triple7
08-16-2011, 09:16
I'll start with this: This is my own personal "evidence" or how I work logically.

Based on the order of the universe, from the Goldilocks zone, to the organization of the atom, (more can be talked about here) I believe in a Divine Architect.
From there I move to if there is a creator, what would he be like? Would he try and communicate with his creation? My conclusion to this is yes.
Now if he did communicate with his creation how would he do it? (Big booming voice? or Jesus style?)
Now let's go backwards with religions.
What religion (no I'm not even considering scientology or other very modern "religions") has the most accurate scriptures, based on number of copies close to the OG text, Which were written in a close proximity of the actual events, which were written by eye witnesses, which had secular writers confirm these events, which could have been disproven by other eye witnesses if they were making false claims, what did these people give up for their beliefs. What did they have to gain (death!)? ...........Once I took those questions and procees them with the evidence presented, Christianity was an easy choice.
That's all without taking into account the person of Christ.

If anyone would like to talk about the validity of the Bible, I'll discuss. But please understand that it is an ancient document and it's not validated like a modern document.

Roering
08-16-2011, 21:11
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape

Jesus

Ogreon
08-17-2011, 01:48
It's quite well trodden ground that I can no more prove that God does not exist than you can prove that ... el chupacabra don't exist.

-ArtificialGrape

I walked up and down the length of Mexico. Barefoot. With two goats strapped on my back. Nada. They ain't no chupacabra.

I don't tend to be an apologist. I run into a surfeit of radical collectivists preaching salvation via the Almighty Government and I can't help preaching a little individual freedom back at them. If someone approaches me to sing hosannahs to atheism, then I riposte with some Jesus.

I prefer evangelism by quiet action to the soap box.

Occasionally, I'll get someone come up and say, "You, sir, are a giant amongst men. A veritable Colossus bestride the Rhodes that the rest of us inhabit. What makes you so awesome?" I say, "Christ, Mom, ME, luck, and ME! Did I mention ME?"

Paul7
08-17-2011, 20:55
For God's existance: That there is something rather than nothing.

NMG26
08-17-2011, 21:10
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape

Has no Christain yet said: "My life"!

I was lost....now I am found.

The radical change in a persons life is attest to the power of God.

For me this holds true.
The relationship to God is the proof to the believer.
Ozzy Osbourne - Believer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mysNM5CBe0c

Syclone538
08-17-2011, 21:55
...
The radical change in a persons life is attest to the power of God.
...

No, to the power of belief in a god.

Roering
08-17-2011, 21:57
Molecular Biology

ArtificialGrape
08-17-2011, 22:25
I walked up and down the length of Mexico. Barefoot. With two goats strapped on my back. Nada. They ain't no chupacabra.
You only deny el chupacabra because he did not reveal himself to you and you are mad at him and do not wish to live according to his laws.

-ArificialGrape

NMG26
08-18-2011, 05:41
No, to the power of belief in a god.

True.

Also known as faith.

"Your faith has made you whole".

Belief in God brings a sense of connection and fills a place that was lacking. A relationship with God makes the believer never alone in this world.

I'm not sure that most religious people actually have the relationship I am talking about. The day by day communion with the Divine. Communion with the Divine is a matter of faith. If you believe that you can commune with the Divine then you will at your desire. If you believe that you can not commune with the Divine then you will not, even if the Divine wills. Doctrine about God has much to do with the relationship that people have with God. Doctrine dictates how the relationship goes. "Change your thinking, change your life". That is the power of God that I know.

GlockinNJ
08-18-2011, 06:05
Christian religion is based on faith, not just facts.

Making a sound logical argument requires the reliance on facts only.

Therefore, it's not possible to persuade belief in Christianity with a logical argument.

You either accept to believe it or you don't.

Syclone538
08-18-2011, 06:06
True.

Also known as faith.

"Your faith has made you whole".

Belief in God brings a sense of connection and fills a place that was lacking. A relationship with God makes the believer never alone in this world.

...

You are talking about God, while I'm talking about a god. Belief in a god could change someone's life, whether it's true or not, just look at all other religions besides yours. This is no argument at all for the existence of a god.

NMG26
08-18-2011, 08:59
You are talking about God, while I'm talking about a god. Belief in a god could change someone's life, whether it's true or not, just look at all other religions besides yours. This is no argument at all for the existence of a god.


Again I agree.

The Christian God exists in the mind of the believer. It does not matter if it is even remotely close to an actual creator god, if there be one.

I am talking about a relationship, by faith, to something that does seem to exist. The Tao says "before God was the Tao".

So what is it? It is many things for many people, and the greatest proof of it, is the relationship that the believer has with it.

Did it create the world? Not really important. That is doctrine. Does it exist? Seems to. How do you know? The relationship. The daily communion with it is the proof to the believer. Other then that you just got doctrine that is, some right and some wrong. I'm even willing to say mostly wrong.

Ogreon
08-18-2011, 12:57
You only deny el chupacabra because he did not reveal himself to you and you are mad at him and do not wish to live according to his laws.

-ArificialGrape

I was actually looking for a fight. Wait... Maybe it was la cucaracha?!

Animal Mother
08-18-2011, 15:33
I'll start with this: This is my own personal "evidence" or how I work logically.

Based on the order of the universe, from the Goldilocks zone, to the organization of the atom, (more can be talked about here) I believe in a Divine Architect. Why do you conclude that the Universe is the way it is so that we can exist rather than that we exist because the Universe is the way it is?
What religion (no I'm not even considering scientology or other very modern "religions") has the most accurate scriptures, based on number of copies close to the OG text, Which were written in a close proximity of the actual events, which were written by eye witnesses, which had secular writers confirm these events, which could have been disproven by other eye witnesses if they were making false claims, what did these people give up for their beliefs. What did they have to gain (death!)? ...........Once I took those questions and procees them with the evidence presented, Christianity was an easy choice. You have access to autographs written by eye witnesses to the events surrounding the beginning of Christianity? You should really share those with scholars and theologians.

