Does God Exist? Video Campaign — Refuted

Yes,indeed,God Exist!i do believe in that!

Toto Paul,

I employ label for distinction sake.

How would like to spill your beans first.

By the way, our cousin Vernz ara sa BATA, lagaw kami bwas. Netx week, ma visit ko kay Tito Norbs sa Bukid sang Guintubdan.
Happy Holidays!!

toto paul,
maybe we can disagree agreeably here….
I see your logical positivist position. You simply quoted Christ in john 20. You said that Christ praised people who believe without seeing, but a careful reading of that passage will tell us that Christ rebuked Thomas for his unbelief.
(v.25)So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he(Thomas) said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
Thomas viewed faith as something to be based on evidence, not something to be believed against the evidence.He saw the Radical difference bet. faith and credulity;bet. faith and fedeism.

The nature of Christ's statement in that passage is a "response". (v.29) "THEN Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." This encounter certainly seems to suggest that something is wrong w/ demanding evidence for faith and something virtuous about believing w/o evidence. But does it really?
The entire ministry of Christ was ablaze w/ EMPIRICAL evidence.He did miracles w/c were "signs" of his identity. Peter declared " For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES of his majesty."
Now in short, you misquoted the verse.

i have many problems w/ your law of verification. This is my general statement of my problem with your law of verification.
My problem with the rule of verification was that it said too much.It ruled out too many statements as meaningless.It was literally suicidal.If the only statements that are meaningful are those that are analytical or can be verified empirically then what happens to the law of verification??
The law of verification itself is neither analytical nor it can be verified empirically.Therefore it must be judged meaningless.It is ironic that the cardinal rule of meaning according to your positivism(correct me if I'm wrong) was itself unverifiable and meaningless. The positivist house of cards collapsed by its own weight.

How do we asses revealed truth?
If it is according to the Bible is my simple answer. yes, The Bible.This might sound off to some of you here in the ff.
The controlling convictions in my world-and-life view is the Bible.you may question "revelation", and I'm kinda open to that. I'll just wait for your specific question on revelation.

toto Paul,
On the parliamentary debate.
too much relativism here.
I may be an atheist to a toothpick-worshiper's eyes, but my atheism is limited only in a relative sense of the word or (if you will) a label.
I don't worship language, neither am i a slave to label(s).I'm a theist in the sense that I believe in the existence of the BIBLICAL GOD.

reallythinkingfreely: First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: “To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.”

Pinoy Atheist: That is correct! Just because an argument is invalid does not mean that the conclusion of the argument is false.

But here's the problem. This is a type of a straw-man argument. Atheism just means the position that “there are no good arguments for god’s existence”. “arguments”, and it refers not only to philosophical arguments but arguments based around empirical evidence as well. It seems reallythinkingfreely is defining, base on his attacks that atheism means "the hard position that gods do not exist."

reallythinkingfreely: Second, the “presumption of atheism” demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements “God exists” and “God does not exist” in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (”God does not exist”) as theism (”God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Pinoy Atheist: Base on his copy-paste answer, reallythinkingfreely seemws to be defining (is he the one defining or Alvin Plantiga?) that atheist claims that "god does not exist” is NOT a truth claim. Of course it is!

Are you making another straw-man @ reallythinkingfreely or was it Plantiga? Anyway, in an argument about the truth of a proposition, we can safely ignore unfalsifiable claims, as they cannot contribute to evidence. The problem is that theist generally must rely on unfalsifiable claims to prove the existence of their god, which really doesn't amount to anything. Using only falsifiable claims, an atheist can prove the non-existence of a god.

reallythinkingfreely: Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Pinoy Atheist: This depends on how you define agnosticism and atheism.

Let me use this example I found in the Internet…(From Ziztur: Atheism is Freedom)

Let’s assume that I make the claim that clover cures lung cancer. The proper position with regard to this claim is lack of belief that clover cures lung cancer. That is, “I do not believe clover cures lung cancer.” The author claims that this is illogical, and that the logical position is, “I don’t know if clover cures lung cancer”. Which, I suppose is fair, assuming this is the first time anyone has proposed that clover cures lung cancer and no experiments or observations have thus far taken place.

Let’s say we perform experiment after experiment trying to prove that clover cures lung cancer. Over and over – no matter how many people we use, no matter which formula of clover we use, no matter if it is ingested, infused, smoked, snorted, or bathed in – we show through experimentation that clover has no effect on lung cancer whatsoever, and in some cases (such as when it was smoked), clover makes lung cancer worse. Let’s say we perform these experiments for 100 years, in city after city, using billions of research dollars.

