Whether God Exists I guess

[Discussion]

This contradicts the "no" answer to the resurrection. If it would be plausible in some context, then your answer should be "I do not know".

That is why I said you should explore the resurrection as a historical event, isolated - if it happened or not, without trying to attach it to any system.

Oh sure I guess it's I don't know but only in the sense that if God existed it would be plausible (which I currently don't think hence my answer of no).

 

[trophy33]

Oh sure I guess it's I don't know but only in the sense that if God existed it would be plausible (which I currently don't think hence my answer of no).

Well, it still stands that you should research the event as a historical event and make your conclusion after that. I mean historical event, not as a philosophy or similar. Because for example minimalism does not work in historical sciences at all. History is full of weird or unexpected or complicated things.

And if it obviously happened, then you should look for God, because it is the explanation Jesus himself was giving for it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the reason it's not plausible before you believe is it requires God existing in order for Jesus to rise.

Partially, but from the angle of History, one doesn't need to believe God exists first in order to realize that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person and that through the advocacy of the New Testament writers, we might deign to take an existential step a toward belief in God by adopting the Christian idea and "trying it out."

The question then becomes: Do I play the Epistemology game by the rules of the Skeptics, or by that of the New Testament writers (and indirectly, thereby, by that of Jesus)?

The problem is that the New Testament writers posit not only an implausible scenario with their affirmation of the Resurrection, they also impute to Jesus the fact that He played by, and taught, a different set of epistemological 'rules,' rules that are counter-intuitive to most people whether they lived in the 1st century or in the 21st century. We have to realize this. And some people will "get it" in due time, and some others won't, usually because they willfully push it away out of discontent.

 

[Discussion]

Partially, but from the angle of History, one doesn't need to believe God exists first in order to realize that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person and that through the advocacy of the New Testament writers, we might deign to take an existential step a toward belief in God by adopting the Christian idea and "trying it out."

The question then becomes: Do I play the Epistemology game by the rules of the Skeptics, or by that of the New Testament writers (and indirectly, thereby, by that of Jesus)?

The problem is that the New Testament writers posit not only an implausible scenario with their affirmation of the Resurrection, they also impute to Jesus the fact that He played by, and taught, a different set of epistemological 'rules,' rules that are counter-intuitive to most people whether they lived in the 1st century or in the 21st century. We have to realize this. And some people will "get it" in due time, and some others won't, usually because they willfully push it away out of discontent.

Are you saying I should lower my epistemic bar for Christianity and that's what Jesus told us to do? Jesus (according to the bible) came into towns, performed miricles and preached from behind these giving him credibility he didn't advocate for blind faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you saying I should lower my epistemic bar for Christianity and that's what Jesus told us to do? Jesus (according to the bible) came into towns, performed miricles and preached from behind these giving him credibility he didn't advocate for blind faith.

What epistemic "bar" do you have? It's at this point that I'm going to further suggest you engage Epistemology more firmly. I know you're young and that you're a busy student at the moment which eats much of your useful time, but there's more to Epistemology than merely making do with a cafeteria style pseudo-systematized epistemic set of assumptions that don't (and can't) fully obtain. The truth is, there is no perfect Epistemic mode or framework by which anyone can use and arrive at a fully rational conclusion for Christianity; there is only our day by day recursive critical evaluations by which we apply our daily analyses. Of course, faith as expressed in the New Testament is never blind faith, without evidence. But neither is it primarily an empirical venture. From a merely human level, at best, it is a rational undertaking.

And this epistemic fact is besides the additional one that Christianity also doesn't provide us a comprehensive system of thought. It merely points in the direction of Jesus. You might have to read the following books to see what I'm getting at.

Contemporary Epistemology - Ralph Baergen​

​

Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error - Dru Johnson​

 

[CoreyD]

We have never observed anything come into existence, the whole point of the big bang theory is that all energy and mass in the universe was at one point before expanding from there. As such we cannot say that we have ever seen something come into existance and as such can't make claims about how it happens. Therefore I cannot establish Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. as I have never seen anything come into existance so its just a claim with no evidence.

Perhaps I don't understand what "come into existence", and "begins to exist" mean to you.
Can you please explain?