Paul7
08-18-2011, 16:06
You have access to autographs written by eye witnesses to the events surrounding the beginning of Christianity? You should really share those with scholars and theologians.

Many scholars and theologians are believers.

If miracles really did happen 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect today?

Animal Mother
08-18-2011, 16:25
Many scholars and theologians are believers. And I'm sure all of them, believers or not, would love to have access to original autographs of the NT accounts.
If miracles really did happen 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect today? How is that relevant to the question at hand? Triple7 is making the argument, at least implicitly, that Christianity has the most accurate scripture based on similarity to the original texts. That argument requires having the original texts to make the comparison.

NMG26
08-19-2011, 09:04
If miracles really did happen 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect today?

I would expect the same miricles to be done today.

Benny Hinn?

Triple7
08-19-2011, 09:54
Why do you conclude that the Universe is the way it is so that we can exist rather than that we exist because the Universe is the way it is?
If we take a Chaos theory of the Universe and that it just happened.....that doesn't make sense to me. Some how Chaos brought about perfect order?

You have access to autographs written by eye witnesses to the events surrounding the beginning of Christianity? You should really share those with scholars and theologians. Thallus first wrote about Jesus..though his writings on long exist (because they are 2k old) he is quoted Julius Africanus. (This is a non christian source) Then you have of course the biblical accounts (which I'm sure can't be trusted), plus tons and tons of commentary just a few years after Jesus, which would have been shot down if they were false claims. From Josephus to Pliny the younger.



.......................................

Animal Mother
08-19-2011, 16:06
If we take a Chaos theory of the Universe and that it just happened.....that doesn't make sense to me. Some how Chaos brought about perfect order? There was neither Chaos nor is there now perfect order. Both your initial condition and current situation are incorrect when compared against the evidence and observation.
Thallus first wrote about Jesus..though his writings on long exist (because they are 2k old) he is quoted Julius Africanus. (This is a non christian source) Then you have of course the biblical accounts (which I'm sure can't be trusted), plus tons and tons of commentary just a few years after Jesus, which would have been shot down if they were false claims. From Josephus to Pliny the younger. Are you now saying you don't have access to the original autographs? If you don't have the originals works, how can you reach any conclusions about how closely the versions we do have adhere to the original accounts? As for Thallus, a reference to a supposed eclipse, supposedly referenced by Sextus Julius Africanus in the second or third cerntury which itself exists only in the ninth century reference of George Syncellus is hardly a compelling proof of anything.

Roering
08-19-2011, 16:24
grilled cheese sandwiches

RC-RAMIE
08-19-2011, 16:38
grilled cheese sandwiches

If that is gods work I will turn into a theist grilled cheese FTW

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArtificialGrape
08-19-2011, 17:02
grilled cheese sandwiches
This?
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101014093557/glee/images/thumb/1/11/Cheesus.jpg/476px-Cheesus.jpg

Roering
08-19-2011, 17:08
This?
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101014093557/glee/images/thumb/1/11/Cheesus.jpg/476px-Cheesus.jpg

I was hoping someone would get it. You know AG, you're pretty sharp....for an atheist.

Kingarthurhk
08-19-2011, 20:14
You have access to autographs written by eye witnesses to the events surrounding the beginning of Christianity? You should really share those with scholars and theologians.

http://www.biblegateway.com/

GreenDrake
08-19-2011, 20:58
OMG, it's Grilled Cheesus. That's awesome.

Animal Mother
08-19-2011, 21:54
http://www.biblegateway.com/ A handy resource, but I don't think any of those are the original autographs. Or is this one of those, "If English is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us" moments?

Sharkey
08-19-2011, 22:10
I skipped page 2 but I'll play.

I think you have to approach it first not from a "Christian God" but is there a God? Creationism, the fact that something does not come from nothing and the belief that a Creator created another creator. Evolution is like putting watch parts in a box, shaking it, and a Rolex appears.

I think then you have to search out the validity and truth claims of the various religions and see which is the most historical and accurate. I freely admit that I am a Christian and don't feel the need to apologize for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Christianity is the only "religion" where salvation comes from gracious gift and not something you do because the truth is we are all sinners and could never do enough.

I think then the question becomes not justifying the existence of a Christian God but rather is Jesus who He said He was? You have 2 choices: Savior or Raving Lunatic. He is a stumbling stone for so many.

I was commanded to go share the Good News. You can believe or not. I don't force my "religion" down anyone's throat but I will take a stand to defend the faith.

Lastly, like many here, I don't have much respect for "religion". Christianity is not something you do but rather someone you are. As long as humans exist, hypocrisy will abound.

frank_drebin
08-19-2011, 22:18
Every other major religion considers Jesus to be either a profit or 2nd only to their chosen messenger. If true then Jesus was either a liar or insane as he claimed to be the son of God and stated that the only way to get to the father was through him.

Sharkey
08-19-2011, 22:22
Christian religion is based on faith, not just facts.

Making a sound logical argument requires the reliance on facts only.

Therefore, it's not possible to persuade belief in Christianity with a logical argument.

You either accept to believe it or you don't.

Ha, I went back and read page 2. I like your last sentence because that is the bottom line but I have issues with the first two.

We make sound logical arguments every day without all the facts. Faith will always be involved but there are indeed facts that point to Christ and the cross.
There are far too many truth seekers who have chosen to believe based on a logical argument. Doubting Thomas comes to mind. Thomas requested proof and Jesus provided it. He then talked of those who believed and had faith without seeing. I think you can have it both ways. Many have great faith and believe without having to go thru a study of historical documents and a logical argument and many come to the faith after taking a long cold hard look at the facts and arguments.

