username: password: sign up Lost password?

Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Religious debate

Religious debate
16:46:02 Apr 12th 09 - Divine Grandmaster Sepelchure Grail:

i dont live in america you retard.

what country you live in?


16:47:28 Apr 12th 09 - Mr. Josef:

"i dont live in america you retard."

Even worse! I thought only americans had such bad schools, it seems its like a plague.


23:38:38 Apr 12th 09 - Sir Santa:

Mr. Formatieduiker

Report


4/12/2009 3:54:04 PM

why would i need to disproof something that doesn't exist? there is nothing that points into the direction of a 'creator'?


If you seriously knew enough to write thos 1000 pages, then you would know that all scientists say that science can not say anything about God, whether he exists or not.


03:16:20 Apr 13th 09 - Demonslayer William Berkeley:

It is a plague Josef...


06:14:56 Apr 13th 09 - Ms. Hirragi Tsukasa:

Mr. Josef

Report


4/12/2009 3:33:37 PM


I like it when Cobra tries to say.

 "Can't we all just get along."





07:08:21 Apr 13th 09 - Mr. Kilroy Killinger:

Special Olympics.


07:30:50 Apr 13th 09 - Mr. Rambutan:

  In that picture it looks like someone just threw ketchup on him  0_o


08:26:21 Apr 13th 09 - Mr. Koss:

lets not make this about school systems gentlemen keep on the topic at hand

oh and josef great poster lol


07:59:30 Apr 14th 09 - Duchess Sessa:

You guys all suck at debating religion.


20:38:54 Apr 14th 09 - Prince Validus Septim III:

Religion is a personal choice, if you want to worship God or some other deity, then go ahead. I won't stop you. If you're Satanic, I still won't say anything (unless you're like...torturing people and wearing animal entrails...then I'm sort of obligated to...you know...call the police and grab a bat to defend myself. >>)

I personally follow the faith of Sean Connery.


01:13:36 Apr 15th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

It seems that no matter how many times this is pointed out, people just refuse to understand. From a logical stand point it's impossible to prove a negative, what this means for those of you that are not the sharpest tools in the shed is that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, just like it's impossible to prove that elves, fairies, Santa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist.

Just because something can't be disproven does not constitute evidence of existance, it's just sound logical thinking.

The burden of proof is on those that support a positive, in this case, that God does exist, because positives can be proven.

We neither don't have to, nor need to disprove god, it's not our job. I've written this in a simple terms as I could, in the vain hope that at least some of you might understand it.


This is by far the dumbest statement to emerge.
The earth is round. The burden of proof says the earth is round. I have not got the facility to disprove that myself by going to space and viewing this.  So I look for evidence in other area's, which may provide suffiecient evidence to make a calculated assumption, in support of this. So I drive out to the desert, at sunrise, to an open landscape. At sunrise, the desert is not hot enough to cause visual distortion. I look left to right, and observe the curvature of the earth...i place one stick in the ground 10 yards in front of me, and one either side at equal spacing. Laying flat on the ground, I measure the point at which the earths horizon intersects both. A simple math calculation gives me the degree of curvature. Expand this to the earths size, and I have a stronger theory to support the burden of proof that the earth is round, or curved at the very least. This is the methodology used by sailors to navigate the seas fool. Now I still have not seen a round earth, but have one more piece of evidence that a flat earth believer does not have.
The Bible has been proved inaccurate in 90% of its stories, both based on ages, time and events. Prove one event of signicance to the use of faith, and many may consider it...yet you prove non by holding up the "Blind Faith" plac.


01:21:37 Apr 15th 09 - Demonslayer William Berkeley:

I hope you realize that you sound surprisingly like a literalist and fundamentalist...