I understand "come into existence", and "begins to exist", as something was not there before - it did not exist, and it came into existence.
For example, the suns, moons, stars, solar systems, galaxies, earth, etc., did not exists, but at some point began to exist, and came into existence.

If that is not how you understand "come into existence", and "begins to exist", can you please explain, as detailed as possible what your understanding of "come into existence", and "begins to exist", is?

Apologies I agree the singularity is not the universe but as we know the singularity was there before the universe and we know nothing about the singularity (other than that it contained all mass and energy in the current universe) and don't know where the singularity came from.

Have you been reading up on this idea of a singularity?
We do not know that any singularity existed.

...a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by "where" or "when”. Gravitational singularities exist at a junction between general relativity and quantum mechanics; therefore, the properties of the singularity cannot be described without an established theory of quantum gravity. Trying to find a complete and precise definition of singularities in the theory of general relativity, the current best theory of gravity, remains a difficult problem.
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
General relativity also predicts that the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity of infinite density and temperature. However, classical gravitational theories are not expected to be accurate under these conditions, and a quantum description is likely needed.

Some theories, such as the theory of loop quantum gravity, suggest that singularities may not exist.

The Cosmological Singularity is nothing more than a idea, and if you don't think there is evidence for God, then I have to ask, what makes you believe there was ever a Singularity?

Would you accept that mass and energy did exist, in a form that is not known to man?
If not, why not? Why would you not accept that there are forms of energy and matter, unknown to man, considering the "discovery" of the hypothetical Dark Matter, and Dark Energy?

Premise 2 is not correct as if we are defining "came into existance" as there was nothing then there was a thing as I pointed out above we've never ever seen this occur and most scientists do believe that the big bang came from a singularity (but I'm open to where the science leads but as of now it seems to tell us a singularity was there before the universe).

Are you defining "came into existence" as there was nothing, and then there was something?
Are you not limiting your definition, then?

If there was always energy - it always existed, that does not mean the universe always existed.
Energy produced something. From energy came forms of matter.

• While humans can manufacture matter from energy, creating something from nothing remains impossible, adhering to the fundamental laws of physics.
• Manufacturing matter involves converting energy into matter, a process that has been demonstrated in labs through pair production, which converts a photon into a pair of particles: one matter and one antimatter.

Does that mean the matter always existed?
Matter creation - matter can be created
Matter is a general term describing any physical substance, which is sometimes defined in incompatible ways in different fields of science. By contrast, mass is not a substance but a well-defined, extensive property of matter and other substances or systems.

Would you, for example, say that, chairs always existed because trees always existed, simply because you can use the wood from a tree, and make a chair?
No. We do not say that.
Similarly, because energy was used to create the universe, that does not mean the universe always existed.

Remember, we are using reason, here,.

Spoiler: Dark Matter

In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. Observational evidence of the early universe and the Big Bang theory require that this matter have energy and mass, but not be composed of ordinary baryons (protons and neutrons). The commonly accepted view is that most of the dark matter is non-baryonic in nature. As such, it is composed of particles as yet unobserved in the laboratory. Perhaps they are supersymmetric particles, which are not Standard Model particles but relics formed at very high energies in the early phase of the universe and still floating about.

Spoiler: Dark Energy

In cosmology, dark energy is the name given to the source of the repelling influence that is accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe. Its precise nature is currently a mystery, although its effects can reasonably be modeled by assigning matter-like properties such as energy density and pressure to the vacuum itself.

Fully 70% of the matter density in the universe appears to be in the form of dark energy. Twenty-six percent is dark matter. Only 4% is ordinary matter. So less than 1 part in 20 is made out of matter we have observed experimentally or described in the standard model of particle physics. Of the other 96%, apart from the properties just mentioned, we know absolutely nothing.
— Lee Smolin (2007), The Trouble with Physics, p. 16

I can tell/infer that object was designed as I have seen many like it designed and made before but never seen anything like it occur from non-design. I hope you see my point here that we have no reason to think the universe is designed as we have none to compare it too that we know were designed.

I would like very much to see your point, but it must be in line with reason. Otherwise...
First...
How do you determine something is from non-design, simply on the basis that you have never seen anything like it designed and made?
How is that reasonable?

