Evidence For God. The ?real? evidence for a living God

[iwuvcookies 0]

The quotes you made from the Bible are just as the same as the many versions of the Bible there are out there. The different versions are different interpretations of the Bible and its meaning. People can't agree on one thing so they change it to their meaning. I'm not discrediting your finds or anything but I'm just wondering how sure are we about it? Faith alone shouldn't be tested by facts and what not, but how do you know what is true if there isn't a one true fact or belief. I hope you get wha ti'm saying. its sort of confusing.I still believe in the existence of God. I see it as God did something and humans just took over after he created life or a chance for life to start.

[wild20 0]

Tyssen:You are right. Religion didn't cause the Iraq war, which is why I don't like it when people say that religion causes all the wars today. It isn't true.fasdsffasda:The point is to first VALIDATE the Bible, which I believe I have since no one can explain why many men all had science down even before the scientific facts were known. The Bible can prove itself, and that is what I am showing you guys.Now can I remind you that evolution isn't even a scientific fact. It is what you call a theory, a hypothosis that cannot be proven because there is no real evidence to back it up except for extict animals that we still can't study. Your question about bones and dinosaurs is actually quite simple. Again the bible gives a reason. There was a flood proven by the deep canyons we have today and noted by ripple marks in areas of flatness such as plains. If you look at arial views pf the great plains in the US, you can see ripple marks that show a large amount of water once washed through there at enormous speed, thus further validating the Bible's acount of a worldwide flood. This would have also wiped out the dinosaurs and left mass graveyards and fossils seen today, validating the Bible even further. The Bible is the one source that can actually explain major events in history.Prehistoric findings! Oh yes, I love this one. Remember that only eight people survived after the flood because none o them believed in God. This left thousands to die leaving people, villages, pottery and masses of other evidence that is supposedly prehistoric natives from ten million years ago. ame goes with bones, only a few of each animals were taken on the ark, which gives thousands of animals left out, showing that something wiped them all out at once. Another is the fact that sea life fossils have been found on mountains! Why, when the water dried up, sea life living on the land died without the water if they got trapped in pools. All this just adds to the Bible's acount of creation and a one true living God that created us.You said that hristianity is just a copy of other religions? Please note that it is the oldest and existed even before there WERE other religions. It was not copied. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, the belief that there was a one true God. Christianity is just the belief that Jesus came and died for our sins. CHRISTianity. Judaism is the oldest religion though, dating back to before Babylon. Showing that the one TRUE God actually is one that stayed the same over the course of 4000 years before other religions sprang up.Cookies: Are you condemning what I am doing because you say I will lose my faith. I can assure you taht although faith cannot be proven, I believe God can. I understand what you are saying. I just like giving facts as well. What I am really doing now is proving the Bible to be correct. But hey, thanks for the comment anyway.

[CrazyRob 0]

well wild i don and i dont believe in god beacuse has anyone ever seen him?and most of the stories in the bible people just made upup i do believe in god because he has made things happen when i have asked him toso i think all in all there is a force out there thats greater that any other force in the unbierse

[wild20 0]

You are right Golden. There is a force out there. Some say it is just a freak of nature, but the coincidences are just to, well, a coincidence. That is why I believe there is a God that came and saved us from the sin we created after he created us.

[morosophos 0]

ON EVOLUTION

 

The original post in this thread posed the question along the lines "If organisms evolve in response to environmental changes and surviving better in their biomes, why have humans evolved to so great an extent and other lesser organisms to so little?"

 

The answer is simple?genetic mutation. Darwin's Theory of Evolution states that evolution is simply the greater manifestation of a mutated trait in a population. The progenitor of this thread brilliantly proposed the situation in which humans fundementally evolved from fish. However, why do fish yet exist if they are therefore obsolete? Everyone should agree there are different species of fish, developed due to some form of isolation. This isolation could be geographic or simply the instinct to infest the sea over a greater distance. Because these groups of essentially the same fish are living by themselves, each group developes its own "quirks." Eventually these quirks are magnified to such a degree that the fish can no longer be classified as the same species, for the can no longer copulate with one another. I propose that this is a situation similar to what happened in the creation of land creatures. Only certain populations of fish, living in isolation, developed a mutated gene by happenstance to be able to further develop into amphibians, who ultimately became humans.