Animal Mother
08-19-2011, 22:38
I skipped page 2 but I'll play.

I think you have to approach it first not from a "Christian God" but is there a God? Creationism, the fact that something does not come from nothing and the belief that a Creator created another creator. Evolution is like putting watch parts in a box, shaking it, and a Rolex appears. No, it isn't. Watch parts neither reproduce nor undergo genetic change.
I think then you have to search out the validity and truth claims of the various religions and see which is the most historical and accurate. I freely admit that I am a Christian and don't feel the need to apologize for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Christianity is the only "religion" where salvation comes from gracious gift and not something you do because the truth is we are all sinners and could never do enough. How do you go about obtaining salvation in Christianity?
I think then the question becomes not justifying the existence of a Christian God but rather is Jesus who He said He was? You have 2 choices: Savior or Raving Lunatic. He is a stumbling stone for so many. Lewis' trilemma is, at best, incomplete and you're neglecting one of those possiblities (liar). What if Jesus was a teacher who's followers later ascribed divinity to him?

Sharkey
08-19-2011, 22:57
No, it isn't. Watch parts neither reproduce nor undergo genetic change.

Well perhaps I am being overly simplistic. Can you explain how something comes from nothing then?

How do you go about obtaining salvation in Christianity?

Hmmm, sounds like a trick question given the verbiage you use in the next question.

Lewis' trilemma is, at best, incomplete and you're neglecting one of those possiblities (liar). What if Jesus was a teacher who's followers later ascribed divinity to him?

Well you can be insane AND a liar. Jesus claimed not only to his disciples but to people that He was the Son of God. He ascribed divinity to himself. Heck, for awhile the disciples just thought of him as the next physical King.

What sayeth you? I take it you don't believe? If so, what do you believe?

Animal Mother
08-19-2011, 23:40
Well perhaps I am being overly simplistic. Can you explain how something comes from nothing then?
No, but I've never claimed that something comes from nothing, so it seems unfair to ask me to explain how it is done.
Hmmm, sounds like a trick question given the verbiage you use in the next question. How is it a trick question? Is salvation available to Christians? If so, how is it obtained?
Well you can be insane AND a liar. Jesus claimed not only to his disciples but to people that He was the Son of God. He ascribed divinity to himself. Heck, for awhile the disciples just thought of him as the next physical King. You can't say Jesus made any of these claims, you don't have any of Jesus writings from which to make this argument. It's the same problem that Triple7's arguments has. Undoubtedly there are those who claimed Jesus was the son of God, but they all wrote long after he was dead.
What sayeth you? I take it you don't believe? If so, what do you believe? What do my beliefs have to do with your arguments?

ArtificialGrape
08-20-2011, 00:19
Lewis' trilemma is, at best, incomplete and you're neglecting one of those possiblities (liar). What if Jesus was a teacher who's followers later ascribed divinity to him?
To lord, lunatic and liar, the blue text above becomes legend.

And back to Sharkey's argument, lord, lunatic, liar or legend is still nothing more than an attempt to build a philosophical argument to detract from a lack of supporting evidence.

ArtificialGrape
08-20-2011, 00:35
Evolution is like putting watch parts in a box, shaking it, and a Rolex appears.
Making this argument reveals a complete lack of understanding of how evolution works. Richard Dawkins dismantles this in The Blind Watchmaker, there are many other explanations available online, or you could watch less than a minute (from: 1:26 - 2:24) of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs).

GreenDrake
08-20-2011, 05:10
One of the pivotal characteristics of most christian denominations is their absolute arrogance with regard to their stance on "one true god". Heck most religions. That and the fact that the fundie believers can seem like intelligent, educated people one minute and prove otherwise by stating they believe the earth is 6,000 years old the next.

Kingarthurhk
08-20-2011, 06:59
A handy resource, but I don't think any of those are the original autographs. Or is this one of those, "If English is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us" moments?

No, it is multilingual. You asked for a primary source of first hand accounts, so I provided you the link to the complitation of just such a thing. Also, a few years ago, I had the fortune of a seeing a traveling museum of dead sea scrolls. It is interesting how archaeology continually demonstrates the accuarcy of scripture.

muscogee
08-20-2011, 07:16
http://www.biblegateway.com/

Jesus spoke English? Learn something every day.

Animal Mother
08-20-2011, 07:42
No, it is multilingual. You asked for a primary source of first hand accounts, so I provided you the link to the complitation of just such a thing. Also, a few years ago, I had the fortune of a seeing a traveling museum of dead sea scrolls. It is interesting how archaeology continually demonstrates the accuarcy of scripture. No, it really doesn't, but that's yet another tangential issue. The request was not for a compilation of Biblical translations, Triple7 was asked to provide the original autographs, written by the Biblical authors in their own hand (or that of their scribes) so that those originals might be compared to the editions we have now. Extensive though Bible gateway is, it doesn't provide those original autographs.

Sharkey
08-20-2011, 08:29
To lord, lunatic and liar, the blue text above becomes legend.

And back to Sharkey's argument, lord, lunatic, liar or legend is still nothing more than an attempt to build a philosophical argument to detract from a lack of supporting evidence.

This is actually a good point. I like your responses. There is evidence that points to God and Christ. Is there pinpoint evidence that leads one to believe definitely one way or the other? No but neither is there one for evolution. We convict people on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" all the time.

Many were eyewitness accounts that chose not to believe. It makes sense now so many years later that skepticism exists especially when many have chose to wave the banner of Christianity with reckless disregard.