After all of that, is the proper position, “I don’t know if clover cures lung cancer”? No. The proper position is, “there is no evidence that clover cures lung cancer”. Even, “clover does not cure lung cancer” is not a far stretch. According to the authors, “clover does not cure lung cancer” is illogical. Acloverists are presumptuous. Acloverists are making a positive claim.

reallythinkingfreely: Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Pinoy Atheist: Why? Why is it wrong to place God beside Santa and the mermaid? Is it because Santa is impossible? Is it because we’ve never observed a mermaid? Because there is… an absence… of… evidence?

Since claiming nonexistence based solely on the absence of evidence is justified through fallibilistic epistemology, atheism is similarly justified.

Now why not buy a book that have already discussed your (or your copy-pasted) examples @ reallythinkingfreely

First Cause argument for example is just an oversimplification or misunderstanding about the nature of the universe. Beside, even granting without accepting that the First Cause is true, that still doesn't give us a conclusion that a god exist.

Moral Arguments? Come on…moral argument is one of the weakest arguments around. We can always make a good moral argument using naturalistic terms.

Can you copy-paste a better argument for theism? Please not another twaddle from a certain "Paul Copan PhD" (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism).

To the two 'theists', my dear cousin Alvin and "reallythinkingfreely". And also to the 'deist', "innerminds".

We can think of the 'theist-atheist' debate as a parliamentary debate with the so-called 'theists' making-up the administration and the so-called 'atheists' making-up the opposition. Of course, both parties carry the burden of proof for each of their statements, but note that there can be no "atheism" without "theism". Of course, then everybody would be non-theists, but the lack of belief in a being called "God" is not the belief in the non-existence of this being.

Now, back to the parliamentary debate. Before the opposition can properly negate the statement "God exists" and assert the statement "God does not exist", the administration must first lay down the problem: they must explain what they mean when they say "God exists". Now, suppose all the debaters of the administration talk among themselves. A says "I believe God exists", B says "I believe God exists" and C also says "I believe God exists". Good, it seems that we have agreement. But here comes the problem. Imagine A, B and C expounding the meaning of their nebulous statement "I believe God exists". What if they discover that A believes that God has predestined the souls of men before "the foundation of the world", leading some souls (before they have even existed) unto eternal bliss and others unto perdition? What if they discover that B believes that God directed the course of biological evolution on planet earth while A believes that God created all the living beings in their present form? What if they discovered that C does not believe that God answers prayers and does not meddle in the affairs of men? What if C defined God as an impersonal "Substance", a remote "prima cuasa" or some vague "bedrock of cosmic rationality", but nothing more, nothing less? How would the administration state its case? And how would the opposition negate the claims of the administration?

Herein lies the problem of allowing oneself to be blinded by labels and be fooled by words. But we are not the slave of words: words are there to serve us. I entreat the three of you to use employ words in the search of truth, not in obscuring it.

Therefore, I entreat you to stop hiding behind the veil of labels ('theist', 'deist') and start stating each of your own cases. This beseeching is made less to 'innerminds', who has blog entries I can read and who seems to be least enslaved by labels. But the so-called 'theists' here, Alvin and "reallythinkingfreely", hide behind the label 'theism'. To them I say: stop crouching under the protection of labels and start exposing your true beliefs to the scrutiny of reason and others.

As a last reminder, remember that "not p and not q and not r" is not the same as "not together p and q and r". The difficulty of being a so-called 'atheist' lies in the fact that your are expected not only to deny a set of propositions, but to simultaneously deny all propositions in a certain set. But remember, in the case I gave, A is an atheist with respect to B's and C's God, and similarly for B and C. So the three of you are 'atheists' too. The three of you also unconsciously assert the non-existence of a myriad of other Gods, gods and goddesses. But should I expect you to prove all your negative statements ("the God of such and such a person does not exist") before I allow you to make all your positive statements ("my God exists, and only he exists, and he has such and such attributes")? Since I don't make any claims about a being called "God" (who is this "God" fellow, anyway? that's what I say), the three of you must first expound on what you mean by "God exists" before I can negate that statement: IF I want to negate that statement. (I'm not sure if I CAN negate the statement of "innerminds". It may be that he and I agree. I don't know.)

Anyways, thanks a lot to the three of you.

ok innerminds,
i was too lazy to read the whole thing kanina, i was a bit somnolent.hehehehe
by the way I wrote a comment in your blog about "word of god or hearsay".

reallythinkingrationally,

I see your point.Just want to remind you lang na we dont base our faith in God on evidence or proofs.Faith is the substance of things unseen and the evidence of things hoped for….
empirical rin tayo, but not Empiricist.
we present evidence, but we are not mere evidentialist.
It takes faith pa rin.
Happy holidays

innerminds,

What are you trying to say?
can you put it in a more didactic way.
Thanks, happy holidays.

From deism.com:

It is important to understand what “Burden of Proof” means. Technically, it refers to legal matters, but it also applies in other fields of human endeavor like philosophy and science. Every affirmative statement carries a Burden of Proof, and although dogmatic atheists deny their own assertions are subject to this basic logical requirement of argumentation, no one is exempt. A Burden of Proof does not imply, outside of its legal context, proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt, but on the responsibility to provide reasons for one’s position. If one publicly makes a statement, then one has the burden of providing reasons for that statement. It is important to realize that an affirmative statement involves the wording of the statement and not just a positively worded statement.

Example 1) A skeptic states he is not convinced that a Big Bang ever took place.

Response: The skeptic is unconvinced and has no Burden of Proof to prove or disprove anything. The proponent of the Big Bang model can offer scientific evidence to show that there is an outward expansion of the universe and that radio telescopes are picking up a background radiation consistent with the idea of a Big Bang.

Note: The skeptic did not state no Big Bang took place, but merely that he is not convinced. Being skeptical is not the same as making affirmative statements that things are or are not. The essence of the skeptic is to question, not to state things are not so. Socrates is an excellent example of a skeptic.

Example 2) A flat-earth proponent states that the earth is not a sphere.

Response: The flat-earth proponent clearly made an affirmative statement that something is not the case. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the idea that the earth is a sphere.

Note: The flat-earth proponent did not merely state he was not convinced or did not believe, but that something was NOT the case. As such, he places himself under the burden to explain his reasons. Any attempt on his part to evade his responsibility to explain his reasons would rightly be taken as intellectual dishonesty.

Example 3) A creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense.

Response: The creationist has made an affirmative statement that something is unscientific nonsense. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the Theory of Evolution.

Note: The creationist did not merely state he was unconvinced or did not believe in evolutionary theory, but that it was unscientific nonsense. As such, he places himself under the burden to explain how it is: unscientific and nonsense.

Example 4) A Biblical literalist states that Carbon-14 Dating is fundamentally flawed.

Response: The Biblical literalist has made an affirmative statement that something is flawed. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons why he believes Carbon-14 Dating is flawed.

Note: The Biblical literalist did not initially state that he was unconvinced by the science of Carbon-14 Dating, but that Carbon-14 Dating was flawed.

Now as can be observed from the above examples, an affirmative statement can be worded as to appear negative. To state one does not believe in something is not the same as to state something does not exist or that something does exist. A statement to the effect that “God does not exist” is not the same as saying “I am not convinced God exists.” The former carries the Burden of Proof to offer one’s reasons for that opinion; the latter carries no such burden. If the Burden of Proof always rested on the proponent of those saying a thing exists, then such people would always have to defend themselves and their beliefs. Newton formulated the hypothesis that would become the Law of Gravity, and was the one carrying the Burden of Proof to explain it. If a critic of Newton stated he was not convinced such a law existed, then that critic is not under the Burden of Proof obligation. If on the other hand, that critic of Newton said Gravity does not exist, then he has taken the Burden of Proof onto himself to provide his reasons. It would be unfair and illogical to assert that only Newton had the Burden of Proof but the denier of gravity did not. Although one cannot prove something does not exist, one can refute or at least rebut a theory that something exists by logically demonstrating flaws in the theory. For example, if a denier of Gravity released a marble that did not fall to the floor that would be proof that Newton’s Law of Gravity was flawed.

'Vain in their imaginations' indeed.
Talking about blind people, they have to presume a lot – that's how they get around. Below is an article from RZIM.org that could be freely emailed. 'hope this put's more fuel to the fire:

The Presumptuousness of Atheism

Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God’s existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level.2 However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness.

The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.3 The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."4

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe — in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe’s origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe — with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life — points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational — not presumptuous — in embracing belief in God.

Paul Copan is a Ph. D. candidate in philosophy at Marquette University and editor of the forthcoming Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Discussion (Word, 1997).

NOTES

1Antony Flew, The Presumption of Atheism (London: Pemberton, 1976), 14.
2Michael Scriven, Primary Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 103.
3It is important to remember that we are trying to give arguments or good reasons for God’s existence — not "proofs," which imply a mathematical certainty. All too often the atheist’s criteria of acceptability are unreasonably high. One who is genuinely seeking plausible reasons to believe in God can certainly find them.
4Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.
5Alvin Plantinga, "Reason and Belief in God," in Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds., Faith and Rationality (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.

reallythinkingfreely,
I'm a theist.
because it's what they believe is true. that's how they define their universe… a universe from chance. well we can't blame them, they're just blinded.For the invisible things of GOD from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.For the god of this world has blinded their eyes. that's just simple. I've been here in the ff for quite a while trying to explain things about God. But unfortunately only a few Christians are courageous enough to tell them about God.

hope this documentary helps..
Why We Believe in Gods?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

James arellano,

"doubt" can be a bad thing or a good thing.

