Does God Exist? Proof of God From A Christian!
66Your Long Waited Answer From A believer
Before you read this hub: You are always welcomed to debate me in my Christian Forum and the Hubpages Forum
There are a lot of confusions and debates about this topic. I realized that it was useless to win an argument, because the opponent will jump to new points to try to bury the original debate posts/thread to cover the fact that he just lost the debate.
This is called "moving the goat posts"—basically whenever I try to come up with evidences and sources to address an accusation or to refute a claim, the opponent demands evidences and explanation to even more points, and claim that the new points are related and relevant to the current points. This cycle never seems to stop. Often times, other people would jump in and feel entitled to an answer for whatever challenge that they come up with at whim. Some just drop a bomb of ridicule/taunt and leave.
Burden of Proof
In general, people are confused about when and who should bear the "burden of proof". When they are the ones who make an attack or criticism, such as "You Christians are illogical, because you believe in a incorporeal God, blah blah blah", the burden of proof is on them, not the accused. If you are the one who bring up an accusation, or to claim that someone is whatever, such as illogical, you bear the burden of proof. It is not fair for the alleged to have to prove himself innocent.
However, if atheists/agnostics politely invite theists to show them why there is a God or are gods, and they accept the challenge, then the burden of proof is on the theists. You can't just pop up in a forum and suddenly pick on a believer and accuse him or her for whatever, and then get mad because he or she has no time, or not in the best circumstance, to answer your particular challenge in a way you want it and when you want it.
If an atheist/agnostic has the right to not be converted, or to avoid a theist if she feels uncomfortable or inconvenient, so has the theist the same right to avoid a confrontation with an atheist(s). Beside, why should I prove the existence of God anymore than my attackers to prove me wrong if I didn't go to the forum to initiate that?
If a theist tries to convert, or open a forum for discussion, such as what I am doing here, then he has the obligation to explain his belief. I don't necessarily have to prove the existence of God per se, but I can explain my line of thoughts and why I think it is plausible to accept the Holy Book of my faith, or other faith based literature, based on my current understanding.
You Could Be The Next Person To Win A Nobel Price If You Could Prove This
If I could prove the existence of God scientifically, I would get an Nobel price! And so is anyone who could prove that the Theory of Evolution is true scientifically, or that God doesn't exist and can't possibly exist, or that the world as we know now is ONLY 4-dimensional (Time is the 4th dimension).
Right now, what we have are plenty of evidences that could reach any conclusions as long as the theory/model is not proven wrong. Some believe that the evidences cling toward the Theory of Evolution, but some have reasons to believe the same evidences point toward the Belief/Theory of Creation.
Scientists have long been using unproven, but plausible models and theories to explain things that they don't really understand. That doesn't make the models and theories illogical. The Bible could be seen as a model too if you are an unbeliever, whether it is illogical or not should be based on evidences, not because you feel that it sounds impossible or illogical.
In other words, a belief is a belief. Belief will remain logical as long as the thought process is logical, regardless of the degree of outrageousness the claim might appear. I could believe in an invisible house, but that won't make me illogical. If I try to back up this belief with, "Because I know so", then it's illogical.
By the way, falsifying the Bible shouldn't be hard if God doesn't exist. There are 66 books in the bible. If God doesn't exist, there should be plenty of evidences to conclusively demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. Can you make a claim that the Bible has error, inconsistency, or falsehood and then prove it? If so, then you have shown that the Bible is wrong and errant.
Similarly, if we try our intellectual best and yet fail to find the definite evidence to show that the Bible is false, what is the statistical odds? Slim to none if it is indeed written by uninspired humans. Almost all books could be found inconsistent and contradictory if the book is long enough.
The Bible has thousands of pages, and it relates to history, prophecies (Such as restoration of Israel), human nature, miracle, divine healing, creation, and all the extraordinary content, so shouldn't it be ultra easy to find error and inconsistency in it if it is not divine? Well, attackers keep saying that it is full of contradictions, but they have no one single solid proof of anything wrong with the Bible—only accusations and speculations that they think we should address and quickly respond to in a timely manner. Usually, the accusations are based on mis-read and out of context Bible verses.
Don't just talk and make unsupported claim/accusation, build a case and bring it on!
Many Atheists Make The Mistake Of "Begging The Question"
Let me give you an example of "Begging the Question":
Person 1: He is annoyed right now.
Person 2: How do you know?
Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.
Another example:
Atheist: You are illogical.
Theist: Why?
Atheist: Because you believe in an incorporeal God, and you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible...
Theist: So?
Atheist: So you are illogical, or you must be intellectually dishonest, or intending to be ignorant!
Usually the next thing that happens after "begging the question" is the atheist demanding the theist/believer to prove the existence of God, and some more verbal abuses and taunts.
It is a belief! It's hard to prove certain beliefs, but
there usually are enough evidence to believe in a belief, if the belief is credible.
So why do I think the biblical God is credible?
How Much Evidence Does It Take To Believe That God Exists?
While you may not have enough evidence to 100% prove something or to debunk something, there are usually enough evidence to believe in something or to disbelieve in something.
You don't have to "prove" that something happened to believe that it happened. Isn't it how the criminal justice system works? The prosecutors cannot 100% prove that someone committed a crime, but if there is enough evidence to point at one way or the other, the juries or the judge will make the best guess and pass the sentence.
If you want to know what I am talking about, read this neutral article "How Much Evidence Is Enough?"
So,
how can we believe in an unproven God? By looking at the amount of
evidences for or against the Biblical model or whatever religious models
that you are deciding upon, and sum up the overall evidence and make the final decision to believe or to not believe.
So how much evidence is there for the biblical God?
Evidence of The Bible And God
Let's begin with the Bible:
For the source, please visit Bible Proof for evidence for the Bible.
The Evidence of Fulfilled Prophecies
There were plenty of prophecies in the Old Testament (OT) about the Messiah. The details of the prophecies matched the life of Jesus 100%. Everything that predicted the earthly life of the Messiah in the OT was fulfilled in the life of Jesus. The OT had been written for about a thousand of years until a few hundred of years before Jesus was born.
Also, what was the odd that a long destroyed, ancient nation such as Israel could rebuild their nation in 1948? The fall and restoration of the nation were prophesied in the OT.
There are also many prophecies that have come true for nations, and archeological findings and historical records have confirmed that the prophesied events happened to the ancient nations.
If you think that someone has written the New Testaments in a way to match the prophecies of the Old Testament to suit the life of Jesus, then you may look at the next section for the reliability of the Bible text in terms of textual preservation, historic accuracy, and translation.
The Evidence for Textual Accuracy
The manuscripts of the Old Testaments and the New Testaments are strongly supported by early hand written manuscripts copies.
For the Old Testaments, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the version we have today matched the ancient copies that dated back to more than 2000 years ago, so it proved that the OT manuscripts were never tempered.
The statistical odds of such a thick, ancient document, which have been passed down through generations by just hand-writings copies, still managed to preserve its integrity like this is unheard of—bar none.
For the New Testament, over 20,000 known manuscripts have references or records of parts or the entirety of the New Testament text in different languages, and the versions all match with each other, even though the versions were written by people from different languages, cultures, and background, which make the New Testament the most credible ancient text prior to the invention of the printing machine.
How about the life of Jesus? Was Jesus real? Did his real life match the account of the New Testament?
Evidence for the Historical Jesus
Many archeological findings and secular records confirmed details of the New Testament account of what happened in Jesus' time. The king, local rulers, location, culture, significant events, and other information provided by the New Testament text is matching the historical evidence from that time.
You may want to check out this page History, Archaeology and Jesus for more details.
The text was distributed among people who had been with Jesus and seen his miracles, and they didn't die off before the text was copied and translated into different languages.
Scientific Evidence
I find that many scientific laws, methodologies, and facts actually match the Bible, instead of contradict the Bible.
How can I believe in a young earth? Why would I believe there was a talking donkey? A burning thorn that doesn't burn out?
They "feel" unscientific, but are in fact not. For example, how do you know the earth is millions or billions of years old? Using Radioactive dating to date earth is flawed.
Geological layers could be result of the biblical flood. If you put mud in a cup and shake it, it forms layers after the mud settles. There you go, "proof" for the biblical flood event. Geological layers are more likely to be the result of the biblical flood than the result of an old earth.
If an item gets buried by flooding mud instantly, and then unearthed later, it will be dated for millions years old by the radioactive dating method. There you go again, the biblical flood.