At some point, we draw a line in the sand and say this is what I believe. Let us say that I am wrong, like so many atheists in the RI forum contend. Have those same beliefs helped me in this physical life? Most definitely. Will your same beliefs help on the other side if by chance you are incorrect?

Sure it is a philosophical argument but that is the reason why a Creator gave another creator a brain. I answered the OP question.

Sharkey
08-20-2011, 08:35
No, but I've never claimed that something comes from nothing, so it seems unfair to ask me to explain how it is done.

So instead of discussing the OP topic, we just come here to criticize others responses? Got it.


How is it a trick question? Is salvation available to Christians? If so, how is it obtained?

It's a trick question from your responses to other things I've written. Why should I play along if you aren't?


You can't say Jesus made any of these claims, you don't have any of Jesus writings from which to make this argument. It's the same problem that Triple7's arguments has. Undoubtedly there are those who claimed Jesus was the son of God, but they all wrote long after he was dead.

The eyewitness accounts were recorded and much has been researched to show the validity of those claims which are better than many works of literature not nearly as old.

What do my beliefs have to do with your arguments?

Apparently nothing?

Animal Mother
08-20-2011, 08:50
So instead of discussing the OP topic, we just come here to criticize others responses? Got it. The OP was about the best argument for the Christian God, what does that have to do with my defending a position I've never advocated?
It's a trick question from your responses to other things I've written. Why should I play along if you aren't?To defend your argument and claims.
The eyewitness accounts were recorded and much has been researched to show the validity of those claims which are better than many works of literature not nearly as old. There's no external evidence that any eyewitness accounts were recorded, and quite a bit against that position. If there were evidence of the validity of those claims, that would be the kind of thing requested in the OP. Unfortunately, no such evidence has been forthcoming.
Apparently nothing? Exactly.

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:45
Do you somehow believe that because Santa did not visit your house, and your parents had to cover for him so that you didn't feel bad, it proves that Santa does not exist?:rofl: Good answer!

His parents probably sold the lumps of coal to the local power company to help buy the presents... :tongueout::rofl:

Randy

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:46
The complexity of life on this planet.

Some may think it all just happened by chance, I don't.

Only creationists think it happened by chance.

Randy

Mister_Beefy
08-20-2011, 19:51
Only creationists think it happened by chance.

Randy


:rofl: heh, ok what ever you say pal.

Keyhole
08-20-2011, 20:03
Simple. Magic Man done it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg1kJJ-5Bg4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

THplanes
08-20-2011, 22:56
There is evidence that points to God and Christ. Is there pinpoint evidence that leads one to believe definitely one way or the other? No but neither is there one for evolution. We convict people on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" all the time.
.

You would be wrong, there is definitive evidence for evolution. We have observed the development of new characteristics that were not in the parent. All it takes for speciation to happen is an accumulation of these changes. We have also observed speciation in plants.

Examples of selection and the development of new traits.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

SDGlock23
08-21-2011, 12:21
Something other than the many "atheism is a religion" discussions...

Title says it all, what is your single best argument for the existence of the Christian God?

-ArtificialGrape

Not so much a single best for myself, but rather a collective. There are many gods but only the Most High (Creator of all) cared enough for us that He sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins so that we, who are part of the 1/3rd of Heaven that was cast out with Sataniel (Lucifer) long, long ago, might have a second chance (in our fleshly human bodies) at returning to our first estate, Heaven. Only Jesus Christ living and reigning in your life will make that possible.

Sharkey
08-21-2011, 20:46
You would be wrong, there is definitive evidence for evolution. We have observed the development of new characteristics that were not in the parent. All it takes for speciation to happen is an accumulation of these changes. We have also observed speciation in plants.

Examples of selection and the development of new traits.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Great. Have you seen these "speciation" become anything other than itself? Would that be macroevolution? What caused the initial accumulation of those changes or basically the initial something to cause those changes.

I thought things run down and not up.

So are you saying evolution is a theory or fact for the existence of earth and man? Science is not my strong suit.

Animal Mother
08-21-2011, 21:17
Great. Have you seen these "speciation" become anything other than itself? Speciation is, by definition, becoming a new species and thus something other than itself.
Would that be macroevolution? It would be evolution, "macroevolution" is largely an invention of the creationist movement to try and explain away observed instances of evolutionary change.
What caused the initial accumulation of those changes or basically the initial something to cause those changes. Are you asking what causes genetic change?
I thought things run down and not up. Could you explain exactly what you mean by this?
So are you saying evolution is a theory or fact for the existence of earth and man? Science is not my strong suit. Evolution is a fact. It happens, just like gravity.

nmk
08-21-2011, 21:27
The complexity of life on this planet.

Some may think it all just happened by chance, I don't.

No evolutionary biologist thinks it happened by chance. The "chance"/watchmaker/747 in a junkyard straw man just won't die. What, exactly, do YOU mean by "chance"?

Sharkey
08-21-2011, 22:02
It would be evolution, "macroevolution" is largely an invention of the creationist movement to try and explain away observed instances of evolutionary change.


Oh I thought they acknowledged microevolution?

Not to be rude but you didn't feel like answering some of my other questions so I feel no obligation to answer yours.

Maybe THplanes can respond when he gets a chance?

Running down and not up - 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
I told you I am bad at science.

Berto
08-21-2011, 22:05
To me, the existence of grace.

Animal Mother
08-21-2011, 22:41
Oh I thought they acknowledged microevolution? They do, but they invent a false distinction between micro and macro evolution to do so, when no such distinction exists.
Not to be rude but you didn't feel like answering some of my other questions so I feel no obligation to answer yours. Which of your questions did I not answer?
Running down and not up - 2nd law of thermal dynamics.
I told you I am bad at science. The second law of thermodynamics only applies in closed systems. Living organisms aren't closed systems, they take in external energy.