Imperfection exist because there is perfection. wala pangit kung walang maganda.walang bobo kung walang matalino.

I think that doubt is a good thing, and to doubt what you see to be real and doubt the existence of a perfect God is logical. For in this imperfect world we live in, there can only be two logical solutions, either:

1. If God created the universe and the world, then it must mean that he is an imperfect God because the world is not perfect, because only perfection can come from perfection, like a mango tree bringing forth mangoes and apple trees bringing forth apples perfection mus also bring forth perfection, therefore this world is either created by an imperfect God (which would negate the concept of God, which by definition should be perfect) or:

2. A perfect God exists,hence he did not create the world, therefore the world that we live in is unreal, a dream, and therefore does not exist.

Jobo,

Whats inconsistent with the creation story (both life and cosmos)in the bible that seems to contradict with the evidence of science right now?
can u cite a specific passage?

Wanderer,
Ilonggo ka ba?
hehehe

Christ did not answer back at Pilate, because of the Prophecy in Isa.53.
"He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth."

secondly, Pilate as a Stoic, a kind of Philosophy very much into freedom.Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom.if Christ answered back at Pilate, "I am the Truth", magiging katawa-tawa sya kay Pilate. Kasi If He is the truth, he would set himself free. But He did not, as an expression of his HUMILITY.
Philippians 2:7-8
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

we cannot comprehend HIm, yet at least there's a little of His Being that we can understand.

When Buddha was asked by his disciple about God he never answered so the Christians thought that Buddhist are atheist, when Poncio Pilato asked Jesus what is really the Truth Jesus also did not anwre. Wether we believe if God exist or not it doesnt matter. I think by questioning if God exist is a wrong question. How can a finite mind can comprehend the infinite. Tao ang nag imbento sa Ginoo so to describe and by trying to prove the existence of God is also an imbento!

"Evil is not physical, because it has no mass, energy, etc., and it’s not quantifiable." Hmm… We should only consider things that are physical in order for us to have a meaningful discussion. What do we make of "love" or "justice"?

Or "logic"?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

hmmmn… See this: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.p…

Yeah, that's the very logical way at looking at the bible. The ways of living that those people were advocating are, like themselves, ancient.
But believers of the bible doesn't look at it this way, they take it as the word of their god.
The funny part is, statements which contradict our generation's common sense are interpreted by them as allegorical or in bisaya 'pasumbingay'.

It makes me wonder when will be the time that the whole bible becomes allegorical.

@Daniel, I think that the writers/authors of the Bible meant it literally.

@ Alvin: Did you really read the bible in its 'real context'?
Or did you read it the way you wanted it to be?

@ Jobo: I think bible verses should not be taken literally (by believers) if it's too stupid. Believers can't seem to notice verses that are not that stupid though still stupid at all.

Again @ Alvin, as i have said, the creation story (both life and cosmos)in the bible is not consistent with the evidence of science right now.

You did not, btw, answer my question.

Also, how do we know if a verse in the Bible should be taken literally or not?

*i meant Bible in the 2nd par.

Kiel,
I'm not against science, well in fact I used to like Henri Bergson and other Evolutionist scientists. But now that I'm into Christianity,I shifted to Francis Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga and John Calvin.I'm not close minded, if I am, then there's no reason for me to stick up with your sissified arguments.Maybe you don’t even try to understand and grasp what I am saying because it seems like your only focus is to defend your irrational belief from you so called SCIENCE. Why not read the BIBLE? WHy? are you that dumb not to understand a word in the BIBLE?
I'm sorry for being mean Kiel.

JOBO,
Yes I have a finite mind, but it won't stop me from believing God. Its what revelation did to me, it's His word, the Bible. I was as skeptical as you are when I was in High school.But there was a time in my life that I set all my biases aside and read the Bible in its real context. To make the loooong story short, I was converted to Christianty.The Bible is pro science and reason, its just that some of the concepts in the Bible are beyond our human comprehension, beyond Human Science and Human Reason.It's like putting the whole Pacific Ocean in a cup. Human cannot fully comprehend everything about GOD.
To a moslem, I may be an infidel, a disbeliever to be exact to their only God, ALLAH. But their Koranic Allah is inconsistent same as to their Prophet, Muhammad. I have read the Koran, most of the content of Koran were derived from the Bible.I have no problem calling my God "Allah". Allah is just an Arabic translation of "God".

