Does God Exist?

[RandomManJay]

I was talking about the old testament that was written long before Jesus' time which is actually 7000 years (or older). I wasn't originally bagging ardemax out saying that God dosent exist, if you read my post you may recall that he was saying (in the quote) that I have no right to say that god doesn't exist, which I do, It's my belief, and that he is allowed to have his own opinion, which he is, I never took that away from him, because he believes God exists and I dont, I then stated that if he wants himself to have a right to say that God exists because thats his belief then I have all rights to say God Doesn't exist because thats my belief, sound fair?

And technically, according to dictionary definitions, it is unfeesable and as far as I can see impossible to exist (by the dictionaries definition) as God (if he exists) would be a spirit, but a spirit is neither matter nor energy and something that exists is either matter or energy, since he is neither he doesn't exist (according to the definition of existence, and Isn't that what the debate is about?)

Ohh, and back to the bible part, where are these "original scriptures" When your saying that the bible is only 3400 or something years old I believe your dating back just to moses? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...&meta=&aq=f&oq= Thta link defines the bible as the collection of christian (including the jewish parts, eg the old testament) sacred writings. If you go way, way back you can find collections of sacred christians writings that were available over 7000 years ago, therefore there was a bible.

Nicely put, I was referring to the new testament considering it is the main text of the Christian religion, also it is difficult to conceive that the scriptures from the earliest depictions of the bible as still used today by the modern church. Also you said there was a bible which is indeed true, many bibles have been found in eras earlier than the conception of the 'Bible', such as Druid, Pagan etc. but I'm not talking about them or the original Christians as they have very little importance in comparison to the influence of modern day Christianity. With all that being said, the old testament is indeed older than 2000 years old, but still isn't as old as 7000.

As for the original scriptures, they are the original stories told and written before the bible was actually compiled into one book, the collection of original stories found during excavations and whatnot surrounding religious landmarks. This is also the reason why we know there were other stories which were excluded from the bible, for example: 'Adam and Lilith' and 'The Apocalypse of Peter', which are not included in the bible for reasons which are obvious when you read them, and personally would have preferred them to the stories which took their place in the bible, it would have made believing a lot easier and enjoyable .

[RandomManJay]

Soz, double post.

Was the sig post for me or someone else? Just noticed it now

Ok, I feel like joining in this debate.

Lets start of by saying;

"PROOF" is irrelevent, God can NOT be proven/does NOT want to be prooven/will NOT be prooven. So if you are asking for proof you are looking in the wrong place. If god gives ANY proof it takes away free will. Anyone who has a little brains will understand this. This is clearly conveyed through out the bible.

The statement you gave makes two assumptions which both go hand in hand. It assumes that god already exists as well as assuming that he has also given us free will, assumptions which are ofcourse taken from the bible. So heres the thing, what if he didn't? Then there would be no reason against asking for proof, and if he didn't exist at all, then there is still no reason against asking. The statement you gave is known as a Blind-Faith argument, that god doesn't need to prove his existance and if he did, it would end badly for us. Giving both reason and explanation of why not to ask for proof and beleive in him blindly.

[SM007H]

Soz, double post.

Was the sig post for me or someone else? Just noticed it now



The statement you gave makes two assumptions which both go hand in hand. It assumes that god already exists as well as assuming that he has also given us free will, assumptions which are ofcourse taken from the bible. So heres the thing, what if he didn't? Then there would be no reason against asking for proof, and if he didn't exist at all, then there is still no reason against asking. The statement you gave is known as a Faith argument, that god doesn't need to prove his existance and if he did, it would end badly for us. Giving both reason and explanation of why not to ask for proof and beleive in him blindly.

Where you asking for a return on that? seem's to me you've already found out why i belive this.

Anyway, "Blind-Faith" is hardly the case, Jesus and the bible give us enough to understand that our faith is definetly not blind :L

[RandomManJay]

Where you asking for a return on that? seem's to me you've already found out why i belive this.

Anyway, "Blind-Faith" is hardly the case, Jesus and the bible give us enough to understand that our faith is definetly not blind :L

I was really just explaining my take on what you said, its the most commonly used explanation of why people say there is no proof of god and why we should believe in him. Also Blind Faith is exactly what you said, to beleive something without proof is to believe blindly, just as people blindly believe science, its the same thing only different perspectives, a belief in something that has no proof or simply something you do not understand. Although it is a good arguement as it explains everything in one nice little package, it is just as flaud to a non-believer as science is to a believer in respects of both belief and understanding. It offers no resolve except in accepting that god exists and to believe in him blindly.

And as for the bible, you can read up on some earlier posts by me and others about the low validity of the bible in context of mistranslation and intentional alteration by dominant religious figures and values etc. So its like reading a story that you believe completely with no proof that it happened, to believe blindly.

EDIT: If you do quote me, please don't change the post, if you think I'm wrong, then simply tell me, by all means highlight areas, but do not change the quote.

[Ardemax]

Thanks for the post Sarc


ok virtual here we go

the bible was not made over 7000 years ago, im pretty sure it was 1-2500 years before the birth of Christ

[Black_Apalachi]

this debate is turning into an arguement

you're not respecting my opinions in anyway shape or form.

if i believe in something, you can't say it's not real?
give me one scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. and none of this "matter" stuff, cos' that's a load of **.

The only thing I am not respecting is the claim that the Bible proves God's existence. That's not an opinion, it's just a false claim. I could say something stupid like; 'the world is flat' for instance, and I hardly imagine you or anyone else would accept that as my opinion.

I'm not trying to extinguish your opinion of God's existence, it was just the statement you made in relation to it.

As for the age of the Bible, I'm mixed up now as to who first claimed it was 7000 years old but my comments regarding this were aimed at whoever that was.

[Ardemax]

virtualg claimed 7000 years old i believe

[VirtualG]

Ok, I feel like joining in this debate.

Lets start of by saying;

"PROOF" is irrelevent, God can NOT be proven/does NOT want to be prooven/will NOT be prooven. So if you are asking for proof you are looking in the wrong place. If god gives ANY proof it takes away free will. Anyone who has a little brains will understand this. This is clearly conveyed through out the bible.

There was a collection of scriptures which were that of Christian-Jewish beliefs that were all compiled into about 45-50 different stories and prohcies, before the time of even that of moses. There was another one very similiar found in Alexandria, Egypt. These were both put togther, along with many other scriptures to form the old testament, which was then formed with other parts such as the new testament to form another bible.

Thanks for the post Sarc


ok virtual here we go

the bible was not made over 7000 years ago, im pretty sure it was 1-2500 years before the birth of Christ

You are refering to the generation of bible (thats the only way I can think of to describe it) before the current one, which was the Jewish bible, but there was one, two or even three more generations before that that have been found that could be dated back over 7000 years.

[Ardemax]

the current bible does not date 7000 years ago

[VirtualG]

the current bible does not date 7000 years ago

It does. Large proportions of the old testament at least. It's like your building a castle and a 100 years later you want to improve on it and you double or triple or x10 it's size, does it no longer date back 100 years? Although you are getting off topic, I used it in my post, dont use it to create another thread or prove that god exists or doesn't exist, You must be one of the only christians still posting in this thread Ardemax, shows how much the rest "believe"