 

In shorter terms, fish still exist because the fish that survive today were descendents from the fish that never developed the necessary traits to walk the land. Note that despite the above example, genetic distinction doubtlessly occurred much earlier than the development of fish.

 

Fish have indeed evolved, by the way. The first "fish" were probably similar to todays cnidarians?jellyfish and other simple marine creatures. It took massive amounts of time for fish to become the scaled vertebrates they are today.

 

ON CREATIONISM

 

By Creationism, I mean the literal belief the interpretation of the creation of the world as found in the book of Genesis and the story of the succession of the human race from Adam and Eve.

 

There is already a problem. There are in fact two creation stories found side-by-side in the book of Genesis (Gn 1-2:4a, Gn 2:4b-14). The first one, in which God creates the universe in six days and rests on the seventh, explains man coming as the final creation of God. The second story, which includes the creation of Eden, is a very short story, but a very controversial one to itself (more on that later). It is from this second story that the story of Adam and Eve arises. The first story reads as if many humans were created all at once, whereas the second story mentions only Adam and Eve.

 

But let's abandon discrepencies thus far and continue on, for there is more flawed logic in a literal translation afoot. Let's assume that God created the world as stated in the first creation story, except for the part where He creates humans, wherein we'll believe the second one (cut & paste Bible interpretations... hehe). So we have Adam and Eve, who finally eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree and are exiled from Eden into the land where they are no longer able to comprehend the animals, production results only from manual labour, the woman must bear the pain of childbirth, etc. They have two sons, Cain and Abel. Abel seems to be a meticulous young man and has a very good relationship with God, because he offers the best of his crop as an oblation to Him. Cain gets jealous of Abel because God seems to favour him (Cain apparently hadn't been offering the same level of oblations/sacrifices as his brother). So he decides to off him.

 

And hence we have reached the end of the human race as we know it. If we are indeed to believe that God created the entirety of the human race in Adam and Eve, then we're screwed. Adam and Eve have probably been alive some four hundred years now (Genesis mentions astronomical lifespans), and now one of their only two sons has died. The human population consists of three people: Adam, Eve, and Cain. The Bible only mentions one more child from Adam ("Seth" in Gn 5:3). However, this doesn't solve the problem; the problem, you see, is a lack of females. Neither surviving son is mentioned in the Bible showing Eve their manly chuztpah. So in theory, we don't actually exist.

 

Yet somehow we do. The Bible also mentions Cain having relations with his wife (Gn 4:17a); where did she come from? Then I guess we have to assume that both creation stories are completely true. There is a problem with this, as mentioned earlier?there are discrepencies. One story (the first) mentions the creation of beasts and animals, and the other (the second) does not. There is a verse, however, that causes even more controversy. "... while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil..." (Gn 2:5). The italicised is the problem?tilling the soil. Man did not do manual labour (according to the Bible) until he was banished from Eden. However, God (whom, translating literally, many believe wrote, or at least dictated, the Bible) mentions the soil as something that is going to be inevitably tilled; that the soil's sole purpose is to be worked by the hands of mankind. If God indeed wrote the Bible, he has little faith in humans.

 

ON RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCES

 

If God indeed wrote the Bible. Believing that God Himself wrote the Bible leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible, for God is believed to be infallible?why would one interpret any way other than literally if He wrote it? However, we can clearly see the contradictions in the Bible, and we have only explored so far as the first five chapters of Genesis! I cannot list all the contradictions, there are so many. This means in no way that the Bible is wrong, however. It just means that a literal approach is not the best way. The Bible is a holy work of literature; it has themes, metaphors, and figurative language like any other work. Proper interpretation is the result of analysing all the above.