Islam and other religion consider also your God as false.

Also, your 'Biblical' God is man made also just like in other religions. Remember that you define your God and you also have a finite mind just like any1 of us.

So you said that Science is based on Science and Reason? How come it mis interpret the origin of cosmos and life? (unless you consider Creation Science as "science"?)

I never heard nor read that definition of 'faith'. where did you get that definition? Bible?

The Bible is one of the proofs or evidence that God exists. Above were the defenses that i made against faulty Bible interpretations.
other religions have their own holy book, and I actually read the Qur'an.They believe in their god, I believe in the Biblical God,not the man made god,not the god fashioned by finite minds.In short,their gods are false,because we Christians believe that the Bible is the Absolute Authority for theology. The Bible is credible, based on Science and Reason,not on mere blind faith.By the way "faith" has a broader meaning, it means conviction, persuasion, reason.
Paul said,"for I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able…"
Paul was a Doctor of Laws.He has good credentials.

Yes, there are Iranian Christians.We have christian contacts in Iran.They study the Bible regularly.The Bible said,"every tribe shall acknowledge Him as LORD".

The Bible is an evidence (or proof) of God's existence? (Is that what I read somewhere above?)

How about other religions who also have their own holy books? Does that mean that their gods exist?

Is the Bible credible? Why should we believe in the Bible? Is it based on critical thinking/observation/experiments? Or just plain faith? Or maybe magic?

What if you were born in Iran and you were raised there? Would you still believe in the Bible?

1."Dragon" was a term used to describe huge animals , actually an old English.The term "dinosaur" was coined in 1842 by Sir Richard Owen. The King James Bible was written in 1611. See the difference? SO the dragons in the Bible were the dinosaurs, as Job and other OT books describe.
2.I know what's a Satyr, you don't have to describe it…In this case, the King James Version renders sa‘ir as “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14). But the specific context of both passages makes it quite clear that the term is being used to refer to the wild goats that frequently inhabited the ruins of both ancient Babylon and Edom.
Please when you read you read the Bible, read it intellectually. CONSIDER THE CONTEXT!
3. I believe in Gigantic Sea Monster, the Bible affirms it, "SEA Dinosaurs" like itchysauraus etc.
4.Unicorns…I believe, not the Unicorn of the GREEKS, but in this UNICORN:
The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes or kalabaw.

The Revised Standard Version translates re’em as “wild ox.” The verse in Numbers is translated as “they have as it were the horns of the wild ox,” while the one in Job is translated “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?” The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job as “Will the buffalo deign to serve you?”

The wild ox was a favorite prey of the hunt-loving Assyrian monarchs (the animal was called rumu in Assyrian, essentially the same word as re’em) and was displayed in their large bust-reliefs. Here the wild ox was invariably shown in profile and only one horn was visible. One can well imagine that the animal represented in this fashion would come to be called “one-horn” as a familiar nickname, much as we might refer to “longhorns” in speaking of a certain breed of cattle.

As the animal itself grew less common under the pressure of increasing human population and the depredations of the hunt, it might come to be forgotten that there was a second horn hidden behind the first in the sculptures and “one-horn” might come to be considered a literal description of the animal.
So much for that, let's go to the next question.
5. Another misinterpreted passages, if I were you, mas mabuti pa na hond ka nalang mag quote ng Biblical text, mali naman ang exegesis mo eh. "cockatrice" is a poison asp or viper, can also mean "cobra". Not the cockatrice that you know, na galing sa Chicken egg.Pwedi ba yun? You are equating Biblical stuff to mythology.A piece if advice, When you read the Bible consider the other versions.
6.The earth is flat? please read Isaiah 40:22 "…and God sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the Earth". Flat ba yun?
Reread the passages that you quoted that suggest that the Earth is flat, consider the literary genre of the book. Literal ba?
7.Earth does not move? Hey read again…(psalm 93:1)The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the WORLD also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.World ang ginamit na word not the "earth". Do you know whats the difference between "world" and "earth"?
8.Giants? yes, I believe in Giants-not the Giants in the fantasy books. Robert Wadlow, the tallest man ever recorded was almost 9 feet. People before the flood were taller, archeology proves it. Bones were discovered in the Ur Valley (now Iraq) measuring 8-10 feet or taller. And of course you have to qualify the term "GIANT", because it can also mean "intellectual giant". In the Bible, the word used for "Giant" literally means "fallen" in Hebrew.

DAniel.
Re read everything that you have quoted….The worst exegesis I ever seen.