01:37:20 Apr 15th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

If they taste good with ketchup...im any ist
Smother me in ketchup and send me to Guantanamo


08:46:18 Apr 15th 09 - Mr. Josef:

What kind of *beep*ing *beep* are you? From your post it seems like you're arguing against mine, but by bringing examples which support my post, something tells me you have no *beep*ing clue what I actually said. Go back and reread my post faggot.


09:02:33 Apr 15th 09 - Mr. Formatieduiker:

lol


18:07:48 Apr 16th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

"It is impossible to prove a negative" No its not....physics 101 teaches you that...go back to school
"it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist"...sure it is...find the facts used by the "believers" and disprove them.
"The burden of proof is on those that support a positive, in this case, that God does exist, because positives can be proven."...an unproven postive is a negative...restructure your thesis....you just got mixed up again.
"We neither don't have to, nor need to disprove god, it's not our job"...yes you do...hence the topic of discussion. Debates require supporting evidence from both parties. The one with the most substantial evidence wins the debate. Dont ever go to court...you'll get torn to shreds.

Sh1t 4 brains


18:24:41 Apr 16th 09 - Sir Santa:

"It is impossible to prove a negative" No its not....physics 101 teaches you that...go back to school
"it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist"...sure it is...find the facts used by the "believers" and disprove them.

If you can disprove all their facts, then all you have proven is that their facts we're untrue. You still haven't proven whether or not god exists or not. To prove something, you need evidence. There can be found no evidence of something that does not exist (a negative) and therefor the existance of it can not be proven. But the lack of evidence to prove this something, does not mean it doesn't exist. It simply means we aren't able to find or haven't found the evidence (yet). You simply can't prove that something doesn't exist. Try proving the Grim Reaper doesn't exist. We (or at least most of us) can't see him but that doesn't mean he isn't there.
I hate to say it but I'm with Josef on this one :S


19:10:16 Apr 16th 09 - Mr. Formatieduiker:

 

the debate is going on for atleast 2500 years (the greeks started it (Plato, Arisitotle, Archimedes, etc), probably the question is as old as mankind itself)

the big religions actually come from those filosofical debates ... they were needed to explain the world to the uneducated masses ... and yes, a godlike creator seemed the best option to explain things at that time ...

ofcourse, it was obvious, as new discoveries were made that certain 'claims'/'explanations' made in those religions were falsified ... each day that goes by, the god-arguement looses power (Keppler, Da Vinci, Newton, and so on, Machiavelli, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume; Rousseau, Kant, and many more, they all made steps to break through mythical/magic/dogmatic thinking) , it becomes less and less probable (and now your faith helps you to keep denying that fact ;-)  )

you present arguements which have been falsified in the past ... so, again, get an education and think for yourself.


19:29:36 Apr 16th 09 - Sir Santa:

Very true. But the fact remains that we will never know for sure until we die and maybe even then we wont know the truth of it all. So... anybody ready to die?


20:28:20 Apr 16th 09 - Mr. Rambutan:

  Well you can't believe in a God just because you can't prove that he does not exist. If you carried this sort of open mindedness, you would also have to believe in:

   Zuess
  Apollo
  Thor
   Krishna
  the Boogeyman
  The Flying Spaghetti Monster
 
             and many many more.   I'm not going to let the possibility of the boogeyman scare me into never going into a dark room, just as I'm not going to let the possibility of a giant demon and a firey pit of doom keep me from living my life however I want. 


20:53:53 Apr 16th 09 - Mr. Josef:

Holy *beep* Santa admitted I was right! :o


03:34:39 Apr 17th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

OK. Lets make this easy for the small brains.
2 people have different views on the earths shape. One says round one says square.
Neither can afford to go to space and view it, so they look around them in their everyday environments for proof of their case. Round earth dude shows photos' points to the curvature of the earth etc. The square earth man uses the single satement "its square because my priest said so and so do my parents".

If this were 2 country leaders, prepared to go to war over it....who would you think was the looney?