THplanes
08-22-2011, 03:17
Great. Have you seen these "speciation" become anything other than itself? .

The answer depends on what you mean by anything other than itself. Yes we have seen new species develop, primarily in plants. If you mean an amphibian turning into a reptile the answer is no. Change doesn't happen that fast. For animals it's generally believed to take 100,000 to 1,000,000 years for speciation to occur. As creationist use the word kind these would almost surely be of the same kind. To change kind as used by creationist would take much longer. It would be more accurate to look at number of generations rather than an arbitrary number of years. Some short life cycle animals such as insects, specifically fruit flies, have been observed to differentiate into new species.


Would that be macroevolution? What caused the initial accumulation of
those changes or basically the initial something to cause those changes.
.

Micro-evolution is the selection of traits already present in a population. It just changes the relative frequency of these traits that are already in the population. It's the only kind of evolution the creationist accept. Macro-evolution is the development of a new trait. The examples are in the first link I posted. When a bacteria evolves the ability to use a new substrate, essentially food, that it could not use before you have macro-evolution. This is something that creationist claim can't happen. The cause of the change is a mutation in the DNA of the organism. Mutation can happen in several ways. Look at the part labeled Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation in this link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html



I thought things run down and not up..

In the universe as a whole yes. In isolated areas not necessarily. An obvious example is crystals that grow in hot mineralized water. Same for a snow flake that develops from humidity in the air. In both cases you go from less ordered to more ordered. The building blocks of life also form spontaneously. ArtificialGrape has some good post on this.



So are you saying evolution is a theory or fact for the existence of earth and man? Science is not my strong suit.

It's both a fact and a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

It's a fact in that it has been observed in the lab and in the field. It's a theory as to what mechanisms are the most important and how fast the change happens.

NMG26
08-22-2011, 05:50
In the universe as a whole yes. In isolated areas not necessarily. An obvious example is crystals that grow in hot mineralized water. Same for a snow flake that develops from humidity in the air. In both cases you go from less ordered to more ordered. The building blocks of life also form spontaneously. ArtificialGrape has some good post on this.



I read a good book on this.

"The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra.

It is where I get my fractal avitar from.

Sharkey
08-22-2011, 08:31
The answer depends on what you mean by anything other than itself. Yes we have seen new species develop, primarily in plants. If you mean an amphibian turning into a reptile the answer is no. Change doesn't happen that fast. For animals it's generally believed to take 100,000 to 1,000,000 years for speciation to occur. As creationist use the word kind these would almost surely be of the same kind. To change kind as used by creationist would take much longer. It would be more accurate to look at number of generations rather than an arbitrary number of years. Some short life cycle animals such as insects, specifically fruit flies, have been observed to differentiate into new species.



Micro-evolution is the selection of traits already present in a population. It just changes the relative frequency of these traits that are already in the population. It's the only kind of evolution the creationist accept. Macro-evolution is the development of a new trait. The examples are in the first link I posted. When a bacteria evolves the ability to use a new substrate, essentially food, that it could not use before you have macro-evolution. This is something that creationist claim can't happen. The cause of the change is a mutation in the DNA of the organism. Mutation can happen in several ways. Look at the part labeled Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation in this link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html




In the universe as a whole yes. In isolated areas not necessarily. An obvious example is crystals that grow in hot mineralized water. Same for a snow flake that develops from humidity in the air. In both cases you go from less ordered to more ordered. The building blocks of life also form spontaneously. ArtificialGrape has some good post on this.



It's both a fact and a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

It's a fact in that it has been observed in the lab and in the field. It's a theory as to what mechanisms are the most important and how fast the change happens.

Great. Thanks for a reasonable answer free of sarcasm. I actually did check the talkorigin site last night. I then found a hyperlink on it that disputed the five common questions creationist use to dispute evolution that are misguided.

We could talk about micro and macro, open and closed loops and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, and the other 4 questions but at the end we still have some relatively smart people (smarter than me) that disagree on the scientific data and the origin of life.

I'm just guessing but I would say a lot of scientist base their opinions on disputed facts and leave out common sense philosophy. I don't think it is good to have one without the other.

We currently dispute global warming and as far as I can tell, evolution where there is a credible explanation for the big bang and how species evolve will always be hotly contested. I read where Darwin might have actually stolen the theory of evolution from someone else. I might be concerned with that but that is not where my beliefs lie so I really don't care.

All of this is really off the OP topic but we go down rabbit holes all the time.
I still contend that my issue here is people who have no belief in "religion" continue to post here the most. Go figure. I guess some (not directly pointed at you) come to criticize our asinine belief in something that supposedly doesn't exist. This leaves me to conclude that atheism might indeed be a religion and hence the multi-page thread in RI.

nmk
08-23-2011, 11:17
All of this is really off the OP topic but we go down rabbit holes all the time.
I still contend that my issue here is people who have no belief in "religion" continue to post here the most. Go figure. I guess some (not directly pointed at you) come to criticize our asinine belief in something that supposedly doesn't exist. This leaves me to conclude that atheism might indeed be a religion and hence the multi-page thread in RI.

Is it so hard to believe that there are people who don't care at all about any religious beliefs, but strongly object to misrepresentations of science? Science does not address the existence of any gods, but some religious people sure do like to stick their hands in science in nefarious ways. It's not OK.

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 13:07
Is it so hard to believe that there are people who don't care at all about any religious beliefs, but strongly object to misrepresentations of science? Science does not address the existence of any gods, but some religious people sure do like to stick their hands in science in nefarious ways. It's not OK.

I guess I am one of those you refer to? I've done said it before, I am not religious.

Trust me, I believe that there are lots of folks that don't care about religious beliefs but they are not in the RI forum well because............they don't care. :rofl:

So an ordinary joe can't object to science? Why not? Is science always infallible? If so, science might be god and then we have a whole slew of issues to discuss. Yeah no kidding, science doesn't explain the existence of god but it has tried to explain the existence of man. You do know there are Christian scientist right?

Oh, some are nefarious now? I better go look that up before I reply to that. :supergrin:

Animal Mother
08-23-2011, 22:14
So an ordinary joe can't object to science? Anyone can object to anything they like. However, when objections to science are made without any basis in observation or the evidence, they can't be taken seriously. The same is true when those objections are based on wrong assumptions, like the belief that evolution somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics.

nmk
08-23-2011, 22:31
I guess I am one of those you refer to? I've done said it before, I am not religious.

Trust me, I believe that there are lots of folks that don't care about religious beliefs but they are not in the RI forum well because............they don't care. :rofl:

So an ordinary joe can't object to science? Why not? Is science always infallible? If so, science might be god and then we have a whole slew of issues to discuss. Yeah no kidding, science doesn't explain the existence of god but it has tried to explain the existence of man. You do know there are Christian scientist right?

Oh, some are nefarious now? I better go look that up before I reply to that. :supergrin:

I don't know what your history is here and I wasn't targeting anything specifically at you, merely replying to your post. As to the section I placed in bold, I have no idea why you are addressing those questions to me or how they are relevant to my post.

Sharkey
08-23-2011, 22:46
I don't know what your history is here and I wasn't targeting anything specifically at you, merely replying to your post. As to the section I placed in bold, I have no idea why you are addressing those questions to me or how they are relevant to my post.

Well you did quote me so you can understand how I might think the comments are directed at me. I'm addressing them to you well because you asked or made the comment.

I'm already ignoring some here even when they quote me so I'll do the same for you if you prefer.

See the OP was about your argument for God and somehow as if by magic, it seems more atheists and/or scientist responded. I guess I should have guessed it was disingenuous by who posted. I'm learning the ropes around here. I might stay but it is looking doubtful.

Triple7
08-25-2011, 09:55
A handy resource, but I don't think any of those are the original autographs. Or is this one of those, "If English is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us" moments?

How many truly ancient books have original autographs? (Zero.) You are asking for something that you know no one can supply. While, there are over 24,000 early manuscripts (some only 25 years removed from the originals), that some how are all with in 99.99% accuracy of each other. Oh then throw in the Dead Sea scrolls just to double check ourselves 1900 years later.
Some how we are fine with the legitimacy of Plato, Homer, Caesar.....but the Bible which evidence far out weighs any of them....."nope that's not the originals" Please.

ArtificialGrape
08-25-2011, 10:26
How many truly ancient books have original autographs? (Zero.) You are asking for something that you know no one can supply. While, there are over 24,000 early manuscripts (some only 25 years removed from the originals), that some how are all with in 99.99% accuracy of each other. Oh then throw in the Dead Sea scrolls just to double check ourselves 1900 years later.
Some how we are fine with the legitimacy of Plato, Homer, Caesar.....but the Bible which evidence far out weighs any of them....."nope that's not the originals" Please.
What is your source for "24,000 early manuscripts... all with in 99.99% accuracy"?

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
08-25-2011, 10:57
See the OP was about your argument for God and somehow as if by magic, it seems more atheists and/or scientist responded. I guess I should have guessed it was disingenuous by who posted. I'm learning the ropes around here. I might stay but it is looking doubtful.
I meant to respond to this earlier... you admitted in your 1st post to the thread to not having read the first two pages, but despite Brad's (mostly) tongue in cheek remark, I have not been using the responses as target practice. I was generally interested in what people find to be compelling, and I have not been trying to refute all the responses.

Don't let the nonbelievers (or believers) run you off. Like a large family, we put the fun in dysfunctional. :cool:

-ArtificialGrape

Triple7
08-25-2011, 11:42
What is your source for "24,000 early manuscripts... all with in 99.99% accuracy"?

-ArtificialGrape

Parts of the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other "ancient" work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) manuscripts, 10,000 Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_language), Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages), Gothic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language), Ethiopic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%27ez_language), Coptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_language) and Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language).

and the accuracy I'll have to pull out later. I've got ancient lit books at home.

Triple7
08-25-2011, 11:51
What is your source for "24,000 early manuscripts... all with in 99.99% accuracy"?

-ArtificialGrape

From CARM, which I know is "biased", and I was wrong 99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Japle
08-25-2011, 12:02
Posted by Triple7:
While, there are over 24,000 early manuscripts (some only 25 years removed from the originals), that some how are all with in 99.99% accuracy of each other.
Are we talking about NT manuscripts?

I ask, because there are no manuscripts that are remotely original. There’s an entire field of Biblical study called “textual criticism” devoted to this subject. Scholars have to learn Greek (the language of the OT) and Latin, German and French so they can read the earliest known writings and what previous scholars had to say about them. What they’ve learned is that almost all of the earliest known NT manuscripts were copied from copies that were copied from older copies for centuries. They all contain mistakes and often changes based on the personal beliefs of the people doing the copying.

This was made worse by the fact that the language being used didn’t use spaces between words or any punctuation.

The common idea that the Bible was faithfully copied by careful, highly trained people who never made any mistakes is absurd. It didn’t happen that way.

See:

The New Testament Canon by Harry Gamble

The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

Triple7
08-25-2011, 14:58
Are we talking about NT manuscripts?

I ask, because there are no manuscripts that are remotely original. There’s an entire field of Biblical study called “textual criticism” devoted to this subject. Scholars have to learn Greek (the language of the OT) and Latin, German and French so they can read the earliest known writings and what previous scholars had to say about them. What they’ve learned is that almost all of the earliest known NT manuscripts were copied from copies that were copied from older copies for centuries. They all contain mistakes and often changes based on the personal beliefs of the people doing the copying.

