10 Questions for Christians

[Edwardo Piet]

Also if some creationists often say that the human EYE is improbable (and it isn't through natural selection btw (of course))....

Imagine how improbable God is... He has to create, and do, and know, (he can see into the future etc) a lot of really complicated and improbable things.... Isn't he an awful lot more improbable than an eye appearing out of nothing (which of course didn't happen)?

[Jason Jarred]

Future and Hope,
I have to seriously question if you've even read the Old Testament. You didn't address the questions in their appropriate context, and several times you used the logic "can you prove 'x' doesn't exist?" I won't even begin to explain what is wrong with that mode of thinking.

[Edwardo Piet]

Future and Hope,
I have to seriously question if you've even read the Old Testament. You didn't address the questions in their appropriate context, and several times you used the logic "can you prove 'x' doesn't exist?" I won't even begin to explain what is wrong with that mode of thinking.

Well I'll go ahead and say anyway that if you can't prove 'x' doesn't exist...that doesn't mean it does exist. And you also can't prove it does exist.

:Just in case futureandhope hasn't considered it or in case he's repressing it; or in case it's suppressed.

[FutureAndAHope]

Regardless of your thoughts on the topic at hand, I refuse to let you remain atheist; I have already clearly shown examples (in other posts) from my own personal experience which prove there is a God. I refuse to let you get away with calling then irrelevant stories, when clearly with thought they prove Gods existence.

As for the full accuracy of the entire bible I don't believe it is perfect, nor the 100% revealed will of God. Yet there is enough truth in it to call it that for the sake of ignoring other peoples experiences with God recorded in text. It is safer to say something happened than it did not. As an example Jesus quotes parts of genesis so he must at least have thought it was accurate enough to quote from.

[Darwinian]

Regardless of your thoughts on the topic at hand, I refuse to let you remain atheist; I have already clearly shown examples (in other posts) from my own personal experience which prove there is a God. I refuse to let you get away with calling then irrelevant stories, when clearly with thought they prove Gods existence.

I'm afraid that they do not prove the existence of God. All they prove is that you have had experiences which have led you to believe in God.

People have been having experiences throughout the history of humanity. I'm very sure that an ancient norse could have claimed that he had had experiences that prove the existence of Thor.

As for the full accuracy of the entire bible I don't believe it is perfect, nor the 100% revealed will of God. Yet there is enough truth in it to call it that for the sake of ignoring other peoples experiences with God recorded in text. It is safer to say something happened than it did not. As an example Jesus quotes parts of genesis so he must at least have thought it was accurate enough to quote from.

It is certainly not safer to say that something happened than it did not.

There is no evidence the Jesus ever actually existed outside the bible. For example, the Romans, who where prolific record keepers seemed to have not noticed him at all. This doesn't mean that he didn't exist in some form or another but without evidence to back up a thoery it simply remains a theory.

Just because something is written in the bible does not mean that it is true unless you can back it up using external sources.

[Edwardo Piet]

Regardless of your thoughts on the topic at hand, I refuse to let you remain atheist; I have already clearly shown examples (in other posts) from my own personal experience which prove there is a God. I refuse to let you get away with calling then irrelevant stories, when clearly with thought they prove Gods existence.

From Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion - Arguments for God's existence - The argument from personal 'experience' - page 117:

"On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun 'tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude,' are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too - and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space. David Hume's pithy test for a miracle comes irresistibly to mind: 'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.'
It may seem improbable that seventy thousand people could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that seventy thousand people claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all simultaneously saw a mirage (they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can't have done much for their eyesight). But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative: that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outsite Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is not that isolated."

So, basically...if seventy thousand people are wrong, you obviously must be too.

[Meatball]

Written words are never proof of anything. It's silly to even start a discussion of truth based soley on written words. Logic prevails, The Bible, religion and the concept of a personal God all lose. It needn't be more complex than that.

[Jason Jarred]

Regardless of your thoughts on the topic at hand, I refuse to let you remain atheist; I have already clearly shown examples (in other posts) from my own personal experience which prove there is a God. I refuse to let you get away with calling then irrelevant stories, when clearly with thought they prove Gods existence.

As for the full accuracy of the entire bible I don't believe it is perfect, nor the 100% revealed will of God. Yet there is enough truth in it to call it that for the sake of ignoring other peoples experiences with God recorded in text. It is safer to say something happened than it did not. As an example Jesus quotes parts of genesis so he must at least have thought it was accurate enough to quote from.

Why are you being so evasive? Why is it that whenever I ask a Christian if they've actually read the Bible, they evade, duck, avoid, and refuse to answer my question?
I'm *trying* not to assume that you haven't read the Bible and the many implications that may carry for the validity of any of your arguements, but I'll need a little help here F&H.

*Sits back and doesn't actually expect an answer*

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi Darwinian

You mentioned there are no Roman references to Christ here is a list of references from various sources including Roman. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Why are you being so evasive? Why is it that whenever I ask a Christian if they've actually read the Bible, they evade, duck, avoid, and refuse to answer my question? I'm *trying* not to assume that you haven't read the Bible and the many implications that may carry for the validity of any of your arguements, but I'll need a little help here F&H.

It is not that I am being advasive, just honestly making my opinion known. I know there are some (a few minor) errors in the bible; but it is not sensible for me to throw it all out. The book is backed by inscriptions that record the same historical accounts especially of Isaiah, and the judges. When doing ancient history at school we reviewed inscriptions which had right down to the amount of tribute paid identical accounts of battles that took place. The bible is a history of encounters with God, and historical records of king and country, backed by secondary sources; it is not fairy tales. When the bible was assembled it was so by humans, so their is the potential for books or stories included to be wrong, but not all the stories or books are wrong the largest majority of the texts are acurate historical accounts. Why I am so careful, or evasive as you put it is to try not to make it look like the whole lot of it is rubish.

[Darwinian]

And I return serve with this..

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm