Post Any Evidence For God Here

[PLAYER57832]

Hmm.. I generally do think the old Testament depicts real events, and much of what is reported does disturb me, including the flood. I am not sure it was a 100% world flood, because humanity was not all over the world at the time.

I tend to put these events into one of two categories. Either, something that happened for a reason that I don't understand OR something that needed to happen so that humans could learn from it.

So why couldn't God have just told Noah to move somewhere else because He was going to flood "THAT" area? Or, the people that saw the waters rising they could have move somewhere else as well, I mean they did have 40 days and 40 nights to travel. Or why did God have 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal go on the ark if it was only a "LOCAL" flood?

I did not quite say "local", I said "not necessarily across the whole world". If, say, the entire Mideast were flooded, it would not be something people could just escape. If there were a hugely widespread flood that wiped out all known people, then the survivors would have described it as a flood that "covered the Earth", because they did not know that there was more to the Earth. That doesn't mean they are lying or telling tales, it means that they don't know what we do... and to judge them by our standards is just wrong.

All I know is what the Bible says, and that no evidence of a fully world-covering flood has yet been found. It could be that evidence will be found, or it could be that there is some other explanation, such as I described above (or something else). The one explanation I don't really buy is that it never happened at all. If the tale of Noah were just a fable, then I believe it would have been presented as such. However, the way people back then understood things was quite different than how we understand things today.

[isaiah40]

Hmm.. I generally do think the old Testament depicts real events, and much of what is reported does disturb me, including the flood. I am not sure it was a 100% world flood, because humanity was not all over the world at the time.

I tend to put these events into one of two categories. Either, something that happened for a reason that I don't understand OR something that needed to happen so that humans could learn from it.

So why couldn't God have just told Noah to move somewhere else because He was going to flood "THAT" area? Or, the people that saw the waters rising they could have move somewhere else as well, I mean they did have 40 days and 40 nights to travel. Or why did God have 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal go on the ark if it was only a "LOCAL" flood?

I did not quite say "local", I said "not necessarily across the whole world". If, say, the entire Mideast were flooded, it would not be something people could just escape. If there were a hugely widespread flood that wiped out all known people, then the survivors would have described it as a flood that "covered the Earth", because they did not know that there was more to the Earth. That doesn't mean they are lying or telling tales, it means that they don't know what we do... and to judge them by our standards is just wrong.

All I know is what the Bible says, and that no evidence of a fully world-covering flood has yet been found. It could be that evidence will be found, or it could be that there is some other explanation, such as I described above (or something else). The one explanation I don't really buy is that it never happened at all. If the tale of Noah were just a fable, then I believe it would have been presented as such. However, the way people back then understood things was quite different than how we understand things today.

IMHO, I believe that as the bible states that all the land was in one place while the sea was in another. So when the flood happened, the water under the surface burst up thus causing the Teutonic plates to shift, to what we see today. Since the water under the surface did burst up, it would have to have been a total world wide flood. Just my $0.02 worth and just my opinion, but to me it makes complete sense.

[oVo]

Proof:

The 1969 New York Mets
NY Jets upset Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III the same year

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" 1 Corinthians 2:14.
So a carnal mind see the things of God as foolish. This makes a lot of sense from both sides of the spectrum, tbh. This is why we are called to be "born again" in spirit, rather than flesh.

I am happy to be carnal,I see no evidence for a spiritual dimension So yes we are in agreement.Only one question,why did God so favour you over me with this knowledge?

[crispybits]

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" 1 Corinthians 2:14.
So a carnal mind see the things of God as foolish. This makes a lot of sense from both sides of the spectrum, tbh. This is why we are called to be "born again" in spirit, rather than flesh.

But, but, but...

But if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God you belief that your mind was sculpted by a creator, and that it was created to be rational and trustworthy.
However, if you believe in evolution, then you are (as Chris Kchnetle puts it so poignantly) pondscum evolved to a higher order, in which case your mind comes from the non-rational, and really is not reliable when it comes to giving you reality.

