What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?

[ianb321red]

I will agree that the articles you provide say we are predisposed to do something, but "believe in gods"? No. What the research shows is typical human reaction - we hate not having an explanation for things. What we see is humans not being able to explain or understand something so they invent a cause. That may or may not be some sort of god. It does not, though, prove a need for a god. It proves a need for understanding our world. Once we have an explanation for the previously unexplained the god explanation goes away. And since we've all agreed that you cannot remove a need then this predisposition cannot be one.

You got any other lines of argument left?

I don’t need another line of argument – you point above doesn’t require me to have one, and anyway the research suggests otherwise to what you say..

The first thing as an aside, is to say is that it makes me chuckle the way you try and cast aside such a huge body of work in a couple of sentences. Here’s something that’s involved 57 researchers from around the world, on a project that has taken 3 years…..and then Bungle Bear says “no – you’ve got it wrong…it doesn’t actually show what they say it shows”.

But to address your above points – most of what you say above is true but irrelevant.

I agree that we have a disposition to understand the world we live in. This is why we have the cognitive skills to question and think abstractly in the first place
I agree that humans invent a cause when they see something they are not able to explain or understand. This is there are many gods and many religions in the world today
I partially agree that once we have an explanation for the previously unexplained the god explanation goes away. We have free will and personal choice to explain matters to either include or exclude a god. So yes, for some people the god explanation will go away, but for others god IS the explanation.

These things are all irrelevant however..
It’s irrelevant because the research already has this as its core assumption in the first place. Yes, there a need for meaning exists, but the real question is where or what is this need actually directed at? What can be tested or researched to provide proof or evidence (or both) that a need for meaning can actually be expressed or revealed as a need for a god?

I agree that there is a universal human need for meaning, but what is actually behind a need for meaning in the first place? This research shows that this universal need can best be explained through a predisposition for a need for god.

But – I think is still quite tenuous because a need for a god of some description doesn’t necessitate a belief in god, and certainly not in a theistic god.

 

[KCfromNC]

Use a bit of common sense will you?

Last time I checked lavatorial needs were pretty essential to prevent acute urinary retention, constipation etc etc

We are taught as children the social norms and behaviours of society, and one of these relates to going to the toilet. So as a result we stop peeing our pants and use the toilet like a "grown up".

As others have pointed out, this shows that children doing something and it being a universal need are totally unrelated.

 

[ianb321red]

There are any number of potential reasons, so I'm sure I'll miss out the reasons for many theists here, so here is a very general overview of why I think theism exists in the first place.

One of the reasons that we were successful as a species is because our brain evolved to look not just for what there is, but for intent and purpose. Many other animals see a predator, and flee. Humans can look at a predator, see what it is doing, and then make an informed decision based on the apparent intent of the predator. Another aspect of this is that we can understand reasons and causes, and our brains are wired to match up what we see to what we know. So if we see a predator that we haven't seen before, but we can still see big teeth and sharp claws, we can anticipate a similar reaction as the first predator that we understood.

This line of thinking, however, applies to everything. We like to see patterns and purpose in all sorts of things, because that's what our brains do. It's the same thinking that makes you see shapes in clouds or Jesus in toast. It's not difficult for a brain that works like that to look for reason and purpose in everything else around us. That's why early religions were quite polytheistic, because everything had it's own cause and purpose, which became the concept of Gods. These thoughts evolved and changed over time until they became the religions we have today.

As for why individual people believe in God, that depends on the person in question. It could be anything from personal experience to believing because your parents do and for many people it's a combination of all sorts of reasons, many of which they probably don't realise themselves (belief being an unconscious process).

Thank you for your reply.

Firstly, I’m not going to go through your comment line-by-line. You’ve clearly stated that is a general overview, and that there could be a number of potential other reasons which you haven’t covered.

I guess what follows for me is to conclude that you view god as imaginary in an objective sense, and because of this religions have evolved and changed over time to suit whoever is following them?

The process you describe (to me at least) bears no resemblance to the Christian God. In fact, if what you described was the basis of the Christian God, then I to would be an atheist!
So since this is a Christian forum how does your view expressed above on why anyone believes in God tie in with a belief in the Christian God?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I guess what follows for me is to conclude that you view god as imaginary in an objective sense, and because of this religions have evolved and changed over time to suit whoever is following them?