 

For instance, what is the true message of the creation stories? A recurring verse in the first creation story is "And He saw it was good." This means that creation is inherantly benevolent. The crimes of Cain and the subsequent forgiveness from God show the mercy of God and the imperfection of humanity, which struggles to serve Him. All of these inferences are perfectly compatible in both creation stories and throughout the Bible, as well as with the Theory of Evolution.

 

A contextual interpretation of the Bible means that God inspired the writings found in the Bible. But God did not come down with His almighty Ticonderoga and inscribe the Bible into stone tablets. That's a whole lot of stone, a whole lot of pencil, and a whole lot of date discrepency to account for. The writings found in the Bible are spaced so far apart in respect to their writing chronologically that it suggests many different people wrote the Bible. Carbon-dating of the individual scrolls, a thorough analysis of the Hebrew in which the stories were written, and other methods have found the two creation stories found in Genesis are at least two or three hundred years apart. If God wrote it, why wouldn't he do it all at once? God has no bathroom breaks.

 

Overall, contextual interpretations of Bible stories can be far more wholesome and less erroneous in relating to other sources of knowledge than literal interpretations. Literal interpretations are very narrow in application; they are full of absolutes, which results in a massive population of infidels. When enemy cultures and religions with these strict interpretations of sacred scripture meet, the Crusades, terrorist attacks, and malevolent cults may occur. Religion itself isn't wrong (I myself, though not Christian per se, am religious), but persecution on behalf of God (who is portrayed as the force of good) is silly.

[wild20 0]

There is only one creation story. But it is a nice thought. The two are almost identical. The second just goes into to detail. Whether there was two, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. As to Cain's wife, it is very possible that brothers married sisters during this time. Is it wrong? No, not till Leviticus does God put an end to the intermarriage.Evolution. Yes that always looming figure. I believe in evolution. But micro. Not Macro. There is one thing that stands out in my mind. You believe that we came from nothing. That we are related to trees that must have mutated to living things, and who knows what else. You can't even find a link between humans and other animals. You will spend you years looking for that fossil and find nothing.On taking the Bible literally, are you saying that God did not inspire the creation of the Bible? What is your belief? What is your point? I believe the Bible is literal. Why else would it be here?I see that you believe in Evolution, but look at the facts. all these little stories of the Bible mean nothing except for the account of how God decided to make a creation and love it to the point of giving His Son up for it. Evolution has more holes in it then the Bible.Yes it it true taht man did no manual labor. Everything was perfect. What is your point? On the fact that there were only a few sons, who says there weren't more. The evidnce you give is all circumstanstial, which doesn't help you case because there are so many other opions and answers.Carbon dating, might I add, is found by many scientists to be in-accurate over a period of three to four thousand years. What does this mean? Most fossils are dated inaccurately. Even if those scrolls were written years apart, that doesn't mean they weren't:1. copies2. by the same person over that period.The Bible however, is all in one stride. It doesn't contridict itself, and if it seems it does, there is always an explanation. What it is with this Genesis story, I have no idea why it is so important, but it is all you are holding onto. Give it a rest. some things have to be taken on faith, and as long as the stories don't contridict each other, which they don't, you have to reason to base the Bible inaccurate. Some things will and will not be revealed to us.

[morosophos 0]

There is only one creation story. But it is a nice thought. The two are almost identical. The second just goes into to detail. Whether there was two, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. As to Cain's wife, it is very possible that brothers married sisters during this time. Is it wrong? No, not till Leviticus does God put an end to the intermarriage.

 

Evolution. Yes that always looming figure. I believe in evolution. But micro. Not Macro. There is one thing that stands out in my mind. You believe that we came from nothing. That we are related to trees that must have mutated to living things, and who knows what else. You can't even find a link between humans and other animals. You will spend you years looking for that fossil and find nothing.

 

On taking the Bible literally, are you saying that God did not inspire the creation of the Bible? What is your belief? What is your point? I believe the Bible is literal. Why else would it be here?

 

I see that you believe in Evolution, but look at the facts. all these little stories of the Bible mean nothing except for the account of how God decided to make a creation and love it to the point of giving His Son up for it. Evolution has more holes in it then the Bible.