04:42:27 Apr 17th 09 - Demonslayer William Berkeley:

...both sides for not realizing that this was a troll topic from the beginning and still going back and forth in a topic that will never be settled?
*Realization hits*


08:18:24 Apr 17th 09 - Mr. Josef:

Primate... a most suitable name... are you truly an imbecile? Do you not *beep*ing realize you're making my point exactly? Let me make this very clear so that even your unevolved brain can understand.

In your example... the guy that think the world is round uses proof to prove that the world is round to the other guy. Is that simple enough? Let me be even more clear for those of your that are dimmer than a burned out light bulb, "the world is round" is a positive and as any positive is provable.


17:16:31 Apr 17th 09 - Divine Devastator Kathandarion:

your still arguing this...... wow im good


20:03:43 Apr 17th 09 - Demonslayer William Berkeley:

Go multi again and fail


20:04:08 Apr 17th 09 - Lord Lord of The Flies:

window.google_render_ad();

 

it was awesome that this was one of the advertisements lolllllll


20:05:25 Apr 17th 09 - Lord Lord of The Flies:

Damm, it was an advertisement for the movie, The God Who Wasn't There...


23:45:26 Apr 17th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

"The burden of proof is on those that support a positive, in this case, that God does exist, because positives can be proven."

Josef....that is your exact statement....learn grammar...you have stated above...God exists and is therefore a positive which can be proven....sh1t 4 brains

"The burden of proof is on those that support a positive, in this case, that God DOES NOT  exist, because positives can be proven."


00:00:00 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

Negative Statement: "God exists because the bible says so" - heresay thus unsubstantiated

Positive Statement: "God does not exist because it is said he made the earth over 7 days, around 4k years ago, and we can date the earths history to at least 1,6 billion years old" - substantiated statement, therefore positive


00:05:45 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Josef:

Oh I see... you're not only an imbecilic *beep*, but you can't even read correctly.

"God does exist" is a hypothesis, a positive one, as such from a logical stand point might be provable, now pay attention you left over piece of masturbated sperm, that might implies that "if there is any proof to it" not that the hypothesis is actually true. There are many hypothesis which are positive, in the sense that they might be provable, if they were actually true, that does not mean that they are true. I know this will probably go over your head.

"God does not exist" is from a logical stand point also a hypothesis, but a negative one, this means that proving it is actually logically impossible, just like proving that fairies,elves and the rest don't really exist.

Now that I explained what a positive and a negative hypothesis is for the ones with the mental aquity of a 4 year old, I'd like to tell you you're a special kind of retarded, if I read your posts, and I use the term losely, correctly you seem to think I believe in god, just how *beep*ing imbecilic can you be to think that?


00:07:28 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Josef:

"Positive Statement: "God does not exist because it is said he made the earth over 7 days, around 4k years ago, and we can date the earths history to at least 1,6 billion years old" - substantiated statement, therefore positive"

No, all you've proven is that God didn't make the Earth like it said in the *beep*ing bible you *beep*ing *beep*, that does not mean that God doesn't exist. Are you truly this *beep*ing stupid?

EDIT: You don't even *beep*ing know what positive/negative statements mean, since you used them completely wrong.


01:05:22 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

"God does exist" is a hypothesis, a positive one, as such from a logical stand point might be provable
A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it

You tw@t


01:08:43 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

No, all you've proven is that God didn't make the Earth like it said in the *beep*ing bible you *beep*ing *beep*, that does not mean that God doesn't exist. Are you truly this *beep*ing stupid?

Believers will ALWAYS point to the bible or their faith as substantial enough proof of his existance...yet both can be scientifically discounted....therefore they are false statement. As it is unsubstantiated by REASONABLE proof, it is not a hypothesis...merely a statement.


01:39:19 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Lord of The Flies:

That's cause that's what religion is, Faith.

Faith is by the Oxford dictionary:
1. firm belief in something for which there is no proof

They don't need the proof Primate, they just believe what they believe.


