Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[HitchSlap]

Don't you accept the historical veracity of Scripture?

There is no such thing.

 

[Davian]

You don't pay me well enough to keep you up to date.
I paid for my Library and Information Studies classes.

Are you not here on a voluntary basis?

Dutchman Johan Huibers completes 20-year quest to build full-scale, functioning model of Noah's Ark

Do you have the biblical reference for the steel barge that Noah used to keep his ark afloat?

A scale model of Noah’s Ark has been built based on a blueprint drawn up in ancient Babylon 4,000 years ago.

A little on the small side, do you not think?

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes

Talking about it is not building it.

 

[Davian]

No one at the time, objected to the stories.

Then they are off of the table.

 

[OzSpen]

Luke is pseudonymous and written decades after the supposed life of Jesus, and as such, certainly not an historical account by any stretch of the imagination.

Granted that the original document did not identify Luke as the author.

However, you are too late in telling me this as historians have checked out Luke-Acts for the historical veracity and have come to different conclusions to what you stated here. William Ramsay spent 20 years researching the areas of Luke's writings. He checked Luke-Acts 32 references to countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands and found that Luke made not one mistake. Most historians would be enviable of that reputation (see W Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen; W Ramsay, Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?)

It needs to be remembered that William Ramsay was a skeptic of Luke's reliability before his investigation. AFTER the research, Ramsay changed his views. Why? The evidence he found to demonstrate Luke was a consummate historian.

He wrote: 'The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness' (Ramsay 1979:81).

You are trotting out the tired old arguments of theological liberalism that have been refuted over and over. How do I know? I've spent the last 5 years researching the historical Jesus for my PhD dissertation and had to deal with the reliability or otherwise of the NT documents. Your statement about Luke is not consistent with the historical evidence I found.

Works consulted
William Ramsay 1979. The Bearing of Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker.

 

[Davian]

Luke 1:1-4 (ESV) explained why this was not so:

'Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught'.​

Luke compiled his Gospel (narrative), based on information from eyewitnesses of the miracles. Not eyewitnesses of a hoax, fraud, hallucination or fabrication. They were there to see it happen.

The greatest miracle of all, Jesus' resurrection, has post-resurrection witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Who were they? They included:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Cor 15:3-8 ESV).​

So the resurrected Jesus 'appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep'. Again there were eyewitnesses and most of the 500 brothers who saw the risen Jesus 'are still alive'. This is an indicated they could go to check out what these people saw. The closing chapters of each Gospel tell us that the resurrected Jesus appeared to people, spoke with them, could be touched, and he ate food with them.

This is hardly the evidence of a hoax, fraud, hallucination or fabrication.
When I check out the biblical evidence I do not find the evidence you suggest with regard to Jesus' life on earth, including the post-resurrection appearances.

Oz

You have misrepresented my position. I said, demonstrate how each of those could not be explained by a hoax, a fraud, a hallucination, an exaggeration, or an outright fabrication.

 

[HitchSlap]

Granted that the original document did not identify Luke as the author.

However, you are too late in telling me this as historians have checked out Luke-Acts for the historical veracity and have come to different conclusions to what you stated here. William Ramsay spent 20 years researching the areas of Luke's writings. He checked Luke-Acts 32 references to countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands and found that Luke made not one mistake. Most historians would be enviable of that reputation (see W Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen; W Ramsay, Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?)

It needs to be remembered that William Ramsay was a skeptic of Luke's reliability before his investigation. AFTER the research, Ramsay changed his views. Why? The evidence he found to demonstrate Luke was a consummate historian.

He wrote: 'The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness' (Ramsay 1979:81).

You are trotting out the tired old arguments of theological liberalism that have been refuted over and over. How do I know? I've spent the last 5 years researching the historical Jesus for my PhD dissertation and had to deal with the reliability or otherwise of the NT documents. Your statement about Luke is not consistent with the historical evidence I found.

Works consulted
William Ramsay 1979. The Bearing of Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker.

The credulity of devotional "historians" doesn't impress much.
Fact is, Luke is pseudonymous, written decades after and copied heavily from Mark. Acts is considered complete fabrication by scholars at this point in time. As for listing real geographical locations in Luke, leading to its veracity, would you also include John Grisham novels as historical as well?

 

[bhsmte]

Don't you accept the historical veracity of Scripture?

If you want to see evidence of the supernatural today, take a visit to Nigeria. Go to Lagos, Nigeria, and visit the Synagogue Church of All Nations, http://www.scoan.org/media/healing/, to see the miracles that are happening today. Yes, today.

Several pastors and evangelists from Dove Ministries, New Zealand, went to Lagos to check out this church to confirm the miracles that are happening.

Well, when it comes to the gospels, I accept very limited parts to be of historical credibility and I do not accept the miracles depicted in the gospels as historically credible.

I have actually spent quite a bit of time studying the NT form a scholarly and historical standpoint in regards to reading the works of various NT scholars and historians

I have been in healthcare for over 20 years and there have been some miraculous recoveries, but I do not believe in miracle healing and have seen zero evidence to support the same.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is just plainly incorrect. For example, the blood on the gloves in the OJ case supports a belief in a narrow range of possible suspects. Putting that evidence together with other evidence further narrows down the list of possible suspects to just one man.

In like manner, the KCA supports the belief in a narrow range of suggested beings with specific characteristics. Put that evidence together with other evidence narrows down the list to God.

Except that the KCA doesn't do that at all. The list is broad, not narrow.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I did not a priori rule out natural processes regarding the KCA. I studied the KCA and after analyzing the consequences, I found that the argument supported my belief that God created the universe. For some reason, Hawking seems to rule out the possibility of a super-natural cause a priori in the work discussed earlier.

What led you to rule out natural mechanisms altogether?

Which super-natural candidates are you talking about?
I've already answered to natural mechanisms many times. If you mean natural as in the cause being something within the universe, that is incoherent since something cannot cause it's own existence.

You are assuming ex nihilo creation from the outset, but this has not yet been established.

If you mean natural mechanisms existing timelessly, that doesn't seem to make sense because if the natural conditions existed timelessly, it is very difficult to understand why both the cause and the effect (beginning of the universe) did not coexist eternally. However, science seems to support that time is finite. Therefore, it seems that the only way out of that dilemma is if the cause was a free-causal agent. The cause existed timelessly and created the universe in time.

If free causal agents can exist timelessly, then why can't other things? How can free causal agents exist timelessly when decision-making is a process that unfolds over time?

Are you claiming that a flame is immaterial? I don't know why you persist in this incoherency.

To make a point: you can't dismiss the Divine Flame on the basis of principles operant in the universe while upholding your preferred proposal in spite of them.

Not at all. But you seem to be adamant that I change my argument to something that I do not support and also one that I'm sure you would immediately claim as fallacious. I would rather not make a logical leap that is unjustified but rather stick to honest supportable arguments.

You do not claim that the cause of the universe is a personal creator god?

 

[bhsmte]

Granted that the original document did not identify Luke as the author.

However, you are too late in telling me this as historians have checked out Luke-Acts for the historical veracity and have come to different conclusions to what you stated here. William Ramsay spent 20 years researching the areas of Luke's writings. He checked Luke-Acts 32 references to countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands and found that Luke made not one mistake. Most historians would be enviable of that reputation (see W Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen; W Ramsay, Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?)

It needs to be remembered that William Ramsay was a skeptic of Luke's reliability before his investigation. AFTER the research, Ramsay changed his views. Why? The evidence he found to demonstrate Luke was a consummate historian.

He wrote: 'The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness' (Ramsay 1979:81).

You are trotting out the tired old arguments of theological liberalism that have been refuted over and over. How do I know? I've spent the last 5 years researching the historical Jesus for my PhD dissertation and had to deal with the reliability or otherwise of the NT documents. Your statement about Luke is not consistent with the historical evidence I found.

Works consulted
William Ramsay 1979. The Bearing of Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker.

Ramsay died 75 years ago.

 

[The Cadet]

So was Noah's Ark impossible? Or just highly improbable? Remember that an event that's extremely, extremely unlikely from a naturalistic point of view (say, 1 in a trillion chance) can be accomplished by the Creator of the universe. So I think you need to understand what the terms "impossible" and "highly improbable" actually mean. Obviously, if you're a naturalist, you're going to think that something very highly improbable (like walking on water) might actually be impossible. But that's only because you're a naturalist.

So in other words, take physics and bin it? Look, I'm sorry, but this is a perfect illustration of why we use methodological naturalism. Because "a supernatural entity did it with unknown mechanisms" makes any boat float. Rocks showing 4.5 billion years of age? They're actually 6,000 years old; magic rock pixies fiddled with the isotopes. Genetic bottlenecks found that are older than the ark and yet still somehow show up in the genome? Satan trying to fool us. Patterns of endogenous retroviruses which point clearly to common descent? Satan again. The universe created last thursday (with age)? I don't see how you could possibly make the claim that this is somehow less likely than your God holding that ark together for a year, because in appealing to the supernatural as an explanation, you've abandoned the only tools we have for establishing the veracity of claims.

In reality, Noah's Ark is not possible. The fact that you have to invoke the supernatural to make it work is an admission of failure. It's saying, "Yeah, you're right, without some external force which we cannot prove exists, this could not happen." You could apply that to anything. Maybe the cold fusion guys weren't fraudulent - it was just that in their experiments, a supernatural entity fiddled with their results. It's so easy to make up supernatural stories and explanations for things. But it's not productive and it leads us on flights of fancy that don't actually go anywhere.

 

[paulm50]

Remember, the creator of the universe made the ark.

Do you mean the man who made the lights in the sky? The original Genesis writers had n clue about the Universe.

The Bible makes no mention of species.
If you are making a scientific case, you
need to stick to the exact specifications
found in the source document to test
the case.

In this case, the source specifies about 2
of each kind. And this only included certain
classes of animals of a specific type.

Because these were hand-picked by God
Himself, they could be chosen by the ability
to quickly speciate quickly to the level of
diversity we see today.

The real truth is it's a story about a flood from the melting Ice Caps that flooded a lake and turned it into the Black Sea. so rescuing a few farm animals was imperative. Once it's examined by using real evidence. The fable falls apart.

I don't see how me not being able to explain in "extreme detail" how any one of those candidates caused the universe to exist proves anything. I can't explain how a lot of things work, but that doesn't prove that they don't.

S explain roughly, with evidence from outside the bible.

So was Noah's Ark impossible? Or just highly improbable? Remember that an event that's extremely, extremely unlikely from a naturalistic point of view (say, 1 in a trillion chance) can be accomplished by the Creator of the universe. So I think you need to understand what the terms "impossible" and "highly improbable" actually mean. Obviously, if you're a naturalist, you're going to think that something very highly improbable (like walking on water) might actually be impossible. But that's only because you're a naturalist.

http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

Edited to add: http://creation.com/noahs-ark-questions-and-answers

Impossible as the Bible tells it.

Prove there's a Creator, then we can discuss whether it was his work. Agree though that Naturalists can only work with real evidence and not magic.

The original story says nothing about god making the boat, Noah is told to make the boat, he's also told to get all the food the animals will need, and to get all the animals that walk and fly, so the fishes can fend for themselves. Making nonsense of the theory the aquatic animals no longer with us, died in the flood.

The problem is the evidence. In the area of the black sea, there was a flood. In the rest of the world there was a rise in the sea level. Black Sea deluge it was a local event, to the people who only knew their local area. It must of seemed a world event. And for the priests, a wonderful opportunity to scare people into beliving.

As Skywriting says, if you want to make a scientific case out of it, you need to go to the original. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/mtg.pdf and compare it with the KJV

 

[Simonline]

Hello all,

In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God? Conversely, what's the top argument against the existence of God? Interested to hear your responses and subsequent reasoning. Thanks!

Israel. The continued existence of Israel as a nation after the Gentile nations throughout history have done (and continue to do) everything they possibly can to isolate, ostracise and annihilate them.

Simonline.

 

[The Cadet]

Israel. The continued existence of Israel as a nation after the Gentile nations have done (and continue to do) everything they possibly can to isolate, ostracise and annihilate them.

Simonline.

So how, exactly, does this go to prove God?

 

[OzSpen]

The credulity of devotional "historians" doesn't impress much.
Fact is, Luke is pseudonymous, written decades after and copied heavily from Mark. Acts is considered complete fabrication by scholars at this point in time. As for listing real geographical locations in Luke, leading to its veracity, would you also include John Grisham novels as historical as well?

Hitch,

Your presuppositions are coming through: 'The credulity of devotional "historians"'. That's a fallacy of appeal to ridicule that you have committed.

I find it disappointing that you didn't even interact with the information I provided to refute your position. Who was Sir William Ramsay who was the skeptic who investigated Luke-Acts and came through with a resounding affirmation of the historical veracity of Luke-Acts?

He was an eminent British archaeologist and New Testament scholar. See his details HERE.

Your perspective is that of theological liberalism that does not want to affirm the historical credibility of NT documents.

F. F. Bruce's 1943 publication, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce.htm refutes your perspective, as does Craig Blomberg 1987, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press).

John A T Robinson is hardly known for his theological conservative position (of Honest to God fame), but his seminal work, Redating the New Testament http://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf (1976. London: SCM Press Ltd) dates all 4 Gospels before the fall of Jerusalem in A D 70. Documents about Jesus' life only 30-40 years after his death in the first century are incredibly recent when compared with other documents from that era. John Wenham has provided further more recent evidence in Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (1992. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press). His research redates Matthew, Mark & Luke to prior to AD 55. He admits that this breaks rank with the majority opinion.

The evidence is mounting to refute the view you are promoting.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Ramsay died 75 years ago.

So what? He was an eminent archaeologist and New Testament scholar. He was no dilbo!

If you want to check out the reliability of Luke as an historian, go take a visit with Craig Blomberg, the author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP 1987). He is a distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, Denver CO. His PhD dealt with the parables and Luke-Acts. Why don't you make contact with a living, vital investigator of the New Testament Gospels and a specialist in Luke-Acts?

 

[OzSpen]

There is no such thing.

That's your assertion that proves ZERO.

 

[OzSpen]

You have misrepresented my position. I said, demonstrate how each of those could not be explained by a hoax, a fraud, a hallucination, an exaggeration, or an outright fabrication.

I did. I showed how the information in Luke 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 was provided by eyewitness testimony. Are you denying the validity of the superiority of eyewitness testimony in court or in history?

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you not here on a voluntary basis?

Do you have the biblical reference for the steel barge that Noah used to keep his ark afloat?

A little on the small side, do you not think?

Talking about it is not building it.

In theory it could "float". In practice, a much smaller vessel was found to not be able to survive on the open seas. Wyoming
And Noah's ark wasn't just out on calm, open seas, it was in the middle of the biggest torrential downpours in the history of the world, so...

 

[The Cadet]

In theory it could "float". In practice, a much smaller vessel was found to not be able to survive on the open seas. Wyoming
And Noah's ark wasn't just out on calm, open seas, it was in the middle of the biggest torrential downpours in the history of the world, so...

And even that had iron cross-bracing. You just can't make a wooden boat that big seaworthy.