@alvin
I'm not actually against you. I'm for you in a way but hey, a little mental ejaculation wouldn't hurt anybody. but I still believe that god cannot do what you think he just "would not do". But as far as that's concern, we are in a standstill there, cause well… we can never know because there will be no boulder as heavy as so god cannot lift it nor will there be a square circle. But as for perfection, perfection also comes in forms of symmetry. 🙂 yes he is still omnipotent because as I said earlier, he can just not make nothing for the fact that it is nothing. It is an impossibility for GOD to go against his nature for the fact that he is god!
"Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." your quote proves my point 🙂

@daniel
You do not just read the bible, the bible requires interpretation. you don't just bliv everything there. All the genres of literature are mixed within the bible meaning yes some are really from a fairytale book. But WTF right? even if not everything in there is true, it's the best darn book there is, it's teachings are timeless. Ethics, morals, the clearest concept of good and evil. It prevents us from killing each other over a cent! now… why do you want it stained?

Nagparamdam? Paano? LOL. The human mind is very susceptible to hallucination.

"There’s only one God, but their are thousands of ways how theists see Him as He is."
So you're saying that Zeus is the same as Allah?

"Omnipotence of God is inherently linked with His responsibility to Himself, that is to be Consistent. That nothing in His nature would contradict."
Talking about consistency. Have you read the Old Testament? Where is the consistency in it?

• If You Believe The Bible…You Also Must Believe…
posted by The Thinking Atheist on June 27th, 2009 at 9:18 AM

If you believe the Holy Bible is absolutely, perfectly accurate and infallible:

• You also believe in dragons. Yes, the authors of scripture speak about dragons as real creatures.
(Deuteronomy 32:33, Job 30:29, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1, Jeremiah 9:11, Micah 1:8)

• You believe in the Satyr, a creature of Greek mythology. It is a man with a goat’s legs, ears and horns. (Isaiah 13:21, Isaiah 34:34)

• You believe in the gigantic sea monster known as a Leviathan. (Job 3:8, Job 41, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:24-26, Isaiah 27:1)

Ironically, ancient Rabbinic studies say that God created two Leviathans on the fifth day of creation (Yalkut, Gen. 12), then had to kill the female to keep the pair from spawning and killing everything on the earth. (Rashi’s Commentary on Talmud Baba Bathra 74b)

• You believe in unicorns, referenced no less than 8 times in the bible. (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalm 22:21, Psalm 29:6, Psalm 92:10, Isaiah 34:7)

• You believe in the Cockatrice, a serpent hatched from a rooster’s egg that can kill with a glance. (Jeremiah 8:17, Isaiah 11:8, Isaiah 59:5, Isaiah 14: 29)

• You believe the earth is flat. The authors of scripture constantly reference the “four corners of the earth,” as if the world is a level plane. In fact, Daniel 4:11 speaks of a vision of a tree growing so tall, it touched the sky, making visible the “ends of the earth. Job 38:13 talks of the world being shaken “by the edges.” (Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 16:19, Revelation 7:1)

You also believe that the entire (flat) earth can be seen from “an exceeding high mountain,” as when Satan tempted Jesus in Matthew 4 by showing him “all the kingdoms of the world.”

• You believe that the earth doesn’t rotate around the sun. It is “fixed” and “immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18)

• You believe in giants. (Genesis 6:4)

• You believe in witches and sorcery. (Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:9-14, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Galatians 5:19-21)

• You believe that stars (huge suns) can “fall unto the earth.” (Revelation 6:12-14)

• You believe that insects like the grasshopper, locust and cricket have FOUR legs, not six. (Leviticus 11:20-23)

The most ironic thing? You probably didn’t even know you believed in these things…until this moment.

Like our Congressmen who pass legislation without reading or understanding the text of the bills, everyday Christians construct their belief systems on a bible they’ve merely glanced through.

It’s perfect. It’s infallible. It’s divine. It’s irrefutable. And there are unicorns in it.

Just something to think about.

-Ed

innerminds,
So that is why there is the Bible, the absolute standard for every Christian. Unfortunately only a few Christians are involved in "intellectual" reading of the Bible.
What do you mean by significant disagreements in the Bible? can you name one? so that I can (in my limited mind) defend what I know about the Bible.
The bible will always be the primary basis for God.Byron is right. So basically your next questions will revolve in the credibility of the Bible. KInda expected….

Alvinus contra mundum(Alvin against the world)!

Ok, one at a time.