Why can't you infer from the components, that they have a purpose?
For example, a person that never saw a gear

in their life can reasonably infer that it was designed for a purpose, when they observe the features, and especially when they see how they are fitted together to reach a particular goal.

Would you agree to that... or do you disagree? If you disagree, please explain.
Now, please explain the difference between the image above, and what is below..

Close-Up of the First Mechanical Gear Ever Found in Nature

The biological form of a mechanical gear was observed in nature for the first time in juvenile planthoppers (Genus: Issus), a common insect that can be found in gardens across Europe.​

​

The insect has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ‘teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump. The finding demonstrates that gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent.​

Why would you say one is non-design, and the other is design? On what basis?
In other words, what determines design?

Are you saying that they might exist without God we just don't know? I mean isn't the way they are instanciated is that they are laws given by the paradigm of goodness, so therefore they don't exist without God/other being who is the paradigm of goodness.

I'm not saying anything. I am asking a question.
How are you able to say "objective moral values don't exist without God"?
How would you know that is true?

If I can't establish a, b, or d - such as the idea that these constants could have been different (a), or that chance is improbable (b), or that design is more reasonable (d) - then the most honest conclusion (c) is simply that we don't have grounds to infer fine-tuning as evidence of design.

And further, in a universe so vast that it defies comprehension, it's entirely expected and in fact likely that some regions will, by chance, happen to have the right conditions for life. Life doesn't require the universe to be designed for it - life adapts to the conditions where it arises.

So, we aren't using reason then?
We are using optimism, such as is found in people who believe that they must be aliens or fairies, because anything is possible?

Thank you

Thank you.

 

[CoreyD]

I mean God of the gaps no? I am not detered in the slightest from my position that science will keep on discovering things and Christians will keep on saying that this new thing we don't understand needs God to have designed it.

I'm not aware of the God of the gaps concept.
I think it's a smoke screen, because religion came first. Not science.
The concept of the existence of God existed prior to any scientific discovery, so no Christian says God, when a discovery is made.
They say, "Well now they know. They are always lagging behind".

 

[Lukaris]

I'd be happy to talk to you about morality, I assume you believe the bible is the best guide to it as well as maybe the conscience? I'd be interested to know how people who had the bible and were devout Christians in Europe for example committed such immoral acts such as slavery and genocide while being able to use the bible as justification?

I believe all human societies share the same sin and fail to adhere to the universal moral law God gave us ( Romans 2:11-16, Ezekiel 18:4-9, Romans 13:8-10, Romans 3:21-23 etc.). We need to follow these commandments to live by faith for our salvation but we need our Savior for our salvation ( John 3:16-21). “Christians” who should know better, abuse grace given them probably face a greater condemnation ( Matthew 7:21-23, Hebrews 10:22-27, etc.). The non Christian is judged by the light given them ( Romans 2:11-16, Romans 9:14-18). God tells us to not judge others in this sense ( Matthew 7:1-12).

 

[Swan7]

If you are sincere about your investigation of Jesus Christ - God, then may I introduce you to an Apologist, Theologian and Scholar - Wes Huff He knows a lot of the history of the time Jesus walked the earth.

May you be blessed.

 

[Discussion]

I'm not aware of the God of the gaps concept.
I think it's a smoke screen, because religion came first. Not science.
The concept of the existence of God existed prior to any scientific discovery, so no Christian says God, when a discovery is made.
They say, "Well now they know. They are always lagging behind".