(from the atheists/agnostics unhappy face thread)

So God sculpted your rational, trustworthy mind, and yet when it suits suddenly this "carnal" mind is not to be trusted..... go figure!

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" 1 Corinthians 2:14.
So a carnal mind see the things of God as foolish. This makes a lot of sense from both sides of the spectrum, tbh. This is why we are called to be "born again" in spirit, rather than flesh.

But, but, but...

But if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God you belief that your mind was sculpted by a creator, and that it was created to be rational and trustworthy.
However, if you believe in evolution, then you are (as Chris Kchnetle puts it so poignantly) pondscum evolved to a higher order, in which case your mind comes from the non-rational, and really is not reliable when it comes to giving you reality.

(from the atheists/agnostics unhappy face thread)

So God sculpted your rational, trustworthy mind, and yet when it suits suddenly this "carnal" mind is not to be trusted..... go figure!

No our mind was sculpted as perfect. Just like the world was created as perfect.
However, we now naturally are born with a carnal mind- resultant of the fall of man, where all sin can be traced to.
Because of sin, we all have a debt to be paid, with our lives (for the wages of sin is death). Fortunately for us, through no good deed of our own, Christ the Lamb redeemed us with his blood, and paid the penalty of our sin. This is why when we accept Christ as our Saviour we are called to be born again and take on the mind of Christ (no longer carnal, but spiritual)

I am happy to be carnal,I see no evidence for a spiritual dimension So yes we are in agreement.Only one question,why did God so favour you over me with this knowledge?

We have both been presented with the truth. I have accepted it, whereas you have rejected it (no judgment, this is something you have openly admitted that's all), so what are you expecting, that I would remain in the dark and that you would instead receive spiritual knowledge? Perhaps I have read your question incorrectly, but as it first appears its a nonsensical query.

If I can rephrase the question,why did God,who is omnipotent,make me so stubborn/stupid,and you so insightful?And why is he ignoring all the millions who have not been presented with the truth,and who will die in ignorance of it?

[universalchiro]

" the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" 1 Corinthians 2:14.
So a carnal mind see the things of God as foolish. This makes a lot of sense from both sides of the spectrum, tbh. This is why we are called to be "born again" in spirit, rather than flesh.

Agreed. And the next verse explains that the unsaved can not understand the Word of God. For they are spiritually discerned. And we have the mind of Christ to understand the scriptures. This is why atheist reject creation of the Bible, they are incapable of understanding what is only revealed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, believers can't convince any atheist of the truth, we can only fulfill what we are called to do and that is to present the Gospel. The good news, which is laid out below. And pray.

the human mind was sculpted as perfect. Just like the world was created as perfect.
However, we now naturally are born with a carnal mind- resultant of the fall of man, where all sin can be traced to.
Because of sin, we all have a debt to be paid, with our lives (for the wages of sin is death). Fortunately for us, through no good deed of our own, Christ the Lamb redeemed us with his blood, and paid the penalty of our sin. This is why when we accept Christ as our Saviour we are called to be born again and take on the mind of Christ (no longer carnal, but spiritual)

Agreed.

[crispybits]

No our mind was sculpted as perfect. Just like the world was created as perfect.
However, we now naturally are born with a carnal mind- resultant of the fall of man, where all sin can be traced to.
Because of sin, we all have a debt to be paid, with our lives (for the wages of sin is death). Fortunately for us, through no good deed of our own, Christ the Lamb redeemed us with his blood, and paid the penalty of our sin. This is why when we accept Christ as our Saviour we are called to be born again and take on the mind of Christ (no longer carnal, but spiritual)

Yeah yeah Romans 8 yadda yadda...

Thing is you've claimed (in the bits I've snipped out) that you currently have a rational and trustworthy mind. When combined with the above what you're saying is:

"I chose to believe in Jesus which gives me the spiritual mind which allows me to be believe in Jesus."