The Bible said the creator enabled creatures (Humans) to speak, and in one case, it was a donkey. This made it the most unique donkey ever. If I said the biblical God couldn't make a donkey talk, would that make sense to you? I don't know why some anti-biblical-God people would bring up supernatural events like this and ridicule them, as if they are onto something. They act like they have caught me with my pants down, but I am really not with my pants down! No amount of reasoning could stop them from behaving like kids at this point.
How does "appeal to ridicule" achieve anything!?
For more agreement between the Bible and science, go here, here, and here.
Don't Ever Ask Me to Prove God Again!
Unless there is a time machine which I can use to go back in time to see what happened 6000 years ago, what else can I do to qualify as "proving God exists"? If I do have a time machine, I would go back and assassinate the snake that tempted Eve.
Otherwise, how do I prove to you that God exists? A photo? A video? Many people showed evidence of ET and UFO sightings, and reported close encounters. Does that prove the existence of ET Aliens?
Even if I did see God or traveled to the past and witnessed His creation, you wouldn't believe me anyway if you were a die hard skeptic to begin with.
What do you need to believe that God exist? How do you define proof?
Guys, we are doing "origin science" here, which is different from "operational science", in that operational science discovers truth by doing observable, repeatable experiments to confirm theories and what not, while origin science finds truth by looking at the eyes witnesses' testimonies, antidote reports, and circumstantial evidence to form a plausible conclusion.
The question of existence of God is a matter of origin science, and we choose our belief by hearing testimonies, looking at evidence, and see if they form a believable belief that is better than other assumptions and beliefs, which are what believers of God are doing here.
CommentsLoading...
I agree with some of your hub! It's a fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I strongly believe in God...however I differ from you in the fact that I believe, through biblical scripture, that the earth is very, very old! This is why we find so much evidence of an old earth!
Read my hub if you want to know more about my theory!
http://hubpages.com/hub/Beyond-the-Gap-TheoryHow-o
I do agree with most of your hub... especially the part about fullfilled prophesies!
Thanks for posting! I enjoyed the reading!
There are so many, I could teach a class for 3 years. So, let's make this fun and easy. You give me a single name, a time period, a story, something from the Bible...something that frames a time or a "book of", and I'll give you either a proven historical inaccuracy or a contradiction that it either directly represents, or one that it references. That is how many there are. Throw it out there. The Exodus, Abraham, Gospel of Mark, Jericho, hell..the creation. The ball is in your court. Let's play
@Bailey
"The "scientist" you link to say radioactive dating is flawed lives a double life - earns money as a geology consultant quoting in millions of years, then earns money writing for creationists quoting in hundreds of years - he can't be trusted. "
You didn't even respond to the points of the scientist you are right now accusing. Simply attacking the person who make a point that disagree with you is always easier than to reasonably refute the point.
What you are doing right now is Ad hominem. You attack the person instead of his points. You are avoiding the harder way (Refute the points using logical arguments), which is the only way to prove something wrong, instead you choose personal attack. You chose to believe in an unconfirmed accusation from source that is unsupported and unverified.
Anyone can make a site and attack anyone to try to discredit them.
For the sake of argument, let's say the Bible is true, then the Bible perfectly explain why enemies of God have an agenda to discredit the witnesses using schemes, false flag attack, and all sorts of propaganda.
So far you haven't really built any solid case, or a case of any reasonable standard at all, in your quest to prove the biblical faith wrong. All you are talking about is your science degree and how much you know about science, without using those knowledge to really point out why there is a conflict between science and God, why Bible is self-contradictory, and why the Bible is not divine (If it has flaws, then it's not divine. It should be easy enough for you to prove it if the Bible is what you claim to be).
You keep saying Evolution is blah blah blah, but all you are saying are statements, not reasons. Just give me your reasoning and explain your case, instead of personal attack and statement such as "Evolution is... Bible is..."
"The old testament was written about 3000 years ago - how did they manage to explain the other 3000 years (ever played "chinese whispers"?). The gospels weren't written until about a century after Jesus was supposed to have lived. As for references to real people of the time - fiction writers do that all the time."
Some people complained that the Old Testament isn't old enough comparing with other religious texts, and you brought a new one here, complaining the Bible being too old.
Again what's your point? So the Old Testament was written at such and such years ago, then? (so all history documents prior to 3000 years ago are hearsay to you then?)
The link I post in this hub, also link to secular sources that verified the historical Jesus. Obviously, you didn't sound like you have compared note with the secular history when you claimed in your own hub that there was no archeological evidence for the historical Jesus.
Quoting your hub: "There is no archeological evidence that Jesus even existed. The four books of the gospel were written from hearsay many decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived - we all know what happens in the game of chinese whispers. There is no independent writing of that time about Jesus. "
Here you make the logical fallacy of "bare assertion fallacy" In fact, you have made this fallacy a lot, and somehow there are lack of evidence and reasoning supporting your assertions.
@ Bailey "If you had a giant flood, there would only be one great big layer, and no sorting of fossils in the layers"
Another bare assertion here, where is the source?
Wait a second, you must examine the provider of the source, i.e. Snelling, in order to determine their intent. This guy is a fraud. You like one site that is designed to support your argument. That is like defining a word using that very word. You like to play the train of logic, but your logic is juvenile. A flood doesn't cause a shakeup of every layer of earth, like shaking it in a cup as you so referred. See, we have flood. We can see what they do. We have evidence as to what floods look like with regards to the layers of earth. A giant flood doesn't shake up layers. It covers them, compacts them, and shifts the top layer of soil. What planet do you live on?
With regards to your "begging the question", you omit the definition. Here is another example, and one that you are using as a premise of your very post:
"It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist."
A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. You do not offer independent evidence; but rather you list the Bible as a source to prove the Bible, the Bible as a source to prove the historical events depicted IN the Bible, and the websites that are designed to support your claim, as a source to support your claim. You are betraying yourself in that your entire post is an example of "begging the question", while you accuse your opponents of doing the very same as another example to support you own conclusion. Obviously, you are a first year logic student.
Your next point was to claim that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies foretold about the coming Messiah. What evidence do you have of this: the Christian interpretation of the Jewish scripture as listed in the Christian Bible. Again, you are assuming the information listed in the Christian Bible is true, and therefore it proves your point. However, your point is that the stories in the Christian Bible are true. See the issue here? You are repeating yourself. You are "begging the question" by assuming A is true, and supports your claim of B, when your claim of B, is that A is true. There is no logic in this. It is childish and ill thought out.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ? on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)
Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Jewish scripture no concept of a second coming exists.
The simple logic of the claim is ridiculous even in its simplest form. The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father ? and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. Simple logic. There are thousands of these in the Bible.
You must understand the idea of defining a word using that very word. The New Testament is the Christians trying to prove to the world that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies foretold in the Old Testament. You can't list their effort of proof as evidence to support the very same argument. I can go on forever with this post. You'l have to give it another try young man.
I did geology 101 as part of my science degree. I don't need to debate your source's points as the person that is making such claims is dishonest. I don't believe "facts" from sources that lack credibility.
People will be so gullible to be sucked in by anti-evolutionist propaganda.
I was being generous saying OT approx 3000 years old. Do you think they had scrolls and pens in the garden of eden? Keep in written language hasn't been around as long as oral language.
Maybe I should make the claim that my writing is devinely inspired and therefore faultless! LOL
@Baileybear
"Maybe I should make the claim that my writing is devinely inspired and therefore faultless! LOL"
Time and time again, your writing is filled with self-contradictory statements, and logical fallacies. Even if I was an 8 years old child I won't believe your writing is divine.
For those of you who don't know why I think her statements are self-contradictory, just dig our old dialog and you will find, also see our exchange of ideas in this forum thread: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973 and her own hub "Ex-Christian - from Believer to Skeptic"
@Bailey "I did geology 101 as part of my science degree. I don't need to debate your source's points as the person that is making such claims is dishonest."
So you have a science degree, then? Where is the reasoning, logic, and critical thinking?
Undergrad students think they know a lot, but grad students find out how little they know...
So far, all you have been doing are throwing all the theories, titles, and jargon you learned from school at me, and embraced them as truth. This is no different than religion. They mean nothing, because academia don't dare to claim them as absolute truth, but you act like they are. You are no different than a believer.
A copy machine, a mouth piece, a computer, a data entry clerk, a secretary, and robot can do the same. knowledge doesn't equal to truth, logic, reasoning, and intelligence.
"I don't believe "facts" from sources that lack credibility."
Lack credibility? where is your proof? Someone accusing someone makes it true to you?
Again, it's so convenient to you and skeptics. All you guys need to do is accuse the person when the points he made are too solid to attack. That's a form of logical fallacy like I point out earlier.
@Texasbeta
Quote Texasbeta:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With regards to your "begging the question", you omit the definition. Here is another example, and one that you are using as a premise of your very post:
"It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sai Kit:
I didn't use this statement you wrote as a premise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote Texasbeta:
You do not offer independent evidence; but rather you list the Bible as a source to prove the Bible, the Bible as a source to prove the historical events depicted IN the Bible, and the websites that are designed to support your claim, as a source to support your claim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sai Kit:
I didn't use Bible to prove Bible.
If you know deductive logic, then you should know what I am talking about.
Take the Biblical belief as a scientific theory, (For the sake of argument"
Here is what "the Biblical belief as a theory" looks like in scientific language:
The premises of the Biblical belief are
1) God exists
2) Bible is God's words
Conclusion: The Bible should be flawless.
Now, the key is that the Bible is falsifiable. Every theory must be falsifiable. Here, if you just prove the Bible wrong, then whether God exists or not is no longer relevant to the entire biblical belief. People don't need to take the biblical belief seriously. They can either find another religion, or a superior theory than the debunked "Biblical belief theory".
This is part of the logical process. It is deductive logic. Logic governs the process of deriving conclusions out of a set of premises.
A premise, an assumption, or a belief is never logical or illogical in itself. It's only true or false. But there's no point to prove it true or false, if you can it is no longer an assumption.
However, you can falsify the conclusion, and if you succeed, the entire theory become useless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote Texasbeta:
"the websites that are designed to support your claim, as a source to support your claim"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sai Kit:
What's the problem? I don't quote them as the ultimate sources. You can find purer sources and sources with points that show that their points are wrong.
As long as you address the points they brought up, and come up with reasonable arguments, then I have no problems with this debate.
@ Texasbeta:
"Your next point was to claim that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies foretold about the coming Messiah. What evidence do you have of this: the Christian interpretation of the Jewish scripture as listed in the Christian Bible. Again, you are assuming the information listed in the Christian Bible is true, and therefore it proves your point. However, your point is that the stories in the Christian Bible are true. See the issue here? You are repeating yourself. You are "begging the question" by assuming A is true, and supports your claim of B, when your claim of B, is that A is true. There is no logic in this. It is childish and ill thought out."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sai Kit:
Wait a minute here:
"the Christian interpretation of the Jewish scripture as listed in the Christian Bible. Again, you are assuming the information listed in the Christian Bible is true, and therefore it proves your point."
Use the Jewish Text if you want. As long as it is based on the original Hebrews, it's good for me.
Again, I never made the mistake of "the Bible is true, therefore it is true" (begging the question)
The Old Testament is an entirely different doc than the New Testament, and the OT itself was consisted of 39 books (If Protestant), which were written at different ages by different authors.
Let me put it this way: What are the odds that a historically confirmed person, Jesus, matched the prophecies of Jewish scriptures, and started a New Testament faith that doesn't contradict the Old Testament?
Now, whether or not the OT as a doc in itself is self-contradictory (or true at all), whether or not OT clashes with the NT, or whether the NT is credible, and whether Jesus was historically verified can be investigated one by one. This is what I am talking about in this post.
I myself accepted the faith as I was going through my own investigation, now I am calling you guys to repeat this process of investigation, and don't just assume that this faith is illogical just because there are supernatural elements.
The miracles in the Old Testament, such as the separation of the red sea, the burning of the mountain, the art, the 10 plagues, and many other major events can be individually and independently verified or testified or falsified by other sources.
Now, whether you believe these sources is your own choice.
"However, your point is that the stories in the Christian Bible are true."
I want you to falsify the stories. My point is that if you can't falsify the stories, then what are the odds? You make you own judgment. Now whether you think you can falsify the Bible, you are you own man, so no one is stopping you to try.
I use "Bible is written by God" as an assumption. While you can't prove that God exists or not, you can certainly falsify the claims of the Bible if it is wrong, and therefore also "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Bible is not written by God, even if "God" does exist.
In science, any theory must be falsifiable, otherwise it is not a theory.
It is easy to do. You just quote sources that go against mine, and come up with reasons to refute our reasons why many of the things that the OT or NT claimed happen didn't happen, were contradictory with each other, or etc etc...
In other words, the Bible is so thick, so old, and so individually written by many author, across the ages, culture, and backgrounds (the Israel went through many changes, slavery, capture, and stuff)
It should be SUPER EASY to find fault in it if it is not divinely inspired.
If we claim that the Red Sea did separate and the army of Egypt and the Israeli did walk on the sea bed and come up with evidence, then you can challenge our claim to "falsify" it.
There is never 100% proof (I never said the Bible is proven to be true in this post, just sourcing "evidence" to support my "belief"), only "prove beyond a reasonable doubts". If you manage to poke enough holes, then no one will believe in a claim. Not even me.
For a spun version, easier version of the reasons of my belief, here is it:
Guys, see how skeptics are so abusive in their language?
See "Appeal to Ridicule"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
"You are "begging the question" by assuming A is true, and supports your claim of B, when your claim of B, is that A is true. There is no logic in this. It is childish and ill thought out."
"The simple logic of the claim is ridiculous even in its simplest form."
"People will be so gullible to be sucked in by anti-evolutionist propaganda."
"Maybe I should make the claim that my writing is devinely inspired and therefore faultless! LOL"
Then they wonder why believers are not willing to debate with them. They don't follow the rule of logics, make up new definition of "scientific theory", and commit a lot of "bare assertion" and "straw man".
See http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973 for real example
The pride is there... The Bible exactly predicted these kind of behavior.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matthew 7:16
Okay, let's start at the beginning. I would like you to imagine (your) 'God' right now...
Now explain to me what you see.
And I prefer that you don't recite ambiguous quotes from the Bible. Please describe WHAT this God that you worship IS in your own words.
@ Texasbeta
Quote: "What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to t... "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, the skeptic is "moving the goal post" here.
Quote myself in this hub:
'This is called "moving the goat posts"—basically whenever I try to come up with evidences and sources to address an accusation or to refute a claim, the opponent demands evidences and explanation to even more points, and claim that the new points are related and relevant to the current points. This cycle never seems to stop.'
This post is about exposing the problem of "Proof of God", or "prove whether God exists or not".
This post is also trying to establish that the "theory of biblical belief" is no less logical than any "scientific theory" .
See: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1282032 for my take on "scientific theory"
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory for the more official definition of "scientific theory"
However, Texasbeta quickly move on to yet more and more points that are outside the scope of this post.
This is what called "moving the goal post" see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Texasbeta also made another unapproved comment because he said he can't stop, and commented that "this post is ridiculous" (more abusive language, here, can you prove that why this post is ridiculous? Since skeptics are supposed to be reasonable and logical and not "spiritually abusive"?)
In this unapproved comment, he went on and on outside the scope of this post, so I refuse to approve it.
However, Texasbeta, you are welcomed to make a hub out of the content of your unapproved comment, and we will see you guys there.
@C. Speck
Quote myself: "Often times, other people would jump in and feel entitled to an answer for whatever challenge that they come up with at whim. Some just drop a bomb of ridicule/taunt and leave. "
Is that you?
@ Texasbeta:
Quote Texasbeta: "You must understand the idea of defining a word using that very word. The New Testament is the Christians trying to prove to the world that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies foretold in the Old Testament. You can't list their effort of proof as evidence to support the very same argument."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The reason why I mentioned the New Testament was because I wanted to show that the New Testament matched secular account of historical Jesus, and historical record of what happened politically, culturally, and historically at that time.
It supported that the New Testament was not fabricated by people that were born much later than Jesus's time. If it was fabricated, at least it was fabricated by the "disciples" who were with Jesus.
Second, for the Christians who witnessed the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ, you said "You can't list their effort of proof as evidence to support the very same argument"
Where does that come from? You mean I cannot accept eyewitnesses evidence? So should the court refuses eyewitnesses evidence from now on?