You're so right, science came after religion and once we discovered the usage of the scientific method we were able to discover and invent things like electricity, cars, clean drinking water and medicines which save lives. I'm sure God had access to all these things and even knew we were going to make them in the millions of years of evolution through natural selection before humanity existed he just thought all the suffering and war and deaths to get there would be a bit funny. The God of the Gaps fallacy is when someone (lets say a Christian for this example) points out something we cannot explain and thus says God must exist. As science has progressed we have understood more and more things that were previously inexplicable and had to point to Gods exististance. When you say that for Christians see a new discovery they actually already knew about it and it was secretly hidden in the bible all along? Did you know that slavery actually came before equal rights for everbody (and is even avocated for in the bible) so by your arguements we've actually made a big mistake in stopping doing that, or did all the Christians doing it actually know it was wrong all along so it wasn't a suprise and they just said "Well now they know. They are always lagging behind" while they were doing slavery the whole time themselves even though they knew it wasn't okay? Or lets say that we discover a plant in the rainforest that cures cancer (obviously stupid but you get the idea) I guess Christian's knew that the way to beat cancer was to pray anyway and no one actually dies of cancer if they just ask God nicely so who cares about the new cancer cure as we had God to do that all along. Quite litterally every advancement would be useless as God could just do it for us (not that he does he's a bit lazy, he used to back in the old testament when he killed those 2 cities full of sinful people). We should actually go back to the times where everyone was just killing each other and dying of disease because the Christians still knew everything and were going to heaven, who cares what happens on earth anyway seeing as its so fleeting and insignificant compared to our time in heaven/hell. Or is what you're saying is that as Christians know that God designed everything they don't care about discoverys being made as they already know that God made everything so all the discoveries are just a bit pointless.

 

[CoreyD]

You're so right, science came after religion and once we discovered the usage of the scientific method we were able to discover and invent things like electricity, cars, clean drinking water and medicines which save lives.

They were way behind, again.
The Scientific Method originated in the 17th century, while electricity, clean drinking water, and clean transportation (no need for cars that pollute the air, kill animals, and humans, and have no use where mountainous regions were the traveler's terrain) were already in use.

Electricity

Spoiler: Electricity

Some theories suggest that ancient Egyptians might have had a basic understanding of electroplating. In 1938, Walter König discovered what is now called the Baghdad Battery, which could potentially have been used for electroplating gold onto silver objects. 4 5 This practice could be seen as an early form of using electricity, though it is not scientifically proven.

There are hieroglyphs that show what appear to be modern light bulbs, and some fringe archeologists believe that the Egyptians may have had some sort of electrical lighting capacity.
While the validity of the above claims can only be hypothesized, there are plenty of archeologists putting their reputations and life’s work on the line to prove that the ancients knew far more than we give them credit for. Perhaps they even knew about some of the more subtle energies, like cold fusion reactions, the zero-point field, and the Casimir effect, which we are only now starting to rediscover.

Thales of Miletus, a Greek philosopher, observed static electricity around 600 BCE, which is one of the earliest recorded observations of electrical phenomena. 6 The term "electricity" was not used until the early 1600s when William Gilbert coined the word "electricus" from the Greek word for amber.

Clean Drinking Water

Spoiler: Clean Drinking Water

The history of water
Actually, human beings have taken extensive measures throughout history to produce clean drinking water, and such efforts even date back to before they discovered how to make fire by rubbing two sticks together.

As noted by Baker (1949), the quest for pure water began in prehistoric times. Recorded knowledge of water treatment is found in Sanskrit medical lore and in Egyptian inscriptions. Pictures of apparatus to clarify liquids (both water and wine) have been found on Egyptian walls dating back to the fifteenth century B.C. Boiling of water, the use of wick siphons, filtration through porous vessels, and even filtration with sand and gravel, as means to purify water, are methods that have been prescribed for thousands of years. In his writings on public hygiene, Hippocrates (460-354 B.C.) directed attention principally to the importance of water in the maintenance of health, but he also prescribed that rain water should be boiled and strained. The cloth bag that he recommended for straining became known in later times as "Hippocrates' sleeve."

The Illusion and Disadvantages of Materialism

Spoiler: The Illusion and Disadvantages of Materialism

There are so many "achievements" in this life that serve the purpose of a system that is not conducive to happiness and wellbeing.
Cars are one of those things.
Cars may suit the fast life, and focus on money, but they take away from so much that contributes to the more important things in life.

If you were to go sightseeing, which would you prefer?

1. A walk (go hiking)
2. A horseback ride
3. A car, or van

I would rather the first or second option.
Why?
For one thing, walking is a very important health benefit.