To an extent, yes. It's very rare that someone disagrees to any real extent with the god(s) they believe in, and those who convert seem to gravitate towards beliefs that fit what they believe already. When it comes to more organised religion, however, they're shaped to a greater extent by those who lead them than those who follow.

The process you describe (to me at least) bears no resemblance to the Christian God. In fact, if what you described was the basis of the Christian God, then I to would be an atheist!

I described theism, not God. If you thought that what I said did tie in to the Christian God, then I'd think you hadn't understood me. We're not talking about God here, we're talking about belief in God. At least, that's what I assumed the topic became when you asked me why theism existed.

So since this is a Christian forum how does your view expressed above on why anyone believes in God tie in with a belief in the Christian God?

Christianity evolved through this process. I believe someone or several people existed, who is/are now considered the Jesus of the Bible. They were the original leader(s) of the new Christian movement, and this was carried on by others. These beliefs were based upon earlier Jewish beliefs. Then through Christian expansionism and competing religious leaders (or people who wanted to become competing religious leaders) we've ended upon with all the denominations of Christianity that we have today.

All religions have followed this sort of process, to my knowledge.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The first thing as an aside, is to say is that it makes me chuckle the way you try and cast aside such a huge body of work in a couple of sentences. Here’s something that’s involved 57 researchers from around the world, on a project that has taken 3 years…..and then Bungle Bear says “no – you’ve got it wrong…it doesn’t actually show what they say it shows”

So you never question other people's research and conclusions? That says a lot about you..... I read their research and came to a different conclusion. Are you saying that's against the rules for some reason? Bizarrely you also agreed with my interpretation of the results and then said I'm wrong! Your debating skills leave a lot to be desired.

It’s irrelevant because the research already has this as its core assumption in the first place.

Really? If they already knew the answer or made assumptions it's very poor research.

for some people the god explanation will go away, but for others god IS the explanation.

You what? If there is an explanation other than god how can god still be the explanation? That's just drivel.

This research shows that this universal need can best be explained through a predisposition for a need for god.

No it doesn't It shows that humans are prone to invent supernatural explanations for the unknown (and you agreed with that). It also makes clear that the invented explanation is not always god. Logical conclusion - a need for an explanation is not the same as a need for god.

 

[ianb321red]

So you never question other people's research and conclusions? That says a lot about you..... I read their research and came to a different conclusion. Are you saying that's against the rules for some reason?

That's the whole point though - you haven't read the research have you? You've just read the article - hardly grounds for reaching a conclusion to dismiss the research is it?

Bizarrely you also agreed with my interpretation of the results and then said I'm wrong!

I didn't say you were wrong. I said what you were saying was irrelevant regarding the piece of research we were discussing.

Really? If they already knew the answer or made assumptions it's very poor research.

Not at all - I'm just again saying that your counter points were irrelevant to the body of research.

You what? If there is an explanation other than god how can god still be the explanation?

Oh dear.....you really don't understand free will do you? And you have the nerve to question my debating skills??

You said "Once we have an explanation for the previously unexplained the god explanation goes away.".

I replied "We have free will and personal choice to explain matters to either include or exclude a god. So yes, for some people the god explanation will go away, but for others god IS the explanation".

Now think about what you've now said. You are making the very basic error that ignores the fact that we actually have the capacity to choose and reject any explanation about pretty much anything we like...

You've said that "the god explanation goes away". But it hasn't though, has it? Otherwise it wouldn't still exist?
So clearly whatever explanation you are referring to isn't good enough for everyone! Or was your point relative rather than absolute? If so, then it was irrelevant in the the first place!

 

[ianb321red]

I described theism, not God. If you thought that what I said did tie in to the Christian God, then I'd think you hadn't understood me. We're not talking about God here, we're talking about belief in God. At least, that's what I assumed the topic became when you asked me why theism existed.

No, don't get me wrong - I realise that.