 

Yes it it true taht man did no manual labor. Everything was perfect. What is your point? On the fact that there were only a few sons, who says there weren't more. The evidnce you give is all circumstanstial, which doesn't help you case because there are so many other opions and answers.

 

Carbon dating, might I add, is found by many scientists to be in-accurate over a period of three to four thousand years. What does this mean? Most fossils are dated inaccurately. Even if those scrolls were written years apart, that doesn't mean they weren't:

1. copies

2. by the same person over that period.

The Bible however, is all in one stride. It doesn't contridict itself, and if it seems it does, there is always an explanation. What it is with this Genesis story, I have no idea why it is so important, but it is all you are holding onto. Give it a rest. some things have to be taken on faith, and as long as the stories don't contridict each other, which they don't, you have to reason to base the Bible inaccurate. Some things will and will not be revealed to us.

 

There are definitely two distinct creation stories. Why would the Bible go on to mention God creating the earth, plants, and humans all over again? The answer is that these stories were taken from different sources and put together later in the same compilation, the book of Genesis. One may have been written in Juda, the other in Israel (recall the split of Israel in circa 722 BC). The fact in itself that there are two creation stories does not rebuke the idea of literal interpretation of Genesis; the fact that they are somewhat contradictory about details does.

 

As for the argument about tilling soil, God (if He is going to be the direct author) states that "there was no soil for man to till." When did man start tilling soil? After banishment from Eden. The way this is written, however, implies that God created the soil just for mankind to till, as if there were absolutely no escape from sin, which was our "free will" to choose.

 

The Bible makes no mention whatsoever of Adam and Eve having any sort of daughter, therefore there would be no sister for Cain to marry in the first place.

 

As to the Theory of Evolution, humans obviously came from something. You say humans literally came from dirt; I say humans literally came from archaic life (which came from organic molecules, from atoms). But if you were to ask me where the atoms came from, I would have no problem at all with the idea of a higher being or deity. It seems perfectly plausible. As I said before, the Theory of Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. As for coming from trees, that is unlikely. Although mankind and trees have a common ancestor (far back in historysingle-celled organisms), mankind is not directly decended from trees. Humans also have been proven to have many things in common with other animals; many links have been found. Certainly anyone can see the physical similarities between mankind and chimps and between these chimps and other animals. Believe it or not, one can physically see the succession of evolution. A more concrete link is one that has only come recently, within the most recent decades. DNA analysis reveals similar sequences of nucleotides amongst many creatures; the more recent the evolutionary fork, the more similar the sequence and consequently the more alike they arephysically, functionally, and in respect to lifestyles as well.

 

I have no problem with the Bible being the inspired word of God. The keyword here is inspired. I do not believe that God dictated the words in the Bible, much less wrote it Himself. The direct author of the Bible is humans, humans who were knowledgeable in holy affairs and had the betterment of all creation in mind. Further evidence that humans wrote the Bible is that there was no Bible at the time of Adam. There wasn't even a Bible two thousand years ago at the time of Christ. The first Bible did not appear until the Latin Vulgate in the fifth century A.D. Before then, it was a collection of scholarly writings in various languages. These writings, by the way, were contained with other writings which are not in the modern Bible. Humans had to distinguish what should and should not be part of the canon, which has been revised several times. The only way to decide was to look at the content and decide whether or not the general message of the writing was appropriate in light of God. God doesn't sign "YHWH" in gaudy handwriting all over His manuscripts.

 

The Torah is an assortment of writings in light of the Hebrew/Jewish culture. When Jesus (whom Christians call Christ) came to earth (God incarnate or not), things changedthere became a distinct entity from the current Jewish authority. Laws, culture, people, and doctrine changed. The Bible (the first five booksGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomyare actually the Torah) is a reflection on the Christian culture: nothing more, nothing less. Is it indeed the inspired word of God? Sure. But because humans are the direct author, not God, there is apt to be error. When I say error, I do not mean error in respect to message. The message is still there, that is why the writings were chosen to be in the Bible in the first place. Error applies to historical accuracy and bias. Humans aren't impartial creatures, especially in the Old Testament (surely you don't think God would actually condone Jihadthat it was God's will that the Hebrew people massacre benevolent native Canaanitesdo you?).