Supposed a group of men witnessed a murder, and testified in court. The defending lawyer said to the judge and juries,"You can't list their effort of proof as evidence to support the very same argument".
Does that make sense to you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The reason why I am answering this point of yours is because
it is still relevant to this hub. As for the rest of your points that I am not answering, they are not relevant to this hub. You moved the goal post!
The purposes of this hub are:
1) to show that the biblical model is no less logical than a scientific theory, and
2) to show that "proof of God" or "prove God exists or not exists" are unreasonable.
Again, don't try to move the goal post here. Make you own hub if you want to show to the world that the New Testament and Old Testament (the Hebrews version of Old Testament, which I use too) contradicted each other or whatever (such as OT being tempered).
I may or may not comment on your in-the-making hubs, but I will continue to produce new hubs on related topics. You are welcome to drop some relevant comments that are relevant to the purpose of my hubs.
No, that's not me. I'm am genuinely curious what it is that you are worshiping. Maybe you could help me out and from there I could consider the rest of your argument.
"Okay, let's start at the beginning. I would like you to imagine (your) 'God' right now...
Now explain to me what you see."
How is that relevant to anything in this hub?
"And I prefer that you don't recite ambiguous quotes from the Bible. Please describe WHAT this God that you worship IS in your own words."
I don't prefer to imagine God outside of the Bible. This hub explains why I prefer to prove the Bible wrong or right, instead of to prove whether God exists or not.
Similarly, to imagine God outside of the Bible, it is no longer the same God. It becomes a make-shift god of my vain imagination.
If you want what I think you need, see this
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1284228
On the right column, you see "Ask Sai Kit a question based on this hub", but I prefer you just use the question function provided in hubpages.com to ask everyone.
Awesome hub. My lily pad is off to you. A couple of sore heads won't sway their points but i concur with you completely. Awesome hub.
Congratulations.
i loved the hub.
well done!
@ Hanging out
while I thank you for your kind words, I disagree with your choice of words "sore heads" you use against the skeptics, because they didn't use that against you nor me. Even if they do, I am not supposed to return curse for curse.
Remember, we are not "once saved always saved". We must be careful, lest ourselves be disqualified. If we sin, we must repent.
I will make more hubs that tackle the "Christianity religion" in the future. You might be my future skeptic too. I don't know.
(If God doesn't exist, there should be plenty of evidences to conclusively demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. Can you make a claim that the Bible has error, inconsistency, or falsehood and then prove it? If so, then you have shown that the Bible is wrong and errant.)
SaiKit,
One tiny problem - you have not defined error, inconsistency, or falsehood. These are not absolute values, so the real question is what proof of error, inconsistency, or falsehood would you accept?
Or would you be the one "moving the goalposts"?
Just a simple example will suffice. The book of Ezekiel makes a prophesy that the city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed - but the city of Tyre, Lebanon, still exists today.
Is this as error, inconsistency, or falsehood, or would you offer another explanation?
@AKA Winston
AKA Winston: "One tiny problem - you have not defined error, inconsistency, or falsehood. These are not absolute values, so the real question is what proof of error, inconsistency, or falsehood would you accept?"
Does it matter whether I accept or not? This hub is not for actual debate for evidence against or for the Bible anyways.
It's not necessary for me to define "error, inconsistency, or falsehood", because I have achieved this main thing--to explain to reader that "Bible is falsible"
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
In the above link you will find what you need to know.
AKA Winston: "Or would you be the one "moving the goalposts"?"
How so?
One of the purposes of this hub is to establish that "biblical belief is no less logical than a scientific theory"
The criteria for being a scientific theory is that this theory must be falsifiable if it has falsehood.
This is why I said in this hub:
Quote myself: "If God doesn't exist, there should be plenty of evidences to conclusively demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. Can you make a claim that the Bible has error, inconsistency, or falsehood and then prove it? If so, then you have shown that the Bible is wrong and errant."
The key is falsifiability.
Therefore I am not moving the goal post. In fact, the above quote is necessary for the purposes of this hub.
See the definition of "moving the goal post" again.
SaiKit,
My question is relevant: a person can always "move the goalpost" by offering a rationalization for apparent discrepancies - the Big Bang theory has already done this with a posited inflation, along with further tweaks including dark matter and dark energy. So what proof would you accept that the bible is in error, has a discrepancy, or is contradictory? Or would you simply offer asserted non-provable claims (like dark energy) to fill in the problems with your beliefs?
I repeat my question: Is the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel an error, an inconsistency, or a contradiction that then falsifies the bible or do you offer a rationalization of the written words to explain why the reality of the history of Tyre does not match the biblical prophecy?
By the way, I agree with you that theory about a God creator is no different logically than a modern scientific method theory. However, the modern idea of science is not the only idea and certainly not the best.
Best science is that a theory offers a rational explanation for a natural phenomena. A rational theory does not attempt proof. It is observer-independent.
As you have said and I agree with completely, proof and truth are subjective terms. As humans, the best we can do is to rationally explain how nature may work - but if we start to try to prove it, we may as well just open a polling booth and vote on the idea.
SaiKit,
I would guess that English is not your first language as there are times when your responses do not match the nuances of what has been offered. Sorry if unclear.
Let me restart this with a definition of "moving the goalposts" from wikipedia: "Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
Thus, my question to you had NOTHING to do with your present hub but WHETHER Or NOT a future offering of proof of biblical error would be accepted - in other words, what is the type proof you will accept, or will you always "move the goalpost" to rationalize away any and all provided evidence of biblical error, discrepancies, or contradictions?
Because if you won't accept any evidence that does not fit your belief system, what is the point of saying that your belief is falsibiable? It is not - not to you.
I will give you an example to try to be as clear as possible as to what I mean. I offered the example of Ezekiel's prophecy of the utter destruction of the city of Tyre as a failed prophecy, a biblical error. Now, some Christian apologists have claimed that Nebuchanezzar did destroy the mainland Tyre, which is accurate, but the city of Tyre itself was an island and the mainland was not considered to be Tyre, so the apologists' claim is a stretch and a rationalization.
My question to you is which proof do you accept - do you accept that Ezekiel's prophecy is false or do you move the goalposts and offer a rationalization for this error to try to show it as a non-error?
If you ask for evidence but will never accept evidence, how can there be falsification? If there can be no falsification you accept, then your claim of falsification is a red herring.
@ AKA Winston
I already made the point of "Bible being falsifiable"
If you want to actually falsify the Bible, then do it somewhere else. We will have our debates there.
AKA Winston: "I repeat my question: Is the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel an error, an inconsistency, or a contradiction that then falsifies the bible or do you offer a rationalization of the written words to explain why the reality of the history of Tyre does not match the biblical prophecy?"
This entire question is not relevant to this hub. You may start a hub that focus exactly on your question, but don't squeeze it into this hub.
AKA Winston: "Thus, my question to you had NOTHING to do with your present hub but WHETHER Or NOT a future offering of proof of biblical error would be accepted - in other words, what is the type proof you will accept, or will you always "move the goalpost" to rationalize away any and all provided evidence of biblical error, discrepancies, or contradictions?"
You said it yourself. You admit that your question has nothing to do with this hub.
If you want to falsify the Bible, you can do it somewhere else. I may or may not comment on your hubs that challenge or falsify the Bible.
I already have made my points in this hub.
@ AKA Winston
AKA Winston: "By the way, I agree with you that theory about a God creator is no different logically than a modern scientific method theory. However, the modern idea of science is not the only idea and certainly not the best.
Best science is that a theory offers a rational explanation for a natural phenomena. A rational theory does not attempt proof. It is observer-independent."
The biblical belief does explain natural phenomena, otherwise it is not a theory.
Not only does a theory has to be falsifiable, but it has to be used to explain something. Otherwise, it is a useless theory.
@ AKA Winston:
AKA Winston:
"I would guess that English is not your first language as there are times when your responses do not match the nuances of what has been offered. Sorry if unclear."
My response did not match the nuance of what has been offered?
I chose not to answer something that I thought was irrelevant to this hub.
Your question about "Is the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel an error, an inconsistency, or a contradiction that then falsifies the bible or...." is actually a red herring, because it has nothing to do with my hub (you admitted it), and it distracts the readers from the main arguments and points of this hub.
This was why I didn't answer it the first time. I wanted to clarify my points, instead of letting the red herring prevailed.
Now, I think I have made it pretty clear that I am not going to engage off topic question such as the one you just asked, because it is a red herring.