01:43:18 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

ergo - god does not exist


01:47:55 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

"Believers will ALWAYS point to the bible or their faith as substantial enough proof of his existance...yet both can be scientifically discounted....therefore they are false statement. As it is unsubstantiated by REASONABLE proof, it is not a hypothesis...merely a statement."


Primate, could you please pm the proof of what you say? Or are you just assuming. and also, why do you suppose that every believer does that? Why are you waisting your time here? Do you honestly think that by a believer reading what you type down, they are going to change their mind completely about God and Jesus?


01:51:14 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

Proof of what? Gods non existance...easy...I take everything he is credited for doing and prove he did not do it....enough proof.

Im not asking you to change your mind...im asking you to stop being brainwashed and use your mind.


01:54:46 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

Mr. Josef, for thousands of years, man has created these scientific laws and theories. And in the end, a few hundred years later, they are proven wrong. Now i can assure you, that you aren't smarter then those scientists. They started from scratch and made these amazing theories. So what makes you think you are right in everything. Now don't deny it, you honestly think you are right in everything. that is why you are telling these ideas to anyone who might view this thread like they were fact. When in fact, you are not 100% sure God does not exist.


01:55:38 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

Primate, you did not answer a single one of my questions.


01:57:49 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

And also primate, you did not make any sense of your proof of Gods non-existence


01:59:34 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

please take some time to read this


01:59:43 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

By Marilyn Adamson

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature improvements, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and improvements from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."12

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."13

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."15 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."16

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.17

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."18 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."19

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.

This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."20 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."21

So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.


02:09:36 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

Here is some info on why the bible is consistent with many historical documents.


02:09:46 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

Does ancient history agree with the Bible?

If the Bible is God's message to us, we should hope its version of history is accurate. It is.

For example, the Bible reports that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was executed by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Numerous ancient historians corroborate the Bible's account of the life of Jesus and his followers:

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.1 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."2

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."3

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.

Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."4

This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves.

Are the gospel accounts of Jesus reliable?

Secular historians recorded the general facts of Jesus' life, but his close associates made more detailed reports based on direct eyewitness testimony. These are called the four gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can we be sure these biographies of Jesus are accurate?

When historians try to determine if a biography is reliable, they ask, "How many other sources report the same details about this person?" Here's how this works. Imagine you are collecting biographies of President John F. Kennedy. You find many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and almost all of the biographies report similar facts. But what if you found one biography reporting that JFK lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? The other biographies had him in the U.S. at the time; a sensible historian would go with the accounts that agree with one another.

Regarding Jesus of Nazareth, do we find multiple biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. While they don't redundantly cover all of the same information, the four gospels tell essentially the same story:

Matthew Mark Luke John
Jesus was born of a virgin 1:18-25 - 1:27, 34 -
He was born in Bethlehem 2:1 - 2:4 -
He lived in Nazareth 2:23 1:9, 24 2:51, 4:16 1:45, 46
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist 3:1-15 1:4-9 3:1-22 -
He performed miracles of healing 4:24, etc. 1:34, etc. 4:40, etc. 9:7
He walked on water 14:25 6:48 - 6:19
He fed five thousand people with
five loaves and two fish 14:7 6:38 9:13 6:9
Jesus taught the common people 5:1 4:25, 7:28 9:11 18:20
He spent time with social outcasts 9:10, 21:31 2:15, 16 5:29, 7:29 8:3
He argued with the religious elite 15:7 7:6 12:56 8:1-58
The religious elite plotted to kill him 12:14 3:6 19:47 11:45-57
They handed Jesus over to the Romans 27:1, 2 15:1 23:1 18:28
Jesus was flogged 27:26 15:15 - 19:1
He was crucified 27:26-50 15:22-37 23:33-46 19:16-30
He was buried in a tomb 27:57-61 15:43-47 23:50-55 19:38-42
Jesus rose from the dead and
appeared to his followers 28:1-20 16:1-20 24:1-53 20:1-31
Two of the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.

Each of the four gospel writers made a very detailed account. As you would expect from multiple biographies of a real person, there is variation in the style but agreement in the facts. We know the authors were not simply making things up, because the gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.

Jesus' recorded words leave out many topics the early church would have liked a statement on. This indicates that the biographers were honest, not putting words in Jesus' mouth to suit their own interests.

For a sample of what is presented in one of the Gospels, click here.

Has the Bible changed and become corrupted over time?

Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).

When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6

The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.

The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.

Does archaeology support the Bible?

Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.7

The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.8

In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.9

Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."10

Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."11

Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., hundreds of years before Abraham.12 The tablets describe the local culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.

Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.

For further study, click here to see a chart listing some of the major archaeological finds.

Are there contradictions in the Bible?

While some claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity. They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.

Here is an example of a so-called contradiction. Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."

The wording is different, hence the apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all thee writers describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of the sign is the same in all three accounts!

What about the exact wording? In the original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.

Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)

Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.

This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination of the text itself or through studying the historical background.

Who wrote the New Testament? Why not accept the apocrypha, the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas?

There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.

The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles.

The content of the New Testament books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves. When other books were written hundreds of years later (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, written by the Gnostic sect around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as forgeries. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.13

In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.

Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New Testament Gospels to be written?

The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry.14

However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars date the writing of the Gospels between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death.

Luke gives us a little more insight into this by stating, at the beginning of his Gospel, why he was writing it: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught.15

John also gives the reason for writing his Gospel: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."16

Have you ever read anything from the New Testament Gospels? To read a sample from the Gospel of John, click here.

If you would like to know more about Jesus, this article will give you a good summary of his life: Beyond Blind Faith.

Does it matter if Jesus really did and said what is in the Gospels?

Yes. For faith to really be of any value, it must be based on facts, on reality. Here is why. If you were taking a flight to London, you would probably have faith that the jet is fueled and mechanically reliable, the pilot trained, and no terrorists on board. Your faith, however, is not what gets you to London. Your faith is useful in that it got you on the plane. But what actually gets you to London is the integrity of the plane, pilot, etc. You could rely on your positive experience of past flights. But your positive experience would not be enough to get that plane to London. What matters is the object of your faith -- is it reliable?

Is the New Testament an accurate, reliable presentation of Jesus? Yes. We can trust the New Testament because there is enormous factual support for it. This article touched on the following points: historians concur, archaeology concurs, the four Gospel biographies are in agreement, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is superior accuracy in the translations. All of this gives a solid foundation for believing what we read in the New Testament: that Jesus is God, that he took the penalty for our sins, and that he rose from the dead.

Please email us if you have further questions.

(1) McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 55.
(2) Tacitus, A. 15.44.
(3) Wilkins, Michael J. & Moreland, J.P. Jesus Under Fire (Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 40.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ (Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), p. 83.
(6) Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God? (Word Publishing, 1994), p. 162.
(7) Strobel, p. 132.
(8) The renowned Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck, wrote: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." cited by McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 61.
(9) Strobel, p. 143-144.
(10) Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
(11) McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1972), p. 19.
(12) Pettinato, Giovanni. The archives of Ebla: an empire inscribed in clay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981)
(13) Bruce, F.F. The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), p. 113.
(14) See Acts 2:22, 3:13, 4:13, 5:30, 5:42, 6:14, etc.
(15) Luke 1:1-3
(16) Joh*beep*r>

Email this page to a friend
How to begin a relationship with God



Sample of what is presented in one of the Gospels...