 

The contradictions found in the Bible are the result of the aforementioned human inaccuracy. There are contradictions, by the way. The Gospels are an excellent example. Read the Gospel of Mark and then read the Gospel of John and tell me if you find anything at all similar apart from:

1. A man named Jesus

2. Disciples

3. Resurrection

Trust me, there will be so very little in common. The authors of the Gospels had different purposes, and therefore wrote differently and included different stories. This is not to say that both Gospels are perfectly true, but I am saying that they have human authors and should be taken as suchtranslated contextually. Furthermore, if God is truly the author of the Bible, why are some things revealed to us and other things not? It shouldn't be that way. If you hold that God is perfect, then He is perfectly able to find a way to present information in such a manner as there are no contradictions, no one is left wondering, no one is left "in the dark" as to what some of the phrasing means, and that everything is revealed in such a manner as to be satisfactory to humans.

 

What if there weren't more sons? The problem isn't sons, it's daughters. There are plenty of men to go around. But despite this, if we are going to fill-in information into the Bible that is missing, we might as well add in the verse "And then God created atoms, and saw that they were good. These atoms formed ionic and covalent bonds to form molecules, the basic structure of all things. These molecules formed the cells that are the building blocks of all lifeplant, animal, fungus, bacteria, and archaea, all of which He saw were good. Then, He took His mighty right hand and created the laws of evolution, so that life might beget itself in the wonderful cycle of nature, which was also good."

[wild20 0]

Wonderful! Simply wonderful! You are taking the Bible literally. Otherwise, you would not be using this story as your backing. But the question is I want to ask, does a two story in Genesis really matter? Might I also imply that your argument on the fact that there is no soil for man to till, is not completely correct. Why? Because you see there was no soil for man to till, though not in the manner in which you expected. Rather, there was no soil that NEEDED to be tilled. Although your interpretation could be quite convincing, God did in fact create soil for plants, and not because He decided to make us fall. But nice thought anyway.

 

Next, the Bible may not have mentioned that Adam and Eve had daughters, but does this mean that they didn't? It doesn't say whether there were large birds and small but we know that there were MOST LIKELY, both.

 

That is quite the theory about evolution. Actually could learn something from it except for several things. Here are the problems I see:

1. No human records of the "missing" link have been found. But we can see hundreds of fossils of Rhino's all over the place, a creature said to be older then us. As the dinosaurs are said to be too. But it seems strange that we can't find the elusive link between us and some other animal. Coincidence? Hardly.

2. Your theory about common looks and maybe even dna wouldn't convince me for two reasons. Common frame structure, and uncommon plant life.

 

You see we are complex in the fact that we can eat various substances with no ill effects. You say we came from little tiny bacteria, or organisms. Yet you cam't tell me where a little plant came from, that is not even a thouasand time less complex as we are. But yet you expect me to believe that slowly over time, we learned to eat these things. And we slowly adjusted. But in reality, we couldn't have evolved with those plants. We would have starved to death.

 

I can really knock down evolution with one argument. No food. When the first cell appeared, it had to of started by some proteins or chemicals in the ground or whatever. What is more, hundreds of different species of these organisms didn't pop up at once. Only one at a time. A problem? Yes. There was nothing for them to eat. There was nothing on the earth excpet rocks. In order for this thing to live, it had to have eaten something. But it had to evolve to eat what was in it's environment. Could it have done this in a timely manner? No. It had to evolve from something, then eat something that it's body had no idea how to use. It couldn't have happened.

 

Now back to the Bible. I see your point about inspired, but I still think God wouldn't let millions led astray by one book. I believe that He guided every last move in the translation of the Bible, and in it being put together. And yes although the writers made different viewpoints when writing the Gospels, they are accurate to every detail and never meet any conflict with each other.

 

Your theories are wonderful, but they lack everything, and are therefore a theory. They cannot be proven. There is evidence for both sides. But I find more evidence for the Bible then any else. The Bible has theories and scientific facts that were never proven until years later. That is why I believe tha word of God.

[PeaceofMind 0]

The Question is not "Why should I believe" but "Why shoudn't I believe" I mean you got nothing to lose and its only one Sunday. What's the worst that can happen.Plus if you listen to all the other religions out there...it sound like some serious BS.umm no offense.But some things don't seem to flow with the world all togather. The world gonna end soon. because I think somewher around 1942 in the bible it said that Isreal will unite as acountry once again. and that means that its only the begining of the end of the world... =D save ya souls while you still got one...not that I'm preacing or anything just makin a point.

[saga 0]

christanity just copied other single god religons before it, so really islam and christanity are just copys of religons you believe are false.

the first who worship one god is the egyptians. ONce they have this pharoh who erased all the other gods and commanded that his followers will only believe in one god. the sun god. but unfortunately to this pharoh, when he died, the one who succeded him erased him in history by erasing all the documentation made about him (drawings in the stone walls). so the egyptians went back in believe multiple gods. During the time of that pharoh the hebrews were his slaves thus the hebrews inherited this belief of one almighty god. but when came the new leader the hebrews still remained to their beliefs and never converted to the beliefs of the egyptians gods and goddess. and cam moses.......... and came christian...

[wild20 0]

Peace of Mind:May I give some words of advice. God is not merely something you try out because you have nothing to lose. It is because you love Him for what He did for you. May I emphasize you? You are one preson in a large world. One soul in a world of six billion, yet Jesus died for one person in the entire world. Although it is symbolic, you are the one He died for. For all men, not just a group, not just a steriotypical mold, but for you. Think of it that way. He loves you. It isn't something you try out. Church doesn't save you. Only one thing, Jesus Christ. With a "nothing to lose, just try to follow a few rules", you are not saved. You have to believe with ALL your heart, and believe that Jesus Christ actually came to this earth, died for a sinner like you, and then turn to Him. He is an ever present guide. He didn't leave you alone though. He gave you an amazing set of commanedments to mirror your actions. They are the Ten Commandments. Some things you will have to give up. If Jesus wouldn't do it, neither should you. Keep the faith guys, follow Christ, trust His Word. Need help? I'm here.Saga:Nice try, but it is a fact that when the Egyptians had the Israelites, they believed in multiple gods. But a nice thought anyway. Your theory nearly nocked me down to contemplate on the answer, because it was convincing, but I realized that the time era doesn't match.

[Artem ZHI 0]

I do not think that the GOD exists. How energy (which is in the god) may to be infinite? And how energy may "hang" in air, without a basis?

[wild20 0]

What you are talking about, I have no idea. I can't tell if it is energy or what. Could you increase your post length and specify more details in your posts. I don't know what you are saying.God is not made up of "energy". He is spritual, it is somethong that no one can explain. Like electricity I suppose, you can see it sometimes,. but it is usually invisible. How god works. If you want me to make an parallel on what I think.

[jmb2006 0]

i think there is a God, the whole biblical story seems far too complicated to have been simply made up. Besides i refuse to believe that humans, life, the earth, the world and all its wonders like technology were created by something other than a God. I know its difficult to believe that God exists whilst evil such as Saddam Hussein and the War in Iraq exists but God gave humans free will and with that gave humans to do whatever they want but why God lets this evil continue is a Mystery. We cannot solve everything, i believe that the reason we are on earth is to wonder why. Somethings are best left as they are and the cosmology of the universe should be left alone, im sure we will all find out when we die.

Edited March 17, 2006 by james_666 (see edit history)

[Unregistered 015 0]

i am sure that they were not dumb people , in fact they were probably extremely clever and had quite a few original ideas themselves how the world worked.

about people who wrote the bible

well said, just like I was thinking....

I wont say that I'm 100% sure that there is no GOD. I'll only tell you that I'm sure there is no God as you imagine it, even if it exists. And thats something I'm 100% sure.