AKA Winston: "If you ask for evidence but will never accept evidence, how can there be falsification? If there can be no falsification you accept, then your claim of falsification is a red herring."
Your usage of "red herring" is off. In fact, your question of "destruction of Tyre..." is the real red herring here.
You will never know whether I am going to accept your evidence or falsification if you don't actually start a hub that contain your question, challenge, or falsification.
Whether I am actually going to comment in your in-the-making hubs depends on whether I have the time to do it, and whether I think your hub is the best platform for me to debate the topics in question.
This hub is not the appropriate place for debating and falsifying the Bible.
I already restated the purposes of this hub many times. Don't let anymore red herrings in please.
SaiKit,
Let me stay within the confines of your hub, then.
(In other words, a belief is a belief. Belief will remain logical as long as the thought process is logical, regardless of the degree of outrageousness the claim might appear.)
Are you claiming that a belief in a round triangle or a married bachelor can be logical? For an argument to be sound, the premises must be true. How can a premise that "it is possible that houses are invisible" be considered a true premise?
Now, it is accurate that truth is only opinion, so that we cannot rule out totally the possibility of an invisible house - not in the logical construction. At the same time, we can certainly determine how likely a conclusion is to be accurate based on the rationality of the premises. For example, there is no empirical evidence of a dead body coming back to life after three days in the grave. Therefore, any natural explanation for finding an empty grave is more reasonable and plausible than a supernatural explanation.
That is why it is stupid to debate religious ideas in a logical format, as logic is tautology and its logicalness stems from its premises.
The more difficult test comes in showing belief to be a rational explanation for reality - which cannot be done.
SaiKit,
Clearly, the idea of falsification must be subjective, correct? After all, if observation and testability are the necessary conditions, those rely on our 5 senses and thus have to be subjective, i.e., observer-dependent, do they not?
So, can you explain to me with your 5 senses why it is that when you drop a ball from your hand it falls to the floor and does not rise to the ceiling? What test or falsification explains WHY it happens the way it does?
Sure, you can predict the ball will fall to the floor, you can measure its speed of fall, count how many times it falls, watch it fall, hear it thud, feel it slip from your fingers, and if it is an old tennis ball you can smell it and it will taste like dried sweat.
How does any of that help you understand why the ball fell to the floor?
I do not disagree with you that modern science and the schools will teach you that the scientific method of experimentation is as you say it is - dependent on testability and falsifiability. But what I am asking transcends experimentation.
I would prefer to hear what SaiKit himself thinks, rather than what SaiKit has been taught.
@ AKA Winston
AKA Winston: "Are you claiming that a belief in a round triangle or a married bachelor can be logical? "
Round triangle is oxymoron, and so is married bachelor.
AKA Winston: "For an argument to be sound, the premises must be true. "
Premises (assumptions) must be true?
Quote from Wikipedia.org on "Scientific Theory":
"it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
AKA Winston: ' How can a premise that "it is possible that houses are invisible" be considered a true premise?" '
The premise "houses are invisible" are falsified as soon as it is written, because we all can visualize houses.
It's not a useful premise. A premise cannot contradict itself, nor can it be known to be true or false.
"houses are invisible" are known to be false already, so it cannot be a premise.
AKA Winston: "For example, there is no empirical evidence of a dead body coming back to life after three days in the grave. Therefore, any natural explanation for finding an empty grave is more reasonable and plausible than a supernatural explanation."
Again, you are moving the goal post here, because you are introducing a new debate on "whether Jesus resurrected or not? Is there a more natural or plausible explanation?", which requires additional evidence and arguments.
We don't have to debate with you whether Jesus resurrected to debate the current points of this hub, so don't go there. You are moving the goal post.
The premise "God exists" and the premise "Bible is God's words" have none of the errors that your non-premises have. For example, your non-premise of "houses are invisible" can never be a premise.
AKA Winston: "The more difficult test comes in showing belief to be a rational explanation for reality - which cannot be done."
You may try to show that the bibical belief is not rational explanation for reality.
I can try to show that the biblical belief is rational explanation for reality.
This can be done in new hubs. However, trying to show whether or not the biblical belief is a rational explanation for reality is outside of the scope of this hub.
It's like trying to falsify the Bible right here, which is not within the scope of this hub.
SaiKit,
I seems to me the only things you believe are within the scope of this hub are your unchallenged assertions.
Sorry to have attempted discourse with you. You are now free to move about the cabin.
@ AKA Winston
AKA Winston: "So, can you explain to me with your 5 senses why it is that when you drop a ball from your hand it falls to the floor and does not rise to the ceiling?"
Newton already explained this with "Newton's theory of gravitation", and so is Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity#New
AKA Winston: " What test or falsification explains WHY it happens the way it does?"
Test and falsification don't explain ANYTHING.
Falsification are useful for testing the theory that explains something.
For example, Newton's theory is falsifiable. We can do experiments to try to falsify the theory. Later, the theory is superseded by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity.
Newton's theory is useful in explaining what you just asked me to explain.
Summary: Theory explains something, and we test the theory by trying to falsify it.
Note: Any scientific theory must be falsifiable. By falsifiable, it doesn't mean it is false. It means if the theory is false, it can be shown to be false.
AKA Winston:"How does any of that help you understand why the ball fell to the floor?"
You are, in fact, asking me to come up with a theory to explain the phenomena of gravity. You are asking me to come up with a feat comparable to that of Newton!
If you insist that I explain gravity with my 5 senses, without using a legitimate theory such as Newton's theory, then you are asking me to go beyond a theory.
@ AKA Winston
If your concern is that "falsification is subjective, therefore Sai Kit may not accept any reasonable falsification effort from us, because he may reject anything we come up with anyway, regardless of our evidence and rationality", then why don't you just ask me directly, instead of going through all the trouble?
To answer your concern as I understand it: Why would I reject your evidence no matter what?
Faith is a huge investment/committment. Why would I like to believe in something blindly in face of overwhelming evidence?
Now, whether you have sufficient evidence is not within the scope of this hub. You can certainly invite me to another debate in your attempt to falsify the Bible, but in another hub or forum, not here.
Sai Kit,
I recognize that you are intelligent. It is not my design to challenge your faith, even if I could.
It seemed to me as if you were positing yourself that the bible is inerrant and any error, contradiction, or discrepancies would falsify it. I was simply trying to find out what proof you would accept as falsification. Nothing more.
Thanks.
By the way, one of the earliest comments I made to you on someone else's hub I think you misunderstood - it was not an insult. What I said is that to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible required "suspension of disbelief". This phrase refers to literature, where readers puroposefully "suspend disbelief" in order to enjoy the make-believe world of fantasy, like when reading Alice in Wonderland or Watership Down.
I still contend that to believe that many stories of the Old Testament are true requires a similar "suspension of disbelief" - if you read the same story in a newspaper you would think it was a hoax, because you are reading a newspaper factually, not with suspension of disbelief.
@AKA Winston
Thanks for the kind words.
I won't mind if anyone challenges my faith. As long as they are not rude and the debate is productive (as in trying to not commit logical fallacies on purposes).
What proof would I accept as falsification?
If I know the answer, I am no longer a believer right?
The reason that I am still a believer is because so far I still feel there is insufficient evidence to falsify the bible. So there is still no "proof I would accept as falsification"
Suppose I ask you this question, "What are you allergic to?"
Suppose you have never had an allergic attack, then how do you know what you are allergic to?
As long as you have never had an allergic attack, you can still consider yourself a "normal person", but as soon as you have an allergic attack, you are no longer a "normal person". You have an allergy.
Similarly, if I have something that I accept as proof of falsification, I am no longer a believer.
You may ask, how do you know you will never meet the proof of falsification?
How can I ever exhaust the possibility of a possible falsification? It is like asking me to eliminate all doubt before I can be a believer.
I think there is never absence of doubts. No matter what you do, there are always some doubts. As long as your "truth" or "belief" have more evidence to support than doubts, then you have to exercise "faith".
For example, if you are going to drive tomorrow morning, how do you know you will not die in a car accident on the road? How do you know your car will take you there and not break down? You don't know, but the odds are sufficiently small to you to give you enough peace of mind to do so. You cant wait until all doubts vanish before you drive. If everyone thinks like that, the world will crumble.