@Byron,
Omnipotence of God is inherently linked with His responsibility to Himself, that is to be Consistent. That nothing in His nature would contradict. Just like "sin". I say that He is omnipotent, then He can do everything. BUT if he does, then it would contradict His Holy Nature.You invoke of "God Limitations", that may be true.self-imposed limitation that is.
You asked, "if there are things that God cannot do. I MEAN CANNOT, NOT ,WILL NOT. then how is he all powerful?"
He is all powerful still. Please be patient enough to read this.
Tragically, there are many sincere questions which most Christians can't answer. Few parents have taken the time to think through the many intellectual and theological challenges their children increasingly face, challenges for which today's youth find no answers from so many pulpits( Pastors use cliches) and Sunday-school lessons. As a result, growing numbers of those raised in evangelical homes and churches are abandoning the "faith" they never adequately understood.
I believe in the Absolute Sovereignty of God. That is He is "GOD".
Is sovereignty and power the cure-all? Many Christians superficially think so. Yet there is much for which sovereignty and power are irrelevant. God acts not only sovereignly, but in love, grace, mercy, kindness, justice and truth. His sovereignty is exercised only in perfect harmony with all of His other attributes.nothing in His nature can contradict.

There is much that God cannot do, not in spite of who He is, but because of who He is. Even Augustine, described as the first of the early so-called Church Fathers who "taught the absolute sovereignty of God," 3 declared, "Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent."

Because of His absolute holiness, it is impossible for God to do evil, to cause others to do evil or even to entice anyone into evil.
I did not quote any Biblical text in here.So I guess your smart enough to decipher what I mean.

@ Byron:

But the Bible itself is questionable as a 'divine revelation'. There were no printing presses then, and some of the “authors” were probably illiterate, verbally passing on hearsay upon hearsay from generation to generation until somebody finally puts the ‘Word of God’ into writing. Now we have to presume that all of those story tellers, writers, and translators were also divinely inspired lest the Holy Books be contaminated with human errors or deliberate rewriting. No wonder there are a number of significant disagreements among the Holy Books. And one of the things they do agree about is in killing the infidels. However, each man’s fellow faithful is for another man an infidel, so they try to kill each other, and to think they were all supposedly created by the same God.

@innerminds
well, makes no difference if it's revelation or not. The bible will always be the primary basis for god.

"If you say that its still not possible, then I believe that you aren’t wise enough to realize the limitations of the human brain and that human brains cannot comprehend everything. So by questioning all powerful concepts (all powerful is something we cannot comprehend), we don’t fully understand the nature of humans."

If you want to talk about the limitations of human reasoning, and is not competent enough that we cannot find the truth, even just a speck of it in this life. Then why debate here? Why don't you just let your faith show you the way right?
Yes, there are things that we cannot comprehend, but as the days pass, little by little we humans learn something new, we strive for the answers even if we know that there will always be another question. But as we are, we cannot stop questioning and believing the most logical explanation on things. In this kinds of intercourse the word "INCOMPREHENSIBLE" or the idea "men cannot grasp the concept is" taboo, it's a lowblow,it's like your saying that your giving up and turning to blind faith. There is reason in faith, as there is faith in reason.

Question again, if there are things that god cannot do. I MEAN CANNOT, NOT WILL NOT. then how is he all powerful?

alvin john ballares wrote: "I don’t presume things about God.The Bible is my standard. It is His revealed Truth to us(Theists)."

Now this is what the deists say about ‘revelation’:

"In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true." (deism.com)

@alvin
Shit! i didn't put my mail in and had to write this twice! and it's quite long as well. probly it will be shorter now!
"Will a perfect God create another God who is more perfect than the already perfectly perfect God? NO." there is no degree in perfection. perfection is the epitome 🙂

Ok… i'll answer the question if god can create another god or if god can make those round squares. The thing is, HE CANNOT! GOD LIMITATIONS as it is called.
I'm a really lazy person so ima make this really short and simple, and the fact i have to make this twice is not helping either.
first! to solve the problem of god making another god. we must first enumerate the attributes of GOD. look for it somewhere, it's a little long to list here. The 1 attribute i'm going to use though is that GOD is eternal. NO beginning nor an end, thus a made god is not a god simply because of the fact that he was made. THUS GOD CANNOT CREATE ANOTHER GOD! nice huh.