This was made worse by the fact that the language being used didn’t use spaces between words or any punctuation.

The common idea that the Bible was faithfully copied by careful, highly trained people who never made any mistakes is absurd. It didn’t happen that way.

See:

The New Testament Canon by Harry Gamble

The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman


This is not the case. We have one manuscript in less than a life span of the original, and multiple very close to the original.


<table class="carm-table-with-border" align="center" border="0"><tbody><tr><td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">Important
Manuscript
Papyri</td> <td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">Contents</td> <td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">Date
Original Written</td> <td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">MSS
Date</td> <td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">Approx.
Time Span</td> <td style="background-color: #eaf2ff;" valign="top">Location</td></tr> <tr><td>p<sup>52</sup>
(John Rylands
Fragment)3 (http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence#footnote3_0r1hhcb)</td> <td>John 18:31-33 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.31-33),37-38 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%2018.37-38)</td> <td>circa
96 A.D.</td> <td>circa
125
A.D.</td> <td>29 yrs</td> <td>John Rylands Library, Manchester, England</td></tr> <tr><td>P<sup>46</sup>
(Chester Beatty Papyrus)</td> <td>Rom. 5:17-6:3 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom.%205.17-6.3),5-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%205.5-14); 8:15-25 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.15-25), 27-35 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%208.27-35); 10:1-11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.1-11),22 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.22),24-33 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.24-33),35 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2010.35); 16:1-23 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.1-23), 25-27 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Rom%2016.25-27); Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess.%201.1),9-10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%201.9-10); 2:1-3 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%202.1-3); 5:5-9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.5-9), 23-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Thess%205.23-28)</td> <td>50's-70's</td> <td>circa
200
A.D.</td> <td>Approx.
150 yrs</td> <td>Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library</td></tr> <tr><td>P<sup>66</sup>
(Bodmer Papyrus)</td> <td>John 1:1-6:11 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.1-6.11),35-14 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/John%201.35-14):26; fragment of 14:29-21:9</td> <td>70's
</td> <td>circa
200
A.D.</td> <td>Approx.
130 yrs</td> <td>Cologne, Geneva</td></tr> <tr><td>P<sup>67</sup></td> <td>Matt. 3:9 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt.%203.9),15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%203.15); 5:20-22 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.20-22), 25-28 (http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt%205.25-28)</td> <td> </td> <td>circa
200
A.D.</td> <td>Approx.
130 yrs</td> <td>Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Japle
08-25-2011, 15:11
Tell me something, Triple7, what part of "almost all" do I need to explain to you?

Triple7
08-25-2011, 16:27
Tell me something, Triple7, what part of "almost all" do I need to explain to you?

Well let me say this.
OF COURSE THEY ARE COPIES. lol.
There is one original "letter" or Gospel, Paul writing to whatever church then these letters were copied and passed around. I really don't think Paul had the intention of writing a Holy Book. I honestly think he was just writing to churches that he either visited or had a reason to write to. Saying they are copies is obvious. You don't take a single letter and turn it into 24K without that.

Animal Mother
08-25-2011, 16:27
How many truly ancient books have original autographs? (Zero.) You are asking for something that you know no one can supply. I realize that, but I'm not the one making claims based on the original texts, which you now admit don't exist.
While, there are over 24,000 early manuscripts (some only 25 years removed from the originals), that some how are all with in 99.99% accuracy of each other. Oh then throw in the Dead Sea scrolls just to double check ourselves 1900 years later. There's so much wrong here. Define "early" in this context? Your example of one "only 25 years removed from the originals" isn't a manuscript, it's a fragment of 14 lines of one chapter of John.
Some how we are fine with the legitimacy of Plato, Homer, Caesar.....but the Bible which evidence far out weighs any of them....."nope that's not the originals" Please. None of your other examples make either the claims of the NT, nor are they cited with the same level of authority given to the NT. No one argues that Homer or Plato are perfect in their composition and everyone, as far as I know, acknowledges changes and alterations in the texts over time.

Japle
08-25-2011, 17:53
Posted by Triple7:
There is one original "letter" or Gospel, Paul writing to whatever church then these letters were copied and passed around.
Right. And dozens of copies have been found, very few of which are identical.

Face it; until Constantine legitimized Christianity in 313, it was a religion of poor and generally uneducated peasants. The people doing the copying weren’t professional scribes. They were just folks who were available, had a little spare time and were literate enough to do the job. Usually.

Knowing perfectly well you won’t read anything that might damage your blind faith, I again recommend you read the books I listed in a previous post.

Animal Mother
08-25-2011, 18:47
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. No, they don't. If the claim you make is true, why is there no reference to 2 Peter until Origen in the third century when he also acknowledges it is disputed?

NMG26
08-25-2011, 19:00
So the Book does not prove that there is a God.

The phenomena of belief does not prove that there is a God either.

The greatest proof to the believer is the relationship with God. This will never be proof to the skeptic, until they too have a realationship with God. It starts with faith, and ends with love.

There is no better answer.

Triple7
08-25-2011, 20:21
Right. And dozens of copies have been found, very few of which are identical.

Face it; until Constantine legitimized Christianity in 313, it was a religion of poor and generally uneducated peasants. The people doing the copying weren’t professional scribes. They were just folks who were available, had a little spare time and were literate enough to do the job. Usually.

Knowing perfectly well you won’t read anything that might damage your blind faith, I again recommend you read the books I listed in a previous post.

You've mistaken me for someone else. I don't have "blind" faith. But I'll argue certain things.
And I agree it was copied not by formal scribes (NT that is) but still we come to 99.5% hummmm

Triple7
08-25-2011, 20:29
I realize that, but I'm not the one making claims based on the original texts, which you now admit don't exist.