The Gospels are presented as matter-of-fact, "this is how it was." Even reports of Jesus doing the miraculous is written without sensationalism or mysticism. One typical example is the account in Luke, chapter 8, where Jesus brings a little girl back to life. Notice the details and clarity in its reporting:

Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus' feet, pleading with him to come to his house because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her.
She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.
"Who touched me?" Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you." But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me."
Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. Then he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace."
While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher any more." Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed."
When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep." They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.
But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.
Like other accounts of Jesus' healing people, this has a ring of authenticity. If it were fiction, there are portions of it that would have been written differently. For example, in a fictional account there wouldn't be an interruption with something else happening. If it were fiction, the people in mourning would not have laughed at Jesus' statement; get angry maybe, be hurt by it, but not laugh. And in writing fiction, would Jesus have ordered the parents to be quiet about it? You would expect the healing to make a grand point. But real life isn't always smooth. There are interruptions. People do react oddly. And Jesus had his own reasons for not wanting the parents to broadcast this.

The best test of the Gospels authenticity is to read it for yourself. Does it read like a report of real events, or like fiction? If it is real, then God has revealed himself to us. Jesus came, lived, taught, inspired, and brought life to millions who read his words and life today. What Jesus stated in the gospels, many have found reliably true: "I have come that they might have life, and have it more abundantly." (Joh*beep*r>
Return to article


A comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings...

Here is how the New Testament compares to other ancient writings*:

Author Book Date
Written Earliest
Copies Time Gap # of
Copies
Homer Iliad 800 B.C. c. 400 B.C. c. 400 yrs. 643
Herodotus History 480-425 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,350 yrs. 8
Thucydides History 460-400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. 8
Plato 400 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,300 yrs. 7
Demosthenes 300 B.C. c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,400 yrs. 200
Caesar Gallic Wars 100-44 B.C. c. A.D. 900 c. 1,000 yrs. 10
Tacitus Annals A.D. 100 c. A.D. 1100 c. 1,000 yrs. 20
Pliny
Secundus Natural
History A.D. 61-113 c. A.D. 850 c. 750 yrs. 7
New Testament A.D. 50-100 c. A.D. 114
(portions)
c. A.D. 200
(books)
c. A.D. 325
(complete N.T.) c. +50 yrs.

c. 100 yrs.

c. 225 yrs. 5366
*McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 55.

Return to article


Chart listing some of the major archaeological finds...

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND SIGNIFICANCE
Mari Tablets Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to Abraham's time period, explain many of the patriarchal traditions of Genesis.
Ebla Tablets Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the Deuteronomy law code. The previously thought fictitious five cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
Nuzi Tablets They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to the patriarchal accounts such as maids producing children for barren wives.
Black Stele Proved that writing and written laws existed three centuries before the Mosaic laws.
Temple Walls of Karnak, Egypt Signifies a 10th century BC reference to Abraham.
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)

Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)

Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC) Show that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too sophisticated for that period.
Ras Shamra Tablets Provide information on Hebrew poetry.
Lachish Letters Describe Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give insight into the time of Jeremiah.
Gedaliah Seal References Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
Cyrus Cylinder Authenticates the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to allow the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).
Moabite Stone Gives information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Illustrates how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the Assyrian king.
Taylor Prism Contains an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem during the time of Hezekiah, king of Israel.
PAST CHARGES BY CRITICS ANSWERED BY ARCHAEOLOGY
Moses could not have written Pentateuch because he lived before the invention of writing. Writing existed many centuries before Moses.
Abraham's home city of Ur does not exist. Ur was discovered. One of the columns had the inscription "Abram."
The city built of solid rock called "Petra" does not exist. Petra was discovered.
The story of the fall of Jericho is myth. The city never existed. The city was found and excavated. It was found that the walls tumbled in the exact manner described by the biblical narrative.
The "Hittites" did not exist. Hundreds of references to the amazing Hittite civilization have been found. One can even get a doctorate in Hittite studies at the University of Chicago.
Belshazzar was not a real king of Babylon; he is not found in the records. Tablets of Babylonia describe the reign of this coregent and son of Nabonidus.


02:37:56 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

Nice copy paste...Firstly...read what you wrote to me...you asked no questions!
So let me shoot a hole in this copy paste of yours. You begin by pointing to the beginning of the universe at a scientific event in history...the big bang...yet therin lays your flaw. The big bang was but a part in a sequence of events...it started earlier than that...get out your books and start reading...in order for it to occur, particles needed to gather to create the unstable environment for the big bang to take place.

Man hasnt walked on the moon...but thats a whole other debate...but to proove that in a nutshell...2 men landed on the moon....dressed in suits no thinker than 10 layers of houshold tin foil...stayed there for the day and returned to earth, never suffering the slightest radiation poisoning. An earth bound radiologist's modern suit is 9 inches thick, to insulate against radiotion which on earth measures 1/1 bilionth the amount of radiation that the suns rays puts out. Right.

In terms of the perfection of the earth and its position...its water air etc....lets take the perfection of probability.....i do not know you, where you live or what you look like....yet given 1 billion years for both of us to live, I can guarentee we would meet. We are not the only planet able to sustain life...others have atmospheres capable of sustaining their types of life...life which has purposly evolved to survive there...
So...Earth is far from unique...one of Jupiters moons, europa, is beginning to look like earth just over 3 billion years ago. Europa is slightly smaller than Earth's Moon and is the sixth-largest moon in the Solar System. Though by a wide margin the least massive of the Galilean satellites, its mass nonetheless significantly exceeds the combined mass of all moons in the Solar System smaller than itself. It is primarily made of silicate rock and likely has an iron core. It has a tenuous atmosphere composed primarily of oxygen. Its surface is composed of ice and is one of the smoothest in the Solar System. This young surface is striated by cracks and streaks, while craters are relatively infrequent. The apparent youth and smoothness of the surface have led to the hypothesis that a water ocean exists beneath it, which could conceivably serve as an abode for extraterrestrial life.

Now...if god existed...why not finish the job?


02:50:40 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

This is the stupidest question as to why God didn't make/finish something... No offense there...

Firstly, do you know if it was God's idea to make life or as you say "finish the job" on that planet?

To me, that planet is basically silicate rock and "Likely" has an iron core. It has an oxygen atmosphere that would kill anything that tried to breath there. Because the atmosphere is made primarily of oxygen.

"This young surface is striated by cracks and streaks, while craters are relatively infrequent. The apparent youth and smoothness of the surface have led to the hypothesis that a water ocean exists beneath it, which could conceivably serve as an abode for extraterrestrial life."

These are all hypothesis, and ideas that were conceived. This is no proof that God had any want to ever make that a planet that would support life.


02:53:43 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

Primate, you still have not answered any of my questions. And the big bang "Theory" is the stupidest idea man has come up with to support the idea that there is no God. Scientifically there is no proof there.


02:55:18 Apr 18th 09 - Mr. Paracelzus:

i did ask you a few questions

"Primate, could you please pm the proof of what you say? Or are you just assuming. and also, why do you suppose that every believer does that? Why are you waisting your time here? Do you honestly think that by a believer reading what you type down, they are going to change their mind completely about God and Jesus?"


02:56:04 Apr 18th 09 - Lord Primate Death:

ahh....man...do you read what you copy paste?

Firstly...the bible is riddled with errors.

The 4 Gospels are in fact copies, at different points in time. The Gospels, lised as your proof??? of Matthew and Luke are called canonical gospels. They were written 100 years after the death of jesus.

All 4 gospels contradict each other. Two claim he was crucified on the sabbath...2 claim the day before.
3 are qout for quote copy paste efforts, much like you did. Next time you want to quote something, substantiate your sources. Start researching the "4 Canonical Gospels" and "two synoptic gospels".....then come back with your blind faith crap.


[Top]  Pages:  (back) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (next)
This topic is locked!

Login
Username: Don't have an account? Sign up!
Password: Forgot your password? Retrive it!

Forum bookmarks Reset views