• Walking allows for climbing steep hills and mountains, and filling one's lungs with air, while strengthening bones and muscles.
• Walking reduces the risk of diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and glaucoma; manages weight, control blood pressure, and protects against hip fractures. Walking also helps prevent depression - improving mental health by reducing stress and enhancing mood, relieve arthritis, and promote stronger bones and joints, leading to a longer lifespan. 1 2
• Walking produces no emissions, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants that contribute to climate change and poor air quality. This not only benefits the environment but also improves the air quality for everyone in the community. 3 4
• Walking can be more cost-effective than driving. It eliminates the need for car maintenance, insurance, and fuel costs, and can even lead to savings on food if walking encourages healthier eating habits. 5

People who are health conscious, would choose to walk... or even ride a horse.

A horse beats any car anytime, for off-roading ability, getting around obstacles. and across gaps. Horses can even swim across lakes, and bodies of water.
We can say, a horse can take us where no car can, and give us an experience we can never get from cars.

There are even health benefits to riding a horse.
Physically, horseback riding can be considered moderate-intensity exercise, providing cardiovascular benefits and helping to lower blood pressure, which can reduce the risk of heart disease. 1 2 It also strengthens core muscles, improves balance and coordination, and can burn a significant number of calories. 1 2 3 For instance, a study from Texas A&M University found that riding a horse for 45 minutes can burn up to 200 calories, and more intense activities like cutting or reining can burn nearly seven calories per minute. 3
Therapeutic riding, can improve flexibility, balance, strength, and coordination, and the horse's gait mimics human walking, aiding in the development of walking skills.

Horses also avoid collisions.

Sorry, for getting so wrapped up in that, but I don't fancy cars really.
I hope there are all gone, when God's makes this earth new, and restores paradise, where animals can roam free without being struck by a moving vehicle.

Every day, an estimated one million vertebrate animals are killed by vehicular traffic in the United States. 1 5 A 2008 Federal Highway Administration report estimates that between one to two million accidents occur each year between large animals and vehicles in the U.S.. 2 3 Globally, based on the total length of roads, roughly 5.5 million vertebrates are killed per day, or over 2 billion annually. 1 In Australia, an estimated 10 million native mammals, reptiles, birds, and other species are killed each year. 4 These figures highlight the significant impact of vehicle collisions on wildlife populations.​

Vehicles, in my opinion, are nothing to feel proud about.... In my opinion.

I'm sure God had access to all these things and even knew we were going to make them in the millions of years of evolution through natural selection before humanity existed he just thought all the suffering and war and deaths to get there would be a bit funny.

I'm sure you are wrong.
If you just say the word, I'll prove it to you... all scripturally, that God did not know of, nor plan any of what man has done for the past 6,000 years.

The only thing God knew of, and planned is

• the coming of the Messiah Genesis 3:15; Genesis 49:10; Ezekiel 21:27,
• his birth Luke 1:30, 31,
• life and death Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 53:1-12,
• resurrection Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:31 ,
• glorification, kingship, and authority Psalm 110:1, 2; Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; Luke 1:32,
• accomplishments as king 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Revelation 21:3-5
• and what will be after Psalm 37:9-11, 29, 34; Isaiah 11:1-11; Isaiah 65:17-25

This is because God's will has not changed, due to the rebellion of the angel in heaven, and the first human couple, but the accomplishing of his will has taken a detour, so to speak. His will must be done, in heaven, and on earth. Ephesians 1:10

The God of the Gaps fallacy is when someone (lets say a Christian for this example) points out something we cannot explain and thus says God must exist.

Have you personally seen anyone do this?

As science has progressed we have understood more and more things that were previously inexplicable and had to point to Gods exististance.

That sound rather fickle to me... Like a person that is grabbing at straws because he has nothing.
That sounds like a rather weak Christian, that would resort to such a weak argument, does it not?
Why would someone need science to demonstrate God's existence, when they have the solid evidence in the creation around us, and the Bible, which demonstrably is the word of God?

Which reminds me, you never did address the "design argument"?
I'd be happy to get back there, since you did say you are using reason, and that involves being able to answer questions in the most reasonable way.
Would you agree?

If one is unable to answer the questions posed, then reasonably the premise stands as undeniable.
Would you agree with that?

When you say that for Christians see a new discovery they actually already knew about it and it was secretly hidden in the bible all along?

It sounds weak.
However, I am aware that a large amount of the people claiming to believe the Bible, really do not know it very well, and so, they tend to spin it like a "Wheel of Fortune".

Did you know that slavery actually came before equal rights for everbody (and is even avocated for in the bible) so by your arguements we've actually made a big mistake in stopping doing that, or did all the Christians doing it actually know it was wrong all along so it wasn't a suprise and they just said "Well now they know.

A lot of people do not understand the difference between slavery in the Bible, and slavery they want to eradicate.
They are not even aware that they promote and root for slavery, while at the same time saying they don't condone it.
If you want to discuss slavery, though, start a new thread, and let me know.
I'd be happy, to talk with you on what most people do not know about slavery in the Bible.

Right now, "my argument", is not what you are saying it is.
That is something totally different.

 

[CoreyD]

They are always lagging behind" while they were doing slavery the whole time themselves even though they knew it wasn't okay?

You have gone outside the scope of science, haven't you?

Science does not dictate what is right or wrong; it provides explanations and predictions about the natural world based on empirical evidence and experimentation. The idea that science can determine moral values is a misconception. Scientists use the scientific method to understand phenomena, but ethical decisions are typically made through societal norms, cultural values, and personal beliefs rather than scientific principles.
Myths of the nature of science

The topic of slavery is outside the reaches of science, so it seems you are straying a bit off topic from what I was actually saying.
Science does not deal with what is or is not ethical, or moral.

Or lets say that we discover a plant in the rainforest that cures cancer (obviously stupid but you get the idea)

I don't know whom you have met and spoken to, but if you are speaking with me, my response may perhaps be different to what you are accustomed to.
If you discover a plant in the rainforest that cures cancer, that would be great.
While I gave credit to the creator, for creating the earth, and providing just what we need, another person gives credit to a mindless process.

I know that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore, I do not look for scientific discoveries to confirm its authenticity.
If I did that, I would question my reasonableness, because, while there are some scientific truth in the Bible, and it has some archaeological support, there will always be people who try to claim that the Bible is not any 'special' book, and try to pit science against it.

As can be seen from history, critics have repeatedly been demonstrated to be wrong, but they keep at it, nonetheless, and will do so, until the end of the world.
I can tell you, that if I were a critic myself, I would consider the limitations of human wisdom, and more than likely do an about face, especially considering that

• what we think we know, is often demonstrated to be nothing more than a belief. See Discarded Explanations
• time after time, what surfaces - the truth - often supports what the Bible says (Please note. What the Bible says. Not what people say the Bible says). See Discovered Biblical Facts

Spoiler: Discarded Explanations

Discarded Explanations
Many discarded explanations were once supported by a scientific consensus, but replaced after more empirical information became available that identified flaws and prompted new theories which better explain the available data.
Some theories known to be incomplete or in some ways incorrect are still used.

Spoiler: Discovered Biblical Facts

Discovered Biblical Facts
Biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.

The scientific discovery of the Hezekiah bulla was a sensational find (labeled by Dr. Eilat Mazar as her greatest single discovery - and that’s saying something, given all she has found already), providing further irrefutable evidence for a strong, centralized Judahite government operating from the city of Jerusalem. Alongside this artifact, King Hezekiah has been thoroughly attested to in archaeology. Numerous artifacts bear his name - in particular, pieces belonging to King Sennacherib of Assyria.

I like this how this article is written, so I have extracted it here. It's short, and, in my opinion, sweet, since it beautifully summarizes my point, which I will highlight, in blue.

King David's Existence Verified by Inscription
For many years some critics have asserted that many biblical figures, including King David, are nothing more than myth. But in 1993 a dramatic find forced Bible critics to retreat. A team of archaeologists digging in northern Galilee "found a remarkable inscription from the ninth century B.C.E. [Before the Common Era] that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel'" ("'David' Found at Dan," Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April 1994, p. 26).

This discovery was sensational enough to make the front page of The New York Times. The inscription also shows that Israel and Judah were important kingdoms in the ninth century B.C., disproving the position of scholars who claimed Israel and Judah were never nations of significance and even disputed that there had ever been a united monarchy under David.

Although this is one more piece of evidence that refutes the arguments of those who have rejected biblical history, we must realize it is impossible to verify every biblical event through archaeology. Much of the original evidence no longer exists. Many perishable materials have long since disappeared. Looking for physical evidence of a particular person is like looking for a needle in an enormous haystack.

In spite of these difficulties, David joins many other kings of Israel and Judah whose names were recorded in inscriptions of neighboring nations—among them Ahab, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Hoshea, Jehoiachin, Jehu, Manasseh, Menehem, Omri, Pekah and Uzziah.

We must keep in mind the relatively small amount of the archaeological record that scientists have uncovered. Excavations will, without a doubt, continue to uphold the events of the Bible. In spite of the relative paucity of evidence that has been uncovered, that which has been found has supported the Bible.

British historian Paul Johnson observes a shift in thinking concerning even the most ancient events recorded in the Bible: "The science of modern archaeology and historical philology actually provides verification of the most ancient biblical texts. Whereas ... throughout the nineteenth century and almost up to the Second World War, systematic criticism of the Old Testament texts tended to destroy their historicity, and to reduce the Pentateuch, in particular, to mere myth or tribal legend, the trend over the last half-century has been quite in the opposite direction ... Archaeological discovery provides now a firm historical background to the patriarchal society described in the Book of Genesis" (The Quest for God, 1996, p. 12).

I guess Christian's knew that the way to beat cancer was to pray anyway and no one actually dies of cancer if they just ask God nicely so who cares about the new cancer cure as we had God to do that all along.

No. That is not proper thinking.
Whom were you talking to, and where do you find such persons?
Or is that the way you were taught to think.. perhaps at church?

Quite litterally every advancement would be useless as God could just do it for us (not that he does he's a bit lazy, he used to back in the old testament when he killed those 2 cities full of sinful people). We should actually go back to the times where everyone was just killing each other and dying of disease because the Christians still knew everything and were going to heaven, who cares what happens on earth anyway seeing as its so fleeting and insignificant compared to our time in heaven/hell. Or is what you're saying is that as Christians know that God designed everything they don't care about discoverys being made as they already know that God made everything so all the discoveries are just a bit pointless.

Do I detect a bit of annoyance?
I don't know who would have "ticked you off", but I can tell you that science and the Bible are not at odds, and Christians do not disregard scientific achievements.

In fact, many Christians are scientists, and much of science fascinates us, since it reveals knowledge of how things work, giving us great insight into the mind of God.
In other words, science sheds light on the wisdom, power, and love of our creator, and father.
Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.​

 

[stevevw]

Hope you're having a good day,

I am at present an agnostic who is seeking Christ, yet I am lacking reason to, and I was hoping this might help me in my search. Firstly, the reason I say I lack reason and do not mention faith in this message is that I have received no personal experiences that would allow me to believe in faith (if you believe I am missing something here, feel free to challenge me on this). Anyway, back to reasons to believe. I am going to try to be as charitable as possible and not point out any perceived contradictions I have with any Christian teachings, as I would not want to attack your faith. I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason (if I find this not to be possible, as I have no personal experiences of God, this would warrant my lack of belief). To be rather boring, I am going to talk about 4 of the most popular arguments for God that I am aware of, these being the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and the fine-tuning argument.

1. Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (which is the Christian God).

This is the classic cosmological argument, but to me it fails due to the fact that neither premise can be established.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me this does not hold up, as no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing (in the sense of something out of nothing; even if it can be proved, it must have happened at some point due to the impossibility of infinities), and so the first premise cannot be established.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This too cannot be established as the big bang. While it is the start of the expansion of the universe, the singularity that "exploded" was there before the big bang, and we have no idea of anything that happened before the big bang, so this premise cannot be justified.

Due to my inability to establish either premise, I cannot accept this argument.

2. Teleological Argument

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have had a designer.

This is the classic teleological argument, but to me it too fails due to the fact premise 2 can't be established.

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.

This argument fails, as to me we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design (design meaning "purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object"). And as such, we can't draw the conclusion. The reason I don't reject premise 1 is that, by definition, design entails a designer (at least by my definition above).

3. Moral Argument

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Short answer here: objective moral values don't exist without God, so you can't just say they exist to establish him, and you can't prove objective moral values without God, making the argument cyclical without some other proof that objective moral values exist.

5. Fine-Tuning Argument

Premise 1: If the universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life, then it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance.
Premise 2: The universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly unlikely the universe's life-permitting conditions occurred by chance.