Maybe I should have said that the process you describe bears no resemblance to a belief in the Christian God

 

[ianb321red]

Christianity evolved through this process. I believe someone or several people existed, who is/are now considered the Jesus of the Bible. They were the original leader(s) of the new Christian movement, and this was carried on by others. These beliefs were based upon earlier Jewish beliefs. Then through Christian expansionism and competing religious leaders (or people who wanted to become competing religious leaders) we've ended upon with all the denominations of Christianity that we have today.

All religions have followed this sort of process, to my knowledge.

Ok, the problem here is that we've jumped from a process of describing a god which exists in purely a perceptual or cognitive (imaginary) way, to a description of the emergence of the Christian faith.

In between sits a requirement to understand why people actually believed in The God of The Bible upon which the Christian faith was actually built.
It's one thing to understand why people believe in "gods", but it's another thing to understand specifically why people believe in Yahweh because clearly there was a good deal more to the establishment and belief in Yahweh than merely a cognitive exercise.

Moving on to your comment above:

Yes, Christianity is historically based on Jewish beliefs in the sense that they share historical roots, but the Jewish influence was certainly not part of the emergence of Christianity and the gospel message which was being spread by the early church leaders. In fact, many elements of Judaism are positively opposed to Christianity to the extent that Christianity is actually viewed as highly blasphemous!

You mentioned Jesus (of the bible) which is quite interesting, because some would argue he never really existed at all irrespective of his claims of deity or not (you'd have to ignore a substantial amount of extra biblical evidence to hold on to this belief though..).
But in fact, this gets to the heart of the matter immediately.

From a Christian perspective Jesus IS the evidence for the existence of God - full stop! No other religion or belief system other than Christianity has a founder that actually claimed to be God - The God, NOT "a god".

Which is why, ultimately the entire debate over whether God exists hinges on the claims that Jesus Christ made. He claimed to be God. He claimed to be both fully human and God.

So, to go back to the original question of this thread "What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?" should actually be "What is the Best Argument Against the claims that Jesus Christ made?"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not at all - I'm just again saying that your counter points were irrelevant to the body of research.

No, you sepcifically said (as I quoted) "the research already has this as its core assumption in the first place." That is poor research.

Oh dear.....you really don't understand free will do you? And you have the nerve to question my debating skills??

You said "Once we have an explanation for the previously unexplained the god explanation goes away.".

I replied "We have free will and personal choice to explain matters to either include or exclude a god. So yes, for some people the god explanation will go away, but for others god IS the explanation".

Sorry, which part did you not understand? It's fairly simple English. If a new explanation replaces the god explanation the god explanation is no longer valid. So you are either arguing from the point where the new explanation is not provable - and therefore has not replaced the god one, has it? - or from the point of view of a person who refuses to accept reality. So yes, I do question your debating skills.

So clearly whatever explanation you are referring to isn't good enough for everyone! Or was your point relative rather than absolute? If so, then it was irrelevant in the the first place!

Since we are talking about universal needs that argument shows yet again what a poor debater you really are. Stick to the point. And you may want to stop shooting yourself in the foot.

I have shown with your own evidence how there is no universal need for god. You have failed again and again to support your argument that there is one. And please don't say that you have done so - "I agree that there is a universal human need for meaning, but what is actually behind a need for meaning in the first place?" is not an argument for a need for god. One need does not drive another.

Case closed.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So, to go back to the original question of this thread "What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?" should actually be "What is the Best Argument Against the claims that Jesus Christ made?"

lol

Go read your own post #5

 

[ianb321red]

lol

Go read your own post #5

Good point!!
I blame myself entirely

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ok, the problem here is that we've jumped from a process of describing a god which exists in purely a perceptual or cognitive (imaginary) way, to a description of the emergence of the Christian faith.

There's may be a difference to you, but objectively speaking that's two points on the same timeline. I jumped forward in time, but that's it.

In between sits a requirement to understand why people actually believed in The God of The Bible upon which the Christian faith was actually built.
It's one thing to understand why people believe in "gods", but it's another thing to understand specifically why people believe in Yahweh because clearly there was a good deal more to the establishment and belief in Yahweh than merely a cognitive exercise.

The thing is that objectively speaking there is no difference between the Christian faith and any other. The only difference is that you believe in the Christian faith, which makes it different to you, but not to anyone who views all religions equally.

