Also, santa claus has many REAL STORIES. Also, i am sure that Indian gods also have their real stories. In which do I believe? Human brain is very creative!
Upvote
0
Orthodoxy: Does God really exist?
- Thread starter Andreea2017
- Start date
- Dec 1, 2017
- 6,003
- 2,336
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Is there historic proof of Santa Claus or the Indian gods, where are the manuscripts, and where is the near perfect Harmonizations in terms of transmission?
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
In good faith I provide a few arguments in the words of others so here we go:
From a Classical apologetic standpoint:
Norman Geisler states:
A modern version of Aselm's ontological argument:
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist(s).
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable, and one.
6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
From an Evidentialist Apologetic standpoint:
Here is a chart using what is known as the anthropic principal:
Cosmic and Geological Evidence of Design
Gary Habbermas's historical argument:
From a Reformed Apologetic standpoint:
"Apologetics in the modern period has been dominated by the concern to provide reasons, whether in the form of proof or evidence, for belief in the existence of God. Increasingly in modern philosophy the assumption became more and more prevalent that the burden of proof was on the theist to show good reasons for believing in God, not on the nontheist to show good reasons for disbelieving in God. This assumption reached its classic formulation in Antony Flew’s often discussed article “The Presumption of Atheism.” The Reformed apologist seeks to end this trend, and even to turn the tables around. Greg Bahnsen offers a particularly forceful rebuttal to the atheist presumption:
One important Reformed apologist who focuses on removing the burden of proof from the theist (though not on transferring the burden of proof to the nontheist, as Bahnsen urges) is Alvin Plantinga. His most famous contention is that the Christian (or other theist) is warranted in believing in God’s existence whether or not he can offer supporting arguments or evidences for his belief. As Plantinga puts it, belief in God is properly basic. We introduced his position in chapter 12. Here we will consider this particular idea in more depth, since it is often misunderstood. In what follows, we will be summarizing many of the key points in Plantinga’s paper “Reason and Belief in God” in Faith and Rationality.
According to Plantinga, a belief is basic if a person holds it without basing it on some other belief, that is, if it is not inferred from other beliefs. A belief is properly basic if the person holding it is in some significant way warranted in doing so. Several important implications of Plantinga’s notion of basicality need to be understood.
First, a belief may be basic for a person at one time but not at another. For example, a person who believes that a man committed a murder on the basis of a detective’s investigative report might come to hold that belief as basic after viewing a tape of the incident. Likewise, a person who believes in God on the basis of rational arguments for God’s existence might later come to hold that belief as basic after having a religious experience (as happened to Plantinga).
Second, a belief may be properly basic for one person but not for another. For example, a person who witnessed a murder may hold as a basic belief that the defendant committed the murder (simply because he saw it happen), while a person on the jury who agreed would not be able to hold that belief as basic. Likewise, one person might believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on the testimony of the apostles in the New Testament, while the apostles themselves held that belief as basic because they saw and touched the risen Jesus.
Third, the fact that a belief is basic for someone does not mean it is groundless. For example, a person’s belief that he sees a tree is basic because it is not inferred from other beliefs; but it is not groundless, because it is grounded in his immediate experience of seeing the tree. Likewise, a person who holds as a basic belief that God exists might do so because he had a religious experience; that experience, then, would be the ground of the belief. Plantinga insists that belief in God can be properly basic for him without being groundless (78-82).
Fourth, Plantinga’s claim that belief in God can be properly basic does not imply that just any belief can be basic. This is what he calls “the Great Pumpkin objection”: “What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic?” (74). Plantinga’s answer is no, because that belief would have nothing to ground it, and there is no reason why anyone should consider such a belief basic (74-78).
Fifth, the idea that a belief is properly basic is to be distinguished from two other concepts. To say that a belief is basic is not a statement about the degree of confidence or certainty with which it is held. The firmness with which a person holds a certain belief is not directly related to whether that belief is basic for him. One may hold different basic beliefs with varying degrees of firmness—for example, being more confident that 2 + 3 = 5 than that one had eggs for breakfast this morning. One may even be more confident of some nonbasic beliefs than of some basic beliefs—for example, being more confident that 21 x 21 = 441, a belief held from computing it using other math facts, than that one had eggs for breakfast last Saturday (49-50).
Sixth, it is possible to abandon beliefs that one held as basic beliefs, even as properly basic. Any argument or information that removes the ground for acceptance of a belief is called a defeater. A person who sees what looks exactly like a bowl of fruit on a table may hold as a basic belief that he sees a bowl of fruit. Later, if a trusted friend informs him that the bowl contained imitation fruit made of plastic, he will likely abandon his belief, even though it was properly basic. In this case the trusted friend’s testimony constitutes a defeater. The person who holds a basic belief that God exists is not thereby closed to evidences or reasons that might be raised against it. Such evidences or reasons “constitute potential defeaters for justification in theistic belief,” and they will become real defeaters for the person who is made aware of the arguments but has nothing with which to “defeat the defeaters.” According to Plantinga, “Various forms of theistic apologetics serve this function (among others)” (84). Plantinga, then, is supportive of apologetics, both negative (answering defeaters) and positive (offering positive arguments)." - from "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman
From a Fideist Apologetic standpoint:
Donald Bloesch states:
"What Christians have is not self-certainty but “soul-certainty” (Forsyth), or even better, God-certainty. It is not the fact of our experience but the fact which we experience that shapes and determines Christian faith (Forsyth). . . . What Forsyth says is quite sound: “We have not two certitudes about these supreme matters, produced by authority and experience, but one, produced by authority in experience; not a certitude produced by authority and then corroborated by experience, but one produced by an authority active only in experience, and especially the corporate experience of a Church.”
Finally an example how different approaches work together:
Hope this will be helpful to you.
From a Classical apologetic standpoint:
Norman Geisler states:
- "Truth about reality is knowable.
- The opposite of true is false.
- It is true that the theistic God exists.
- If God exists, then miracles are possible.
- Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as an act of God to confirm a word from God).
- The New Testament is historically reliable.
- The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
- Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
- a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;
- b. His sinless and miraculous life;
- c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection.
- Therefore, Jesus is God.
- Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
- Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
- Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false)."
A modern version of Aselm's ontological argument:
- The existence of a necessary Being must be either (a) a necessary existence, (b) an impossible existence, or (c) a possible but not necessary existence.
- But the existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence because (so far as we can see) there is nothing contradictory about this concept.
- Nor is the existence of a necessary Being a possible but not necessary existence, since this would be a self-contradictory claim.
- Therefore, the existence of a necessary Being is a necessary existence.
- Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily exists.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist(s).
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable, and one.
6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
From an Evidentialist Apologetic standpoint:
Here is a chart using what is known as the anthropic principal:
Cosmic and Geological Evidence of Design
Gary Habbermas's historical argument:
- Jesus was publicly executed and died on a Roman cross.
- Jesus was buried in a tomb.
- Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty the Sunday after his burial.
- Jesus’ followers had no basis for hoping that he would be raised from the dead.
- Women friends of Jesus had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
- Jesus’ apostles had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
- The first Christians proclaimed in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death that he had literally risen from the dead.
- Paul, a persecutor of the Christians, converted to faith in Christ after an experience of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
From a Reformed Apologetic standpoint:
"Apologetics in the modern period has been dominated by the concern to provide reasons, whether in the form of proof or evidence, for belief in the existence of God. Increasingly in modern philosophy the assumption became more and more prevalent that the burden of proof was on the theist to show good reasons for believing in God, not on the nontheist to show good reasons for disbelieving in God. This assumption reached its classic formulation in Antony Flew’s often discussed article “The Presumption of Atheism.” The Reformed apologist seeks to end this trend, and even to turn the tables around. Greg Bahnsen offers a particularly forceful rebuttal to the atheist presumption:
"The issue of the burden of proof is often misconstrued. If we are arguing over something whose existence or nonexistence has no bearing on the intelligibility of our experience and reasoning (say, unicorns), then understandably the burden of proof rests on those who affirm its existence; without evidence, such things should be dismissed as figments of their imagination. But the existence of God is not on this order. God’s existence would have tremendous bearing on the possibility of man knowing anything at all, having self-conscious intelligence, properly interpreting his experiences, or making his reasoning intelligible—even making sense out of what we call “imagination.” In this special case, the burden of proof in the argument between a theist and an antitheist would shift to the person denying God’s existence, since the possibility and intelligibility of that very debate is directly affected by the position taken."
One important Reformed apologist who focuses on removing the burden of proof from the theist (though not on transferring the burden of proof to the nontheist, as Bahnsen urges) is Alvin Plantinga. His most famous contention is that the Christian (or other theist) is warranted in believing in God’s existence whether or not he can offer supporting arguments or evidences for his belief. As Plantinga puts it, belief in God is properly basic. We introduced his position in chapter 12. Here we will consider this particular idea in more depth, since it is often misunderstood. In what follows, we will be summarizing many of the key points in Plantinga’s paper “Reason and Belief in God” in Faith and Rationality.
According to Plantinga, a belief is basic if a person holds it without basing it on some other belief, that is, if it is not inferred from other beliefs. A belief is properly basic if the person holding it is in some significant way warranted in doing so. Several important implications of Plantinga’s notion of basicality need to be understood.
First, a belief may be basic for a person at one time but not at another. For example, a person who believes that a man committed a murder on the basis of a detective’s investigative report might come to hold that belief as basic after viewing a tape of the incident. Likewise, a person who believes in God on the basis of rational arguments for God’s existence might later come to hold that belief as basic after having a religious experience (as happened to Plantinga).
Second, a belief may be properly basic for one person but not for another. For example, a person who witnessed a murder may hold as a basic belief that the defendant committed the murder (simply because he saw it happen), while a person on the jury who agreed would not be able to hold that belief as basic. Likewise, one person might believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on the testimony of the apostles in the New Testament, while the apostles themselves held that belief as basic because they saw and touched the risen Jesus.
Third, the fact that a belief is basic for someone does not mean it is groundless. For example, a person’s belief that he sees a tree is basic because it is not inferred from other beliefs; but it is not groundless, because it is grounded in his immediate experience of seeing the tree. Likewise, a person who holds as a basic belief that God exists might do so because he had a religious experience; that experience, then, would be the ground of the belief. Plantinga insists that belief in God can be properly basic for him without being groundless (78-82).
Fourth, Plantinga’s claim that belief in God can be properly basic does not imply that just any belief can be basic. This is what he calls “the Great Pumpkin objection”: “What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic?” (74). Plantinga’s answer is no, because that belief would have nothing to ground it, and there is no reason why anyone should consider such a belief basic (74-78).
Fifth, the idea that a belief is properly basic is to be distinguished from two other concepts. To say that a belief is basic is not a statement about the degree of confidence or certainty with which it is held. The firmness with which a person holds a certain belief is not directly related to whether that belief is basic for him. One may hold different basic beliefs with varying degrees of firmness—for example, being more confident that 2 + 3 = 5 than that one had eggs for breakfast this morning. One may even be more confident of some nonbasic beliefs than of some basic beliefs—for example, being more confident that 21 x 21 = 441, a belief held from computing it using other math facts, than that one had eggs for breakfast last Saturday (49-50).
Sixth, it is possible to abandon beliefs that one held as basic beliefs, even as properly basic. Any argument or information that removes the ground for acceptance of a belief is called a defeater. A person who sees what looks exactly like a bowl of fruit on a table may hold as a basic belief that he sees a bowl of fruit. Later, if a trusted friend informs him that the bowl contained imitation fruit made of plastic, he will likely abandon his belief, even though it was properly basic. In this case the trusted friend’s testimony constitutes a defeater. The person who holds a basic belief that God exists is not thereby closed to evidences or reasons that might be raised against it. Such evidences or reasons “constitute potential defeaters for justification in theistic belief,” and they will become real defeaters for the person who is made aware of the arguments but has nothing with which to “defeat the defeaters.” According to Plantinga, “Various forms of theistic apologetics serve this function (among others)” (84). Plantinga, then, is supportive of apologetics, both negative (answering defeaters) and positive (offering positive arguments)." - from "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman
From a Fideist Apologetic standpoint:
Donald Bloesch states:
"What Christians have is not self-certainty but “soul-certainty” (Forsyth), or even better, God-certainty. It is not the fact of our experience but the fact which we experience that shapes and determines Christian faith (Forsyth). . . . What Forsyth says is quite sound: “We have not two certitudes about these supreme matters, produced by authority and experience, but one, produced by authority in experience; not a certitude produced by authority and then corroborated by experience, but one produced by an authority active only in experience, and especially the corporate experience of a Church.”
Finally an example how different approaches work together:
Hope this will be helpful to you.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Speaking only for myself I've never seen anything like this from an Eastern Orthodox. I can appreciate what your going through with this, we are called to walk by faith not by sight, that is actually a tall order. Did you know Mother Teresa struggled?
I call, I cling, I want ... and there is no One to answer ... no One on Whom I can cling ... no, No One. Alone ... Where is my Faith ... even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness ... My God ... how painful is this unknown pain ... I have no Faith ... I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart ... & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. (Was Mother Teresa an atheist? The Guardian)
You just have to understand, when it comes to being a Christian what you do or do not believe is a very big deal. If you are struggling with something in the Bible that is hard to believe, a promise God has made, you have to at least believe the one who made the promise is faithful. How do you do that if your not even sure God exists?So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. (Was Mother Teresa an atheist? The Guardian)
It seems to me you have a lot to think about, I don't envy you that task. I can share the best advice I think I ever got in that regard from a former Jesuit, he simply told me ask God for the evidence and he will provide it. The truth is we all struggle but as the Augustine of Hippo said once:
“Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.” ― Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Your at least looking and asking the tough questions. Keep an open mind and give it some time. If all else fails try this, simply ask God to show you the evidence that he exists, I don't think that would be an unreasonable request.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
com7fy8
Well-Known Member
- May 22, 2013
- 13,716
- 6,139
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
His creation is proof, but you might not be able to appreciate that it is.
And a lot of things and people are His proof, but we need to be able to see this.
I mean, if I share a photograph with you, my photo is proof of if I am an amateur photographer, but you might question that the photo is from me.
God is proving Himself to us all, all the time; but are we perceiving that He is????
No, I can not make you see what is obvious to God.
But His word does say He personally shares with us and changes us to be able to know Him and enjoy Him and obey Him in His own love. His love in us is part of the best of His proof >
"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)
So, in case you want to talk about proof of God, we are talking about God who is almighty plus personal with each of His children, in His own love . . . Heaven's very own which He shares with His Son Jesus > John 17:22-26 < so, include this in how you seek for God to prove Himself to you.
Yes > seek God Himself to prove Himself. No words can do this. You have seen how a photograph can show you so much and words would not have a chance to tell and prove what is in the photograph. You need light to see all which words can not tell. However, God's word can be connected with His reality. We pray for God in us to do all He means by His words
There are two things I think of now, which might help you.
One > be quiet, don't give in to negative and nasty stuff > these are designed to keep you from experiencing God who is kind and personal in His gentle and quiet and humble love > consider 1 Peter 3:4 with Matthew 11:28-30 < so, if we give in to nasty and troubling things, we are letting this stuff get us away from experiencing Jesus with "rest for your souls."
Two > when you read God's word, do not immediately think up all the bad possibilities, but may God prove Himself to you, how He means each part of His word.
Upvote
0
gideon123
Humble Servant of God
I understand what you are saying. Your words seem honest, so I will respond. I was in the same place ... a long time ago.
First, I do not know of any piece of physical evidence, from this Universe, that gives you (or anyone) conclusive proof. But likewise, I do not know of any specific evidence that proves absolutely that God does not exist. So those issues give no clear answer.
But ... if there is a God ... and truly He is the Creator of the Universe, then He must exist in a place beyond the Universe. Some place that we cannot see. In fact, a place that is still beyond the comprehension of our best scientists. Therefore, the realm of God is 'unknowable' to us, and believing in Him requires a step of 'belief' to accept that something extraordinary exists. That step ... we call Faith.
Also, please be aware that God already knows these things, and He is keenly aware that believing in Him can be a very hard thing to do. This is intentional, not accidental. Faith in God is a truly great challenge to our minds - and hearts!! This is a part of God's plan.
Best wishes to you. You will not discover God by any kind of logical argument. You will find him in your Heart.
Blessings!!
First, I do not know of any piece of physical evidence, from this Universe, that gives you (or anyone) conclusive proof. But likewise, I do not know of any specific evidence that proves absolutely that God does not exist. So those issues give no clear answer.
But ... if there is a God ... and truly He is the Creator of the Universe, then He must exist in a place beyond the Universe. Some place that we cannot see. In fact, a place that is still beyond the comprehension of our best scientists. Therefore, the realm of God is 'unknowable' to us, and believing in Him requires a step of 'belief' to accept that something extraordinary exists. That step ... we call Faith.
Also, please be aware that God already knows these things, and He is keenly aware that believing in Him can be a very hard thing to do. This is intentional, not accidental. Faith in God is a truly great challenge to our minds - and hearts!! This is a part of God's plan.
Best wishes to you. You will not discover God by any kind of logical argument. You will find him in your Heart.
Blessings!!
Upvote
0
GirdYourLoins
Well-Known Member
- Nov 27, 2016
- 1,220
- 929
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You cant believe by yourself. you need God to reveal Himself to you. Get on your knees and pray and ask God to reveal himself to you so that you may know him. tell Him that you want Him to be part of your life and that you choose to want to know Him.
Choice is important in our walk with God. The Bible says knock and the door will be opened. You need to knock on the door. Beg Him to reveal Himself to you if thats what it takes. Also, Romans 10:9
Upvote
0
Sanoy
Well-Known Member
- Apr 27, 2017
- 3,169
- 1,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't think we should doubt the experience of the Indian gods. That may seem shocking at first, but the bible is very clear that there are many Elohim that men worship, and many Elohim that deceive man. Elohim also being a term that includes Angels. Just to give you a very real depiction of how much these Elohim have presented themselves before men the Romans actually accused the Christians for the cessation of oracles and miracles by their gods. We have, through Eusebius, just such an account.
“Nor, since the divine power of our Saviour in the Gospel shone forth like light upon all men, is any man now so mad as to dare to propitiate the murderous and bloodthirsty and misanthropic and inhuman daemons by the murder of his best-beloved, and by the slaughter of men in sacrifices, such as the sages and kings of old, being verily possessed by daemons, loved to practice.
But with regard to the fact that the evil daemons no longer have any power to prevail since our Saviour's advent among men, the very same author who is the advocate of the daemons in our time, in his compilation against us, bears witness by speaking in the following manner:
[PORPHYRY] 'And now they wonder that for so many years the plague has attacked the city, Asclepius and the other gods being no longer resident among us. For since Jesus began to be honoured, no one ever heard of any public assistance from the gods.'
This is Porphyry's statement in his very words. If then, according to this confession, 'since Jesus began to be honoured no one ever heard of any public assistance from the gods, because neither Asclepius nor the other gods were any longer resident,' what ground is there henceforth for the opinion that they are gods and heroes?” (Praeparatio Evangelica chapter 1)
The real question is which Elohim is the Lord most high. And clearly, from the pagan's own words, it is Christ.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TheSeeker2014
Active Member
Well first, im going to tell you what i told the guy i work with who asked me the same.
You can read books all day. You can listen to people speak all day. You can read about all you can about the career you will be going into all day, but at the end of the day you need to just find out yourself and "get in the field".
My point, you just need to conect to God in prayer and ask him to help you know in your heart and head both about him, his identity and existance. I know you may say what my coworker says that experiences could be argued away by chemicals and brain activity but i have yet for someone to say that after they have some type of experience or encounter with God. There are other things that just add up and just something there that you "just know" because you were there.
Secondly i would like to point out that things in the bible have been spoken about in archeology and in ither books outside of the bible.
Thirdly Jesus can be proven to have historically existed and the things he went through.
If it helps you can study old testament prophecy about the messiah and the requirements he had to meet. That was written before Jesus showed up and only God coukd have revealed such pin point accuracy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,910
- 7,991
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not everything.
If there were 50,000 people on this forum and 49, 995 said that they had proof that you exist, are who you say you are, have talked to you, lived/worked with you, and some of them are friends of MINE who I know and trust; it would be extremely likely that I would accept that exist and are who you say you are.
There are millions of Christians in the world, and have been probably billions in the last 2,000 years. If they all say they know that God exists, that he is who he says he is, that he answers prayer and has helped them; isn't it more likely that this is the case?
Upvote
0
TheSeeker2014
Active Member
Could i also encourage u to observe creation? It had to have required intelligent design. From the tiniest thing to the largest. Creation witnesses a deity must exist. Humans create far less complex things yet we call them complex and acknowledge someone must have created it upon seeing it the first time.
Upvote
0
- Jul 21, 2015
- 7,547
- 4,171
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Are there any scientific proofs that Julius Caesar lived?
While I do not believe all ancient writings are without error, I believe the Gospel writers thought honesty is a virtue. I recognized there may be textual errors, but am trusting the texts are based on facts. There were other writers who wrote about Jesus outside of the Bible:
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? | Cold Case Christianity
If all we had are copies of copies of ancient texts about God and Christ, the religion would be of lesser value. We have much more. God is alive. Many have testified of God's benevolence and wisdom.
Upvote
0
- Mar 28, 2018
- 2,219
- 1,358
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
I have 100 percent proof God exists.
Here it is so pay attention.
We are the proof that God exists.
We are living breathing beings both male and female who not only think and decide and experience life. But we also all know God .
There would be no God at all if we did not exist. reversed
Because we worship God proves God.
If there was no God no one would even now the term God as it would not exists.
Everything we know to be true is what we are.
So to even come up with the idea of God proves God.
There is nothing imaginary, nothing.
Upvote
0
- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,769
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
The gospel narratives are regarded as credible historical documents. Luke in particular is recognised as a flawless historian of the things that concern his narrative.
Jesus of Nazareth is referred to as a real historical person by contempory secular people such Tacitus and Josephus as well as Pliny, and is probably referred to in the Babylonian Talmud as well.
The footprint that this person left on history, irrespective of whether or not He was who He claimed to be, is unparralleled. Given the contemporary nature of His influence it is absurd to consider that He was a mythological/legendary figure.
That He was a real person and was crucified under Pontius Pilate are matters of historical record with more independant contempory verification than any other individual person that has existed.
So we can know that He was real.
The question that remains is whether or not He rose from the dead. This is a matter of faith.
Are we prepared to trust the Apostles when they said that He did and that they saw Him and ate with Him?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Lucian Hodoboc
I've already read the Bible
- Jul 8, 2017
- 561
- 413
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,769
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
ROFL. With all due respect....come on!
The arch clown of the new atheist movement who had to have Krauss hold his hand lest he say something silly again.
Richard Dawkins maybe a talented bioligist but that is where his credibility stops I'm afraid.
Upvote
0
- Aug 4, 2012
- 7,730
- 3,466
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Do as I do and listen to what he is telling you. He will solve all your problems for you. Of course, that takes effort.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Let's suppose that God does not exist. So we're alone in the universe. How do we know what "real" is? For that matter what is proof? What is love, what is good and what is evil?
How would you describe the actions of the school shooters in just the past year? How would you describe that behavior in a world where God does not exist? Amoral? Neither good nor evil? Defined by a norm of society? Defined from one individual to the next and who knows who is right or wrong in the matter? You may decry and call it evil, but here is the difference between a world where God exists and a world where He does not...you CANNOT justify describing it as evil in a world where God does not exist and it would be inconsistent and incompatible to consider it universally and absolutely evil and applicable to all societies.
What I've presented is a moral argument using real situations from recent events. A technical form of the argument from William Lane Craig's site goes like this:
"1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists."
By objective he means moral values that apply universally to everyone which have their origin outside of the self. Objective and subjective, external and internal are the technical philosophical terms.
Personally I have always found the moral argument appealing and convincing, the alternative denial is not acceptable to me, I refuse to believe that everything is ultimately meaningless and without purpose, including moral values. I refuse to believe such events (exactly as they occurred) as school shootings could be anything but evil, and because evil is a perversion of righteousness, in a backward manner the existence of evil also ends up proving the attribute of goodness and Holiness of God. See my previous posts for more arguments that you might find helpful.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