Which if you're honest you're happy to admit, because that's even where the bible say the leap of faith is. You have to believe before you understand, and the understanding will keep you believing.

The problem is that nowhere in that little circular trick is anything reliant on being true. You choose to believe, and by believing you convince yourself that it's right to believe. Where is the bit where all this actually relies upon anything actually being true, and not just self-affirming mental gymnastics?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

And why is he ignoring all the millions who have not been presented with the truth,and who will die in ignorance of it?

[quote hahaha3]
You have provided a self-conflicting query. You have made people who are not yet presented with the truth synonymous with people who are ignorant of it. You cannot be ignorant of the truth if you have not been exposed to it As I have already addressed those exposed to the truth, I will speak regarding your first query "why is he ignoring all the millions who have not been presented with the truth?". This is quite a simple answer- he's not ignoring them at all. In fact, Christ instructs followers of Him to tackle the very issue you brought up. Mark 16:15 depicts Christ saying "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Christians are called to take the gospel to all the nations, so there is no ignorance of the millions who have not heard of the truth yet.

You are ignorant of EVERYTHING you do not know,including all the things you have not had explained to you, or not been exposed to,thats what the word means.The definition you espouse is not found in any of the online dictionaries I have consulted.Merriam Webster amongst others even specifies it includes unawareness.
So of the estimated 105 billion humans that have lived throughout history the majority have not been presented with the truth of Christianity and have died or will die in ignorance of it.My statement stands as factually correct..

[PLAYER57832]

Thing is you've claimed (in the bits I've snipped out) that you currently have a rational and trustworthy mind. When combined with the above what you're saying is:

"I chose to believe in Jesus which gives me the spiritual mind which allows me to be believe in Jesus."

Which if you're honest you're happy to admit, because that's even where the bible say the leap of faith is. You have to believe before you understand, and the understanding will keep you believing.

The problem is that nowhere in that little circular trick is anything reliant on being true. You choose to believe, and by believing you convince yourself that it's right to believe. Where is the bit where all this actually relies upon anything actually being true, and not just self-affirming mental gymnastics?

What is truth?
The fact is that whatever your mindset, in most cases first comes belief, then proofs. BUT.. the key is to have an open enough mind to perceive the proofs. That is true whether is it science or faith.

[mrswdk]

There's an ark-sized hole inside Mt Everest.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

You are ignorant of EVERYTHING you do not know,including all the things you have not had explained to you, or not been exposed to,thats what the word means.The definition you espouse is not found in any of the online dictionaries I have consulted.Merriam Webster amongst others even specifies it includes unawareness.
So of the estimated 105 billion humans that have lived throughout history the majority have not been presented with the truth of Christianity and have died or will die in ignorance of it.My statement stands as factually correct..

Interesting. From wikipedia (yeah I know, not everyone's cup of tea for reliable information) it says
The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts.
I have always attributed ignorance to that second statement, never really held unawareness and ignorance as synonymous, so you are correct, your question was valid.
Whilst your question was still valid, so is the answer I gave. I'm not sure how you can say God ignores the millions of people who have not heard of the gospel when multiple times the Bible commands Christians to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Psalm 96:3, Acts 1:8 and most probably more)

He certainly ignored countless billions who lived in prehistoric times..

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

He certainly ignored countless billions who lived in prehistoric times..

Oh no, not this again...
Refer back to the same ol' song and dance in the multiple threads where this has been discussed.

I suspect you don't think there is such as thing as prehistric times

[universalchiro]

He certainly ignored countless billions who lived in prehistoric times..

Chang,
I see your premise, but your inference is wrong and here's why:
Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Summary: Even if someone has not heard of God from a missionary or read the Bible, they are without excuse for rejecting God. For He has revealed Himself in His creation. The result of rejecting God only stores up wrath for yourself and then when His judgment comes, don't go blaming Him for judging non-believers when it's themselves storing up wrath for themselves. God's judgment comes in two-fold: temporally on earth; i.e. loss of job, poor health, early death, angry countenance, loss of purpose of why living, etc. The other portion is Eternally; i.e. cast into eternal lake of fire with gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain and in darkness, without the ability to die with an eternal body in hell.

The choice is yours, but know that non-believers throughout all of mankind are without excuse.

[crispybits]

The problem is that nowhere in that little circular trick is anything reliant on being true...Where is the bit where all this actually relies upon anything actually being true...?

Your problem is that you seek empirical evidence where it is not present.
Prove to me that it is true that your wife loves you.
When you realise that the premise of your wife loving you is based on belief, faith and trust, are you going to divorce her?
If not, why do you hold different standards for the Bible as opposed to other elements of your life?

No I wouldn't, but the difference is that I don't expect anyone else to believe anything, or do things like tell Africans that condoms are evil, or block stem cell research based on the premise that my wife does (or does not) love me. When all the Christians in the world wind their necks in and accept that their faith is all fine and good, but has no validity when talking about anything beyond their own state of mind/whatever, then I'll hold the Bible to the same standards as the rest of the things I base on faith. When it's forced on me and the rest of the non-Christian world, and does real harm, then I'll hold it to a higher standard. That doesn't necessarily mean empirical standards, but I'll want to see some sort of evidence that doesn't require me to take a leap of faith to justify that very same leap of faith in a convoluted, self-affirming, circular display of mental wankery...

What is truth?
The fact is that whatever your mindset, in most cases first comes belief, then proofs. BUT.. the key is to have an open enough mind to perceive the proofs. That is true whether is it science or faith.

If you open your mind too far your brain will fall out....

Yes scientists start with a belief (hypothesis) and then run tests to find out if it's true or not. That's a very different thing to having a belief, and then not questioning it in any way but instead letting it reaffirm itself on cherry picked evidence in big circular sweeps. If, as a scientist, you cannot give a truth value to a statement, it means that either you haven't collected enough evidence to know one way or another, or that the question is badly formed or meaningless. In either case, would you write a paper claiming to know the answer to the question?

Also, "I believe that maybe electromagnetic resonance caused by superpowerful magnetic fields in ionised liquid copper causes neutrino capture" or something along this kind of science-y line is a guess. It could well be an educated guess, but how many scientists do you know that would claim that as faith? When you step from a scientific hypothesis to a faith claim, it makes a BIG difference to the way you think about whatever question it is you're trying to answer. The difference between guessing and claiming to know is substantial.

[mrswdk]

Your wife doesn't demand that you believe in her love while simultaneously refusing to do anything that proves it. If believing that your wife loves you requires just as much of a mental stretch as believing that God is living up among the clouds then the problem is with your marriage, not other people's logic.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[jonesthecurl]

So prove it happened.

[chang50]

He certainly ignored countless billions who lived in prehistoric times..

Chang,
I see your premise, but your inference is wrong and here's why:
Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Summary: Even if someone has not heard of God from a missionary or read the Bible, they are without excuse for rejecting God. For He has revealed Himself in His creation. The result of rejecting God only stores up wrath for yourself and then when His judgment comes, don't go blaming Him for judging non-believers when it's themselves storing up wrath for themselves. God's judgment comes in two-fold: temporally on earth; i.e. loss of job, poor health, early death, angry countenance, loss of purpose of why living, etc. The other portion is Eternally; i.e. cast into eternal lake of fire with gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain and in darkness, without the ability to die with an eternal body in hell.

The choice is yours, but know that non-believers throughout all of mankind are without excuse.

But how PRECISELY did YOUR God make things plain to prehistoric people,say 200,000 years ago?Even if they were awed by nature/ creation,although terrified seems more plausible,how could they ascertain who they should worship and how?Would they even have sufficient time after the never-ending daily struggle to consider abstract concepts such as deities?Wouldn't they be more concerned about just finding enough food to subsist?