Re-read my first statement....."close to the og text"

There's so much wrong here. Define "early" in this context? Your example of one "only 25 years removed from the originals" isn't a manuscript, it's a fragment of 14 lines of one chapter of John.
Yes, that is a beginning.... Now talk to anyone about ancient text and tell me what early is. Then look at the chart

None of your other examples make either the claims of the NT, nor are they cited with the same level of authority given to the NT. No one argues that Homer or Plato are perfect in their composition and everyone, as far as I know, acknowledges changes and alterations in the texts over time.

And you will not find me saying that letter for letter the Bible is 100% the same as the og text. That doesn't bother me in the really.

..............................

Animal Mother
08-25-2011, 21:29
Re-read my first statement....."close to the og text" Re-read my first objection, without access to the "og text" how can you make this claim?
Yes, that is a beginning.... Now talk to anyone about ancient text and tell me what early is. Then look at the chart I'm asking you what early is in your claim, "there are over 24,000 early manuscripts". The effort to shift the discussion to other ancient texts is at best tangential because they don't claim any supernatural authority or divine origin. Similarly, if your claim of 99.5% continuity for all the examples were true, how would it have been possible to identify three distinct text-types, with the vast majority of existing manuscripts belonging to the latest variation? How do you go about calculating the 99.5% figure?
And you will not find me saying that letter for letter the Bible is 100% the same as the og text. That doesn't bother me in the really. But you are making an unsupportable claim, that the text as we have it now is close to the original autographs.

NMG26
08-26-2011, 05:58
No matter how close the texts are to the original, I think it can be agreed, that the people believed in God.

People will always beleive in God. God can not be proved to the skeptic. It is a matter of faith. All faith has an impact. That is why we adopt them. They move us closer to a good fit with what is in our hearts. "Take a look inside your heart
There's an answer in your heart"- Fight the Good Fight- Triumph

Sharkey
08-26-2011, 09:01
No matter how close the texts are to the original, I think it can be agreed, that the people believed in God.

People will always beleive in God. God can not be proved to the skeptic. It is a matter of faith. All faith has an impact. That is why we adopt them. They move us closer to a good fit with what is in our hearts. "Take a look inside your heart
There's an answer in your heart"- Fight the Good Fight- Triumph

Great song by a great band. Thanks, now I gotta go pull that CD to hear the album.

Japle
08-26-2011, 09:53
So now we’re down to quoting song lyrics. Terrific.

It’s taken over 100 posts to prove what we’ve known all along; there are no rational arguments for the existence of any god. Without faith, there’s nothing.

Imagine my surprise.

NMG26
08-26-2011, 19:40
So now we’re down to quoting song lyrics. Terrific.

It’s taken over 100 posts to prove what we’ve known all along; there are no rational arguments for the existence of any god. Without faith, there’s nothing.

Imagine my surprise.

Yes. Without faith, we do not see God.
With faith, we claim to know God.
The relationship is the greatest proof for the believer.
The skeptic one day may find reason, in their own heart, to add this faith to their lives.

The believer knows the benefits.
It is rational to the believer, because they have experienced the presence of God in their lives, and they can not deny it. That is the only proof I have or need.

It has always been the relationship.

I did not find God in religion.

I was found God when I decided to love.

Another song:
"Greatest Love of All"

"Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

And if by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love"-Whiney Houston

ArtificialGrape
08-26-2011, 20:11
Yes. Without faith, we do not see God.
With faith, we claim to know God.
The relationship is the greatest proof for the believer.
The skeptic one day may find reason, in their own heart, to add this faith to their lives.

The believer knows the benefits.
It is rational to the believer, because they have experienced the presence of God in their lives, and they can not deny it. That is the only proof I have or need.

It has always been the relationship.

I did not find God in religion.

I was found God when I decided to love.

Another song:
"Greatest Love of All"

"Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

And if by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love"-Whiney Houston






All your life you've waited for love to come and stay
And now that I have found you, you must not slip away
I know it's hard believin' the words you've heard before
But darlin' you must trust them just once more... 'cause baby
Goodbye doesn't mean forever
Let me tell you goodbye doesn't mean we'll never be together again
If you wake up and I'm not there, I won't be long away
'Cause the things you do my Goodbye Girl
Will bring me back to you.

I know you've been taken, afraid to hurt again
You fight the love you feel for me instead of givin' in
But I can wait forever, for helpin' you to see
That I was meant for you and you for me... so remember

Goodbye doesn't mean forever
Let me tell you goodbye doesn't mean we'll never be together again
Though we may be so far apart you still will have my heart
So forget your past my Goodbye Girl
'Cause now you're home at last.
-David Gates, "The Goodbye Girl"

NMG26
08-26-2011, 20:52
Without faith, there’s nothing.


I thought about quoting you in my sig, but it would have been taking you out of context.:rofl:

Animal Mother
08-26-2011, 21:16
Yes. Without faith, we do not see God.
With faith, we claim to know God.
The relationship is the greatest proof for the believer.
The skeptic one day may find reason, in their own heart, to add this faith to their lives.

The believer knows the benefits.
It is rational to the believer, because they have experienced the presence of God in their lives, and they can not deny it. That is the only proof I have or need.

It has always been the relationship.

I did not find God in religion.

I was found God when I decided to love. Do the believers in any other religion have any less of a relationship with their deity or deities?

NMG26
08-27-2011, 15:56
Do the believers in any other religion have any less of a relationship with their deity or deities?


I started my faith relationship with God as a Christain. I am no longer a Christian. I think that a relationship with God, through faith, can be found in all spiritual paths. I have no experience with other religions though.

I believe that God can be found in all humanity, no matter the religion.