And about the circlesquare and those other illogical stuff. It's Still a no! God cannot make something that would violate the laws he made when he created the universe. A thing must first be present in the world of ideas to be created here in this world. or one must first be a concept to be created."impossible is nothing to god" I will make you look at that statement very differently after i am through. As you can see it is an impossibility to even think of a square circle thus it is nothing, just like a boulder heavier than an all power full being is, again nothing!God can create anything in this world but not nothing. thus not contradicting his omnipotent image. NOTHING is Impossible for god

Kiel you got it right. Choosy nga ang Panginuon. Just want to inform you that I'm not a "Roman Catholic"(the term itself is a contradiction).Actually nagparamdam sya sa lahat ng tao.
Diba dati naniniwala ka rin sa kanya?
There's only one God, but their are thousands of ways how theists see Him as He is. Some of them are Bible believers (I'm one of them), some of them are followers of Mohammad, some of them worship everything, etc.

@Frank,
I don't presume things about God.The Bible is my standard. It is His revealed Truth to us(Theists).

Semantic Gibberish!
Why would He create another omnipotent being?!
What's his purpose?
diba sabi ko na nga His nature is ONE. So would not create another G/god.That's a possibility, but according to His nature, He will not create another God.
Will a perfect God create another God who is more perfect than the already perfectly perfect God? NO.

There's even one question that I encountered while debating my teacher in Theology, the question goes like this: If God is all Powerful, can He create a stone that He cannot carry?
I want to put my answer this way:

* All powerful means even things humans can never comprehend can become true.Beyond human mind.
* Something that humans can't comprehend well is contradictions in math/science/physics. Like 1+1=3 or a "square circle" will never make sense to a human.
* All powerful is a concept that can do things we can never comprehend, like make contradictions true.
* God is all powerful.
* God will not create a stone that He cannot carry since it will contradict His Omnipotent nature.

If you say that its still not possible, then I believe that you aren't wise enough to realize the limitations of the human brain and that human brains cannot comprehend everything. So by questioning all powerful concepts (all powerful is something we cannot comprehend), we don't fully understand the nature of humans.

@ Byron:

Ah okay. I was just responding to your previous post where you wrote:

"well, makes no difference if it’s revelation or not. The bible will always be the primary basis for god."

I know where your heading. But what we are talking about is not about the credibility of the bible nor a debate on the existence of god. What alvin and i are debating about is the capability of god or the question of the omnipotence of god. And we entered the discourse not doubting the existence of god and the credibility of the bible as god's own words. the credibility of the bible is another question. and i for one think that the bible is a bad place to get sources for any topic.

Here's another answer to that seemingly tricky question:
Does God have the power to create another God equal to himself?
My answer is NO, because this 2nd God would be "younger", and therefore unequal in regards to time duration.He would not be as eternal as the first God.This 2nd God would have a beginning, making it unequal to God who is said to have always existed, with no beginning.Therefore, it is impossible.

its a fine analogy. more to the point its a metaphor.

@alvin – I find it funny how so many Christians who claim God is unfathomable by human intellect find it so easy to presume what God would or would not do.

And the question was not whether or not God would create another God, the question is whether or not he is capable of doing so. What do you think? Is your God so omnipotent that he is capable of creating another omnipotent being?

If not, then he's not really all-powerful, is he?

But if so, could one omnipotent being destroy another?

Well you can't really know everything about something that isn't existing. If he is perfect in every sense(he's words must also be perfect), why does the bible shows things that can cause someone to commit sins(murder, genocide etc.)?

And if there is only one true God, why are there many Gods? Choosy ba ang God ng mga Catholic Christian kasi di siya nagparamdam sa mga egyptians at sa mga muslim?

Requesting permission to kick this papist off FF.

Kiel,
Of course I knew what it was…about the flying thingy. You know, there are things that we cannot know about God. Of course, if we can fully know Him, then he would be no greater than our finite minds, but a mere "god" fashioned by a god-needing mind. I hope you get my point….

Perfect in every sense of His nature Kiel.
Immutability is His nature.

Byron,
God is all-powerful, but He will not create another God. Why would he? "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord" according to the Sh'ma, the Hebrew confession of Faith (the Shahada counterpart).

Clearly it states that there is no other God than that of the God of their patriarchs(Noah, Abraham,Isaac, Jacob,Joseph, Moses).
So making another another God would contradict God's nature(one nature).
I'll be vague for now…hehehe

though to ponder on.
if god is all powerful, can god make another god?

The argument about apples to oranges are wrong. It's not like that, not at all. Are you implying that something that doesn't have mass or any physical attribute cannot be quantified in any way? and that this is something we cannot weigh? that's just plain stupid. it's like saying murder and lying would be of the same degree, and by "breaking" the proposition, it comes to the point that you might as well say that good and evil would be of the same level. because you didn't even give a counter proposition. what might the absence of good be called? and what does it do? the absence of me is not me. whatever example you give. IT WILL NEVER BE NON-SEQUITUR! you might reply doing nothing is the opposite of doing good. But as the bible says, doing nothing is also categorized as evil.