In fact, many elements of Judaism are positively opposed to Christianity to the extent that Christianity is actually viewed as highly blasphemous!

Most of which came after Jesus when early Christians assigned him the status of God and decided upon the Bible and the new covenant. The beliefs that came before that, however, are mostly Jewish, as are a lot of the beliefs that continue today.

From a Christian perspective Jesus IS the evidence for the existence of God - full stop! No other religion or belief system other than Christianity has a founder that actually claimed to be God - The God, NOT "a god".

Being the only person to claim something does not make that claim true. In fact, depending on how you look at it, it might make that claim less likely to be true than claims that multiple people make.

So, to go back to the original question of this thread "What is the Best Argument Against the Existence of God?" should actually be "What is the Best Argument Against the claims that Jesus Christ made?"

What claims can you objectively demonstrate that he made? Can you show that Jesus actually claimed to be God, rather than someone else writing down later that he did?

Assuming that you can, however, my answer stays the same. No evidence and no logical necessity.

 

[ianb321red]

No, you sepcifically said (as I quoted) "the research already has this as its core assumption in the first place." That is poor research.

In order to research something you have to have a question or hypothesis to test. Hypotheses are devised to test assumptions.

Some of the assumptions of this study were:

• cognitive mechanisms constrain and inform the ways in which concepts are generated and communicated
• cognitive factors and environmental conditions interact to produce predictable patterns of cultural transmission
• certain ideas spread more rapidly, are better grasped, more faithfully recalled, and are more emotionally compelling than other ideas
• religious ideas – or a subsection of them – are ‘cognitively natural’ and relatively easily generated, grasped and remembered
• theologically complex concepts are transmitted and whether they, like more
intuitive concepts, actually motivate individual behaviours, and whether they override intuitive belief

The above points are essentially another way of saying a combination of cognitive processes and our environment work together to produce predictability – and predictability means we can learn and makes sense of our world.

You said “we hate not having an explanation for things “, then you said “What we see is humans not being able to explain or understand something so they invent a cause” and then you mentioned “a need for understanding our world”.

I’m saying that these comments can easily be accounted for in (some of) the assumptions of the study, and that was why I said they were irrelevant.

So that is not poor research! Part of the project aim was to build and test hypotheses, and it has done exactly that.

Sorry, which part did you not understand? It's fairly simple English. If a new explanation replaces the god explanation the god explanation is no longer valid. So you are either arguing from the point where the new explanation is not provable - and therefore has not replaced the god one, has it? - or from the point of view of a person who refuses to accept reality. So yes, I do question your debating skills.

Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Please give me an example to illustrate your point. Give me an example of when an explanation of something replaces the god explanation.
Please also define who “we” are/is as well….

I have shown with your own evidence how there is no universal need for god. You have failed again and again to support your argument that there is one.

I’ve failed to support my argument have I? Actually, I’ve provided more than enough evidence to support my argument.

Prof Justin Barrett (in a review of his book “Born Believers”):

“this fascinating theory about the value of religious faith finds that we are all predisposed to believe in God from birth”

Doesn’t it get any clearer than that??? Does that support my argument? Let me just repeat “WE ARE ALL PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE IN GOD”!!!

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t force you to accept my argument – but let’s be honest, I have provided evidence for my argument haven’t I? To say otherwise is quite frankly complete nonsense!

I don’t mind if we disagree or you reject the evidence – that’s your choice, but to do so you will firstly have to read it and counter the arguments and evidence given by 47 or so researchers…..Good luck!!

So once you’ve done this come back to me with your argument(s).

 

[underheaven]

No, you sepcifically said (as I quoted) "the research already has this as its core assumption in the first place." That is poor research.

Sorry, which part did you not understand? It's fairly simple English. If a new explanation replaces the god explanation the god explanation is no longer valid. So you are either arguing from the point where the new explanation is not provable - and therefore has not replaced the god one, has it? - or from the point of view of a person who refuses to accept reality. So yes, I do question your debating skills.

Since we are talking about universal needs that argument shows yet again what a poor debater you really are. Stick to the point. And you may want to stop shooting yourself in the foot.

I have shown with your own evidence how there is no universal need for god. You have failed again and again to support your argument that there is one. And please don't say that you have done so - "I agree that there is a universal human need for meaning, but what is actually behind a need for meaning in the first place?" is not an argument for a need for god. One need does not drive another.

Case closed.

Without God, the universes do not exist. When He takes His Light,and Energy from you, finally,you will cease to exist. If you were born and die an atheist,all that you have been [which won't have been much],in the bigger picture,but includes relationships with family,friends etc will be without life [eternal]. There are no hard line atheists who create anything that lasts. To be creative,you have to have recognised God, and honoured Him ,at sometime in your existence. You will find that most people who are hard line atheists, will die young ,and their 'work' will be proved limited to their time. FACT. Even Richard Dawkins hedges his statements around 'intellligence'etc. Remember atheists say 'God does Not exist'. Carl Sagan said something along the lines of ' Atheists must know something that I don't,for they know God does not exist,but I would never say that,I am an agnostic ....I too was for years but know better now.
It is truethat those who only know the bible are being now 'forced' to up their reasoning power by studying the world around them,and history ,science etc, But there 'atheists' on here,who have never read theology,history,and much more,and they are very annoying too.To know God you need to 'seek' in higher places,and not just be a little 'rebel'.

 

[ianb321red]

The thing is that objectively speaking there is no difference between the Christian faith and any other. The only difference is that you believe in the Christian faith, which makes it different to you, but not to anyone who views all religions equally.

Do you really think so? I mean that is a commonly held position, but you seem to be a bit more informed than "the man in street" so I'm surprised you say this..

If you take Christianity and Islam as an example:

God - Islam (Allah) = Monotheistic / Christianity (Yahweh) = triune-theistic
Jesus - Islam = a prophet and only human / Christianity = son of God, God incarnate, fully God and fully human
Atonement - Islam = rejected / Christianity = accepted

So Islam believes in one God with no son, denies the deity of Christ and the crucifixion, whereas Christianity believes in one God manifested in 3 forms one of which was fully God and fully human, and believes that Jesus was God and that his death atoned for all human sin.

That's quite a difference - objectively speaking there is a world of difference between these 2 faiths.

Most of which came after Jesus when early Christians assigned him the status of God and decided upon the Bible and the new covenant. The beliefs that came before that, however, are mostly Jewish, as are a lot of the beliefs that continue today.

Jesus's divinity existed from the very outset, in fact when he was still alive

In John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God"

Paul (who was also alive at the time that Jesus was) in his early letters wrote of the divinity of Christ. In fact the divinity of Christ, can even be found in Old Testament texts (Isaiah 45:22-23, for example).

As for the beliefs, Jesus came to set people free from the (Jewish) law - as stated in Romans 8:2 "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

What claims can you objectively demonstrate that he made? Can you show that Jesus actually claimed to be God, rather than someone else writing down later that he did?

Why should there be a need for me to do this? Surely that is the very nature of historical evidence?

Can you objectively demonstrate anything to me about any historical figure outside of this current generation, other than referring to something that someone else wrote down about what that person did?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok, let’s get to the bottom of this. Please give me an example to illustrate your point. Give me an example of when an explanation of something replaces the god explanation.
Please also define who “we” are/is as well….

Lightning. Used to be seen as an act of god (Thor, for example). We (most functioning human beings) now know it is an electrical discharge. Do you still see it as an act of a god?

Doesn’t it get any clearer than that??? Does that support my argument? Let me just repeat “WE ARE ALL PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVE IN GOD”!!!

Shout as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. You are not supporting the argument that there is a universal need for god. A predisposition to believe in god does not equate to a need for god.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t force you to accept my argument – but let’s be honest, I have provided evidence for my argument haven’t I? To say otherwise is quite frankly complete nonsense!

On the contrary, it is nonsense to say you have when you are answering a different question.

I don’t mind if we disagree or you reject the evidence – that’s your choice, but to do so you will firstly have to read it and counter the arguments and evidence given by 47 or so researchers…..Good luck!!

I agree with the research just not the conclusion you are drawing from it. You are saying it proves a need for god. The researchers don't say that, they say we are disposed to believe in supernatural explanations. One last time -a predisposition to believe in god is not the same as a need for god. Got it?

Now please address the point we are arguing and not a different one.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Do you really think so?

Yes, I do.

That's quite a difference - objectively speaking there is a world of difference between these 2 faiths.

Yet they evolved in the same way.

Jesus's divinity existed from the very outset, in fact when he was still alive

In John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God"

Paul (who was also alive at the time that Jesus was) in his early letters wrote of the divinity of Christ. In fact the divinity of Christ, can even be found in Old Testament texts (Isaiah 45:22-23, for example).

As for the beliefs, Jesus came to set people free from the (Jewish) law - as stated in Romans 8:2 "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."

All of this came after Jesus. I note that you haven't used any Biblical verses that come before Jesus.

Why should there be a need for me to do this? Surely that is the very nature of historical evidence?

Historical evidence does not revolve around Jesus so it's up to you to demonstrate that he made the claims he did.

Can you objectively demonstrate anything to me about any historical figure outside of this current generation, other than referring to something that someone else wrote down about what that person did?

You can to a further extent than the Bible. For example, by using non-Biblical sources. The Bible has been written and edited to an extent that you need non-Biblical sources to confirm it. The Bible cannot be considered a correct historical source in itself. The Nicene Creed destroyed any chance of that happening.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Without God, the universes do not exist. When He takes His Light,and Energy from you, finally,you will cease to exist. If you were born and die an atheist,all that you have been [which won't have been much],in the bigger picture,but includes relationships with family,friends etc will be without life [eternal]. There are no hard line atheists who create anything that lasts. To be creative,you have to have recognised God, and honoured Him ,at sometime in your existence. You will find that most people who are hard line atheists, will die young ,and their 'work' will be proved limited to their time. FACT. Even Richard Dawkins hedges his statements around 'intellligence'etc. Remember atheists say 'God does Not exist'. Carl Sagan said something along the lines of ' Atheists must know something that I don't,for they know God does not exist,but I would never say that,I am an agnostic ....I too was for years but know better now.
It is truethat those who only know the bible are being now 'forced' to up their reasoning power by studying the world around them,and history ,science etc, But there 'atheists' on here,who have never read theology,history,and much more,and they are very annoying too.To know God you need to 'seek' in higher places,and not just be a little 'rebel'.

Is that supposed to be relevant? Not only is it completely off-topic, it is full of errors.

If you have something useful to add to the debate then please join in. Otherwise may I politely ask you to just keep quiet

 

[ianb321red]

Yet they evolved in the same way.

Can you explain what the importance is of the way they ‘evolved’ is?

Islam is a religion and Christianity is a relationship.
This is not a trite comment, but there is a very crucial difference between Christianity and all other religions and belief systems.

Christianity is NOT a religion. I cannot say it anymore clearer than that.

Whether it has evolved in the same way or not doesn’t detract objectively from what Christianity is (and isn’t) a belief in, and therefore does not detract from how it differentiates itself from all other faiths and belief systems.

To lump Christianity in with all other faiths and religions is convenient...but that's about it!

All of this came after Jesus. I note that you haven't used any Biblical verses that come before Jesus.

Isaiah is from the Old Testament, and therefore before Jesus. There are plenty of other references to Jesus in the old Testament.
But anyway, what is the relevance of your point that “All of this came after Jesus.”?

Historical evidence does not revolve around Jesus so it's up to you to demonstrate that he made the claims he did.

Ok, but is there less or more historical evidence to support the claims Jesus made, than there is for any other historical figure?

I believe that Jesus told the truth, and I believe The Bible is the truth.
Since we both agree that he truly existed as a historical figure, then it becomes a case of proving whether he told the truth or not.

Is that a correct assumption to make?

In other words, unless The Bible can be demonstrated to be NOT God inspired, and NOT God’s final and ONLY revelation, and that it can also be demonstrated that Jesus was NOT who he claimed he was, then I can only conclude that Jesus told the truth, and that The Bible is the truth.

To conclude or think otherwise would be ignoring the evidence which I can pick up, read and hold in my hand..

You can to a further extent than the Bible. For example, by using non-Biblical sources. The Bible has been written and edited to an extent that you need non-Biblical sources to confirm it. The Bible cannot be considered a correct historical source in itself.

The Bible is supported by more manuscript evidence than any other book from the ancient world. There are in excess of 24,000 extant Greek manuscripts, codex’s and fragments of the Old and New Testament. These have been attested more thoroughly than any other work from the ancient world, and the New Testament alone has approx.. 5300 manuscripts

For example:
-Plato/ written 427-347BC/ earliest fragment AD 900 / 7 Manuscripts
-Tacitus/ written AD100/ earliest fragment AD1100/ 20 Manuscripts
-New Testament / written AD40-100/ earliest fragment AD125/ 5,300 Manuscripts

This shows that not only is there a vast amount of manuscripts for the New Testament compared to other works from the same period, but that the manuscripts were written closer to the original accounts than other comparable piece of ancient work.
Therefore the closeness of this interval more than confirms it's authenticity and general integrity.

Regarding extra Biblical or Christian sources, the Dead Sea scrolls are sectarian manuscripts from Judaism, and provide unquestioned reliability for the Old Testament – especially the scrolls relating to the book of Isaiah. Closely related are the Qumran scrolls which were discovered to contain fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. All-in-all there were about 200 scrolls discovered, and completely support the belief that The Old Testament was well preserved and accurately handed down to us.

The writings of the roman historian Tacitus is famous for his ‘Annuals’ on Christ (Christus) which were written in AD116, and are particularly noted as being an accurate non-Biblical reference to the death of Christ as described in the 4 Gospels.

Almost all scholars consider these references by Tacitus to the Christians to be completely authentic.

So I believe it is very clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence both from the attesting of the manuscripts themselves, AND from non-Biblical evidence to consider it arguably the most accurate and comprehensive collection of books from the ancient world...

The Nicene Creed destroyed any chance of that happening.

But which one? The first one from AD325 or the second one from AD381?
Please clarify your point regarding this, so that I can answer it.

Or have you been reading The Da Vinci Code again?? LOL

 

[ianb321red]

Lightning. Used to be seen as an act of god (Thor, for example). We (most functioning human beings) now know it is an electrical discharge. Do you still see it as an act of a god?

Are we still debating things on a universal basis ?

Because there are a number of problems with this argument (and I think you meant Zeus, not Thor who is the god of thunder...???)

1) It assumes an agreement on which god lightning is/was an act of. There could be dozens of gods used to explain lighting from Aztec gods, to Hindu gods, Shinto gods, Finnish mythologies, African tribes and so on....

So universal agreement on which god?

2) Some of these people still believe in this day-and-age that lightning can be or is an act of god. Now whether this is sincere or not, they still believe it.

3) Now I personally understand and accept that lightning is an electrical discharge, but I still believe that God (the Christian one) is capable of causing lighting - through the very nature of what I believe him to be like (all powerful). I can't prove this obviously other than from belief in what is he capable of...and I certainly believe in acts of God for the very simple fact that I hold a belief in God.

4) To support your argument you would have to show universal agreement that the new explanation (electrical discharge) has replaced the old explanation (act of god).

5) The trouble with that is that you would also have to show that God is in fact NOT or NO LONGER capable of producing lightning.

6) And to do that you would have to show that ALL gods that are worshipped either never existed, no longer exist, or if they do exist are incapable of producing lighting.

7) You would have to demonstrate this and convince all followers and believers of all the gods that are worshipped to stop worshipping them.

8) I don't think you can do this.

The whole point is that when you say the new explanation replaces the old explanation, you are making the assumption that there is universal agreement on the something replacing a need for god..

There isn't and won't be a universal agreement because we have the choice and freewill to accept and reject anything based on out own terms.

This is why I said this would only work for some people, and that for others the god explanation would be the correct explanation for them.

The key point here is that a need that is hardwired can be universal as we are all born with it as part of our DNA or genes.
But something like your description of lightning can't and won't ever be universal as it requires a change in belief and acceptance of something new to change a previous belief. There will always be someone who rejects something which is based on a belief.

And this is why I've previously made the distinction between a need for god and a belief in god....