Without "faith", humans can't operate. (Another belief of mine)
Sai Kit,
I have no problems with you or your beliefs. In fact I applaud you as being willing to acknowledge the subjective nature of proof, truth, and logic. Not many are willing to do that.
Your explanation is quite sound about falsification, as falsification again is subjective.
Btw, if English is indeed a second language for you I am quite impressed with your skills in its use. I also applaud your knowledge of logic and would guess that it is based on a mathematical education?
Be well.
Thanks AKA Winston:
If you suspect that English is my second language, then let me just give you the fact here--yes, English is my second language. lol
Yes, my knowledge of logic came from my mathematical education in the University of Waterloo, Canada. It was a painstaking and excruciating experience to earn that degree.
And I seem to have just discovered a way to use what I learned there (i.e. to write this hub). For the longest time I didn't know why I had to learn all those mathematical languages/concepts/rules...
You be well too.
well i'm disappointed to say the least. nothing you wrote about proves that god is real or that jesus ever existed. i've watched many documentaries on these subjects and none so far have given better then a 50-50 chance. proving that god is real is the job of the believers concidering this belief has caused many wars, jihads etc., it has given religions tax breaks while athiest continue to pay taxes. at first i thought this hub might be a challenge but other then your use of large words, you have provided nothing but the usual mumbo-jumbo stated time and time again. if you want proof that god didn't create this planet never mind humans just look at how the planet is. we have people dying all the time from a poorly created planet but believers try to say god is perfect. well if this is the result of one of his creations, then worshipping such a being is not only fruitless but humourus.
lot's of debating here. Do any of the Atheists here actually think you are going to convert a Christian on this post? Do any of the Christians think they are going to convert an Atheist? Why bother? Who cares what you think? Why not go do something productive like help someone that needs help?
I'm going to feed homeless people. Get off this meaningless topic and help me.
@nightwork4
"proving that god is real is the job of the believers concidering this belief has caused many wars, jihads etc., "
Was religion the only thing that caused wars? Was it even on the top of the list?
Most wars were started by dictators, big government, human greeds, politicians... if you check the history.
Did the Catholic church really started the wars because of beliefs? Or because of human greed? I am not part of the Catholic Church and they have burned 50 millions of men and women like me (biblical believers following the word by word teaching of Jesus), who had a literal view on the Bible, and they didn't let the people to read the Bible for thousand of years.
Catholic Church was a state made monster to control the people and real believers they had always been persecuting since the Rome Caesar Neo
"it has given religions tax breaks while athiest continue to pay taxes."
Interest groups, activists, public sectors, outdated/irrelevant/noncompetitive education systems, and unionized workers, are the ones that are stealing from the tax payers.
Of course, I don't like most institutional/denominational churches (I think they are brainwash) and I don't even think they deserve the tithes. I am kind of with you on this ones.
"if you want proof that god didn't create this planet never mind humans just look at how the planet is. we have people dying all the time from a poorly created planet but believers try to say god is perfect"
You and I (your ancestors and mine) have created the suffering together in this planet, and then you questioned God...
Did your tax dollars not go toward the armies who killed and destroyed? Had you never voted for a politician who was pro-abortion?
See my take on it http://bible-verses-insights.com/2010/01/why-does-
Radioactive Dating is NOT flawed and Flood Geology is impossible. Radioactive dating all require validation from other dating strategies (like stratification, glacial deposits and tree rings). Their accuracy has been confirmed by these separate ways of dating that have nothing to do with radioactivity. Consider the following links:
http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html (this one is by an actual Christian scientist, is very detailed and specifically addresses why radiometric dating is accurate despite claims by creationists to the contrary).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html (talkorigins is a secular site devoted to the creation/evolution debate, FYI. Nevertheless, the links is very informative.)
http://actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html (favorite quote from this one: "A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.")
I could post more but I'll limit myself to three. My question for the OP is how do account for the high level of consistency between results using different methods?
I think this point is crucial to your claim that science actually confirms the bible and, in particular, the biblical time scale/flood geology.
The theory of evolution has been proven to be accurate through the scientific method. And at least a few months ago there was no Theory of Creation. If there has been published one in the last few months I wouldn't know.
Also, randomly, the evidence of the consistency of the bible is equal proof of a magical fairy using her powers to make sure the text never changes. All in order to fool humankind.
Theory of Evolution is pseudo science that can never be truly proven.
You can't use "accurate" to describe the theory, because accurate is only used when it is observable and measurable.
Your position is no different to "because most people in science community believe it, therefore it is true". Majority of scientists have believed in many things and they turned out to be not true and were replaced by newer theories.
Evolution has been observed in germs and insects, and DNA is "easily" studied.
And no, my position is "they have evidence backed up by reasonable arguments and I have no arguments against them, therefore they are likely correct. And until the point where I either have reason to disbelieve their claims I will either believe them, or be undecided".
The point isn't to be right about everything, no one will ever be. The point is to be justified in your beliefs. And the scientific method and critical thinking has demonstrated themselves to be the most reliable ways to tell truths from non-truths.
If I am reading this correctly then SaiKit believes that the bible is perfect and can not be proven to have any inaccuracies. I certainly can't debate the word of the bible and I would look silly doing so, but perhaps I don't have to. At 10 years old I started noting some contradictions in what I was being taught. If this book is actually the word of God then it must be perfect. I noted that if the bible had predicted that the earth was round and not the centre of the universe then we would have something. Right? There are no such predictions that make non-believers go WOW.
Need proof of the theory of Evolution, look no further then the colour of your skin. Why are we so different when only a few thousand years ago there supposedly was only Adam and Eve? Why are whites better adapted to climates with less day light? Because they have evolved to need very little sunlight to create vitamin D. The Inuit in the far north have evolved to be less likely to develop frost bit. You need to look no further than your hand for proof of Evolution.
Need more? Are not the four gospels of the NT different? How is that possible? If it was proven that all 4 were written in different parts of the world at the same time and were exactly the same, then you would have something. But they are not the same, some have miracles some don't. It seems suspect to me that the later versions had more miracles.
Radioactive Dating could be flawed, sure by a bit. But it is consistent. Has a dinosaur fossil ever dated to being a few thousand years old? No. Radioactive dating proofs errors in the bible. The writers of the of the first testament could have not known of the science of today. They didn't know they could be proven wrong by science. The universe is not a few thousand years old and it was not created in a few days.
I have no problem with believers, my wife is one. I do however find it amusing when and obviously intelligent person dismisses science (Radiometric dating and the theory of Evolution) for a collection of writings a few thousand years old.
why rad man, why waste your time. he uses high sounding words but never accept anything said to him. no contradictions in bible? LOL historical proof of jesus?? historians of that time put notes on petty charlatans like Jesus ben Pandira but not jesus the christ and he says there are only proofs and the more. this hub is a waste of time frankly or may be the respite of believers........
saikit,
you are not making any new point at all . . . and proof of god from a christian ? what is that supposed to mean ? don't you already believe in it ?
You sound as "locked minded" as any other religious person.
Evolution - pseudo science ? what are you talking about?
You think you have a point but you just keep repeating the same thing over and over.
and YES, if you want anybody to belive you have to prove it, not me. I don't beileve in god why should i be the one to prove he doesn't ?
Until he shows up, all you have is a ignorant perception of life, passed to you by years of unquestioned tales.
and it is funny how you think you can tell people o learn history . . . all you talk is bible, thats not history buddy.
if any one wants proof that God does exist, that is easy all they have to do is seek Him,
He will knock on our door, he will come in if we open it, if we knock on his door, he will open it
seek Him with our whole heart and we will find Him
When anyone wants proof, they can find it
To exorter,
Sorry, blind faith is for the weak minded. All organized religions seek out the weak minded and exploit them. Any extremist of any religion would be an extremist of another religion in a different region of the world. The Christian extremist from the southern states would be al-Qaida if born in the middle east.
What you speak of is not proof. Just because you want it to be so does not make it so. Do you still believe in Santa? I wish there was a Santa, but wishing does not make it so. Grow up.
Re: Rad Man,
When do you grow out of "appeal to ridicule" then?
When will you grow out of making statements as if they were true?
"blind faith is for the weak minded" then show us why you said exorter has a blind faith and based on what do you say that? Or is it you who made the blind accusation?
Christian extremist from the southern states? What did they do that made them the counterpart of al-Qaida?
"What you speak of is not proof."
What extorter suggested was a way to find proof. He didn't say he was giving us any proof, but he was suggesting what he thought was the way to find proof.
Extorter: If you go to person A and ask, then he will show you the proof.
Rad Man: What you speak of is not proof!! *Angry*
Do you see what you are doing now?
BTW.
Do you think ET aliens don't exist because you haven't seen them?
It's interesting that you (Saikit) did not post on my comment 3 weeks ago, but you post on my second comment one hour later. I must have gotten you with the first one?
All Christians need to make a blind leap of faith. You need to believe in something you can not see and have no evidence of it's existence. The bible is the only thing you have to go on. Your bible is riddled with flaws. Blind faith has gotten too many Christian boy and girls in trouble. This is fact. All Christianity is business. They raise money. They don't practice what they preach. That is a fact. I have no problem with Christianity or Religion. I do have a problem with blind faith. If you meet someone and they tell you they 1000 years old, but they have no proof or evidence. Run, you will be taken advantage of.
All Christians need blind faith. exorter is a christian and therefore requires blind faith.
If one is an extremist of any faith, their mind is the type to be an extremist of any faith if raised and or brain washed in that faith.
What exorter was suggesting was not a way to find proof. He was suggesting one needs blind faith.
BTW.
Do you have proof of aliens visiting our planet? If you do, show me and I'll believe. I don't doubt there are other worlds out there with creatures inhabiting planets. But they haven't visited our planet yet. They would have no reason to hide their agenda. Just as God would have no reason to hide his agenda.
I did or do not mean to come across angry, I was only responding to exorter.
Re: Radman,
Your arguments were full of fallacies. I already listed many for others here so I won't repeat them for you.
Did you get me with the first comment? NO. At first glance I can already spot out many logical mistakes and ignorances in every single paragraph you wrote.
The reason I didn't respond was because I was too busy and too impatient to make the effort at the time, and then I sort of forgot about it.
Re: Tastybrain
"I could post more but I'll limit myself to three. My question for the OP is how do account for the high level of consistency between results using different methods?"
You fail to see the circular reasonings in the sources you link to.
Basically the different methods "prove each other" A proves B, and B proves C, and then C proves A, so therfore A, B, and C must be true at the same time.
This is an example of circular reasoning.
In fact, none of the methods alone, or together, can conclude that the earth must be more than 10,000 years old.
Well SaiKit, I don't think it's an ignorant statement that the proof of evolution is the colour of our skin. It's no accident that peoples from areas closer to the equator have darker skin. It's interesting that people closer to the poles have lighter skin. The most probable answer is usually the correct answer to a problem. Our greatest minds estimate the world to be 4.5 billion years old. All evidence backs that up. It's the most likely. Except for one book written a few thousand years ago. The fact the you maintain that the book is right and our greatest minds are wrong is pure ignorance.
@ Rad Man,
"I don't think it's an ignorant statement that the proof of evolution is the colour of our skin."
Have I ever said that it was an ignorant statement? I said your first comment was full of ignorant statements, but haven't pointed out which statement yet.
"straw man" is committed here.
"It's no accident that peoples from areas closer to the equator have darker skin. "
It's no accident? said who? How does some people have darker skin where the Sun shines more often or skin lighter where the Sun shines less leads you to conclude that it's no accident? While I agree that it's not an accident, you really need to give your reasons when you state something.
And even if it's not an accident, how does that prove that it must be evolution? Adaptation is far from evolution. The fact that human can adapt doesn't prove that our offspring can eventually evolve into a different specie.
"The most probable answer is usually the correct answer to a problem. "
I totally disagree. And again you state something without validating it with reasons.
Now let me explain why I disagree with you.
The scientist, doctors, historicans, and whatever experts have always had probable answers of many kinds to all kind of mysteries, phenomenon, and everything under the Sun, but 99% of the times they got it wrong the first dozens of times and had to come up with newer theories. It has always been like that for the last thousands of years.
"Our greatest minds estimate the world to be 4.5 billion years old. "
Scientists have conflicting and differing ideas of how old the world is. Where did your info come from?
"All evidence backs that up. "
What evidence? Don't talk about what other people talk about what other people talk about. Show me what you have learned and how you used that knowledge to come up with the belief system you have now.
"The fact the you maintain that the book is right and our greatest minds are wrong is pure ignorance."
So I have to agree with a group of people because the you think they are the greatest minds? Not that the majority of people really think that they are the greatest minds anyways, just enough people in the West who believe in it and establish some "authoritative" community or association and acknowledge one another.
You do know that the majority of people in the world don't believe in evolution right? So who has the right to claim anyone or any group to be the greatest minds? If the majority of this world believe in the "greatest minds" then why would they believe in religious systems that contradict the "greatest minds" you believe in so religiously?
And if in reality the "greatest minds" are only believed by a not-so-majority people who think they are the "greatest minds", then who are you to say that they are the greatest minds?
~~~~~~~~~~
Again you committed the fallacy of "Begging the question" Check that out on wikipedia please
And let me explain how you did it.
Just because I disagree with you so I am ignorance. This is what you are really saying.
This is a form of circular reasoning like I pointed out in this hub.
The fact that you visited a hub that has showed many sketpics who have committed the same mistakes and still managed to make the same mistakes they made indicate what? (fill in the blank)
Next time if you commit the same mistakes again, I will just delete your comment, because I don't have time to repeat what I have said dozens of times here. You see I have already called out on many mistakes here and the offenders didn't insist anymore. If you insist, I will have to just delete your comment, whereas I only did it to those who "appeal to ridicules" before. Don't be an exception here dear. ;)
Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Evolution is in fact adaptation. You have admitted that people can adapt to an environment. It happens by accident. A person is born with lighter skin in the north. That person is able to absorb more vitamin D and is therefore stronger and has more children with that genetic make up. Small changes happen and over a long period of time those changes add up to much more adaptations to environment or culture. Our skin colour is in fact proof of adaptation which means people evolve. If left in isolation two separate people would evolve (adapt) is separate directions if given enough time. Which explain the evidence of many humanoid peoples that have been found such as Neanderthals. Look up Evole in a Thesaurus and you get Adapt. Look up Evolution in the dictionary and you get (a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.) I have begged no questions here. I have simply showed that peoples ability to adapt (evolve) produced peoples with skin adapted to their environment, which is the very definition of Evolution.
@Radman
"It happens by accident"
So do you think adaptation is accident or do you think it is not accident? Be firm and clear w/ your position please.
"Small changes happen and over a long period of time those changes add up to much more adaptations to environment or culture."
Over a long period of time? Prove it! Don't just claim what someone claims what some people claims. Give me your reasons why you believe it has been a loooonnnngg time.
"Our skin colour is in fact proof of adaptation which means people evolve"
Adaptation = Evolution? Again you made an assumption without reasoning nor evidence, so you can't call it a proof. Proof requires logical reasonings such as deduction or induction, and evidence, not mere statements.
A bald man with one strand of hair is still a bald man.
So some degree of adaptations doesn't equal to a full-blown, specie changing evolution.
Don't make such a big jump without sitting down to think about it.
See Sorities Paradox and you will see what I mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
"Which explain the evidence of many humanoid peoples that have been found such as Neanderthals. "
Claiming that Neanderthals are humanoid specie that is a different specie from the human specie is unproven.
A small group of people living isolated and harsh condition would cause their bone structure to be like that of the Neanderthals. We see similar brain size and bone structure in small number of humans today too.
"Look up Evole in a Thesaurus and you get Adapt."
Scientic "Evolve" and "Adapt" are separate words. Don't use the literature to prove science. Playing with words don't prove anything.
"Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.) "
What are those discoveries? Be specific. Show what you have got and how they made you think the way you think, then we can discuss.
"I have begged no questions here. I have simply showed that peoples ability to adapt (evolve) produced peoples with skin adapted to their environment, which is the very definition of Evolution."
I didn't say you begged the question when you talked about adaptation. I called it on you when you called others ignorant just because they disagreed with you.
Basically, your pages of comments have never contained a single proof, but many statements, rehashed what-other-people-say-about-what-other-people-say, and accusations. Show me your reasonings, not statements!
You are (moving the goat posts) yourself. Lets go back to the beginning. Prove bible fallacies. You claim there are none. Here are just a few. If it's not perfect it's just a book. Correct?
Who were the first to come to Jesus's tomb on Sunday?
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)
Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (Matthew 28:1)
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and "the other women" (Luke 24:10)
Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1)
Well which is it? Why are they not the same?
Are women equal to men in the community of believers?
Yes - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
No - "The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
The Catholic church seems to say NO as well.
Is Jesus equal to God?
Yes - "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
No - "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
Look, I can do this all day. There are thousands of discrepancies with the bible.
Science works by trying to disprove a theory. Evolution has not been falsified yet. It's too bad the bible didn't predict that the world was round or that we rotate around the sun. That would have been something. You think Jesus should have known that?
You have no evidence that god exists. Nothing.
@Radman,
"You are (moving the goat posts) yourself. "
Explain how. I couldn't be moving the goat posts while all I have been doing was to dismantle YOUR statements and accusations.
Read the definition of "moving the goat post" please. And pack up your previous accusations and non-reason-backed statements and bring them home with you please.
"It's too bad the bible didn't predict that the world was round or that we rotate around the sun."
The world knew the earth was round even in Jesus' time. Why did the Bible has to predict common sense and everyday's fact? (Although it did state that the earth is round, see http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible. ) Does the Bible needs to prove and reveal every single scientific laws and theories in order to be true?
Oh and before I proceed to address anymore of your challenges for the Bible, I want to state something here (I am not letting YOU to move the goat post here. Let's set the record straight first)
So all in all you were the one who didn't know why you believed what you claimed to believe, afterall, since you kept churning out statements after statements, without any reasoning or personally describing what exactly you are believing and why.
"Science works by trying to disprove a theory. Evolution has not been falsified yet. "
Oh, so you didn't know that before or what? Why do you say this all of a sudden as if the rest of the people who read this hub do not already know? (I made the concept of falsication known to many new readers here)
Evolution isn't falsified, by the definition of falsicifcation, but so is the Bible. This is what I have been saying in this hub.
Other than that, your challenging the Bible here is a RED HERRING. It seems that you are trying to cover the fact that you don't really know what you are believing in and why, but that you tried to bash us around by thumping your accusations and your non-reasons statements onto our faces.
Again this hub is to expose the ignorance and logical fallacies of some skeptics, and to establish the fact that the belief in the Bible is logical.
Now I have already succeed in doing that. Why? because you finally moved the goat post to challenge the Bible here, and failed to address my previous rebuttals towards the things you said in this hub.
Of course I am not going to answer your newer challenges, because you can browse the websites and find out the answers on your own. And the scope of this hub is pretty clear, and what I wanted to establish has already been established here.
No need to "Move the Goat Posts" here (And this is the proper way to use it) Like I have said many times, trying to falsify or defend the Bible isn't the scope of this hub.
Make one on your own hub if you want to talk about a new topic, such as which person reached the empty tomb of Jesus first.
It is goal posts and not goat posts. And you are moving the goal posts (which changes the game and is cheating) by not addressing the discrepancies in the bible as I mentioned above.
If you need to know I am an Atheist. I thought that was understood. I am however open minded (unlike some atheists and christians) if you show me proof I will believe. The bible is a book with errors. The shroud of Turin is a fake. It has never been dated to the correct time. SHOW ME PROOF!!! You said you have proof. I don't see it.
@Radman
"And you are moving the goal posts (which changes the game and is cheating) by not addressing the discrepancies in the bible as I mentioned above."
The readers can look up the definition themselves and judge for themselves.
This hub is to tell people what "proof" should be and why we believe in the Bible, and that it is logical.
If you want the "proof", you should find it from dozens of sites out there.
Most of the times you just need to read the Bible carefully and the "dscrepancy" will resolve itself.
"shroud of Turin" is probably fake, because Jesus didn't have long hair. It was a shame for the Jews at the time for men to have long hair, and probably even now.
@ Rad Man
See below for the definition of "Moving the Goalposts":
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
So I responded to your statements and accusations. You dimissed them and moved on to talking about the so called discrepancies of the Bible.
Stop trying to confuse the readers here. It showed that you chose ignorance and deceptions on purpose. It was so obvious what "Moving the Goalposts" is, for example, yet you were willingly deceiving yourself into believing the opposite and accused others for doing it. It showed there are deceptions in your heart and you love it.
Repent before the Judgement Day comes man.
Self Contradiction: (Accident or no accident?)
Rad Man: It's no accident that peoples from areas closer to the equator have darker skin. It's interesting that people closer to the poles have lighter skin.
SK: It's no accident? said who? How does some people have darker skin where the Sun shines more often or skin lighter where the Sun shines less leads you to conclude that it's no accident? While I agree that it's not an accident, you really need to give your reasons when you state something.
Rad Man: Evolution is in fact adaptation. You have admitted that people can adapt to an environment. It happens by accident.
~~~~~~~~~
Begging the Question:
"The fact the you maintain that the book is right and our greatest minds are wrong is pure ignorance."
Rad Man: You are ignorant because you disagree with those whom I believe are the greatest minds!
SK: Why do you think they are the grestest minds? So the fact that I am disagreeing with you makes me ignorant?
Rad Man ignored me and moved on to reciting what other people told him about evolution and many other non-reason-supported statements.
~~~~~~~~
Accusing other for what himself did:
Rad Man: You are (moving the goat posts) yourself.
SK: Explain how. I couldn't be moving the goat posts while all I have been doing was to dismantle YOUR statements and accusations.
Rad Man: It is goal posts and not goat posts.
SK: But I am just quoting you...
~~~~~~~~~
Moving the Goalposts:
Rad Man talked about his view of adaptation=Evolution and other non-senses, so I spent the time to address his non-reasons-supported statements and this was what he gave me:
"You are (moving the goat posts) yourself. Lets go back to the beginning. Prove bible fallacies."
OK, so he dismissed my rebuttals to his previous statements and accusation of us believers being ignorant for disagreeing with him, and then accused me of moving the goalposts.
Again this is the definition of moving the goalposts:
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
Rad Man dismissed my rebuttals to his adaptation=Evolutions and several others non-reasons statements, but moved on to "Bible Fallacies", which I already stated that it wasn't the scope of this hub.
~~~~~~~~~
Remember who started this Rad Man:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Does-God-Exist-Christian#c
http://hubpages.com/hub/Does-God-Exist-Christian#c
I was merely refuting your inflammory accusations and pointed out the logical fallcies there.
You tried to defend your view but failed after many loopholes were poked, and you resorted to accuse me of "moving the goalposts"
How could you be an honest atheist if you play dirty like that? How can you honestly tell yourself that you refuse to believe in God because you are honest if you have to tell lies and dismiss others' view points like you did?
Reckon, you are also the product of a Time Machine, called the Humans ... it most certainly should have been there about 6000 years ago, for you to exist, today.
To me personally. How people look at the Truth of Existential Reality, is their business ... not mine.
The bible is not proof of god. If the bible is proof of god, then the ghita is proof of vishnu.
I was somewhat skeptical when I read your claim that you had proof of god (based on experience). It would seem my skepticism was well placed.
@Jesus was a hippy
This hub is more about discussing what "proof of god" should be, and that why Bible is an evidence by itself.
if you want to see my personal experience, see
The bible is evidence I agree. Although I give very little credence to a book that contains as much nonsense as the bible does. It is very poor evidence at best. In fact, it is nothing more then recorded hearsay.
The solution is that you are God, and more properly, We are God.
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. You are composed of matter, a form of energy. Thus, your energy existed at the time of creation. From quantum mechanics, we know that we are not finite, that is a biological illusion. In reality, what we see with our eyes is merely the most probable location. In fact, we extend to infinity in all directions. Thus, we are infinite in both time and space.
God: A single entity which exists everywhere (omnipresent) and knows all (ie. contains all information, omniscient). The Universe is a single entity which exists everywhere and contains all information. You and the Universe are One and cannot be separated. Separation is an illusion. We are God.
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
-Albert Einstein
Love and Light,
David Welch
ps - Find me.
Baileybear Level 3 Commenter 19 months ago
I don't actually see any valid "proof" of God in your hub. The "scientist" you link to say radioactive dating is flawed lives a double life - earns money as a geology consultant quoting in millions of years, then earns money writing for creationists quoting in hundreds of years - he can't be trusted. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.
The old testament was written about 3000 years ago - how did they manage to explain the other 3000 years (ever played "chinese whispers"?). The gospels weren't written until about a century after Jesus was supposed to have lived. As for references to real people of the time - fiction writers do that all the time.
If you had a giant flood, there would only be one great big layer, and no sorting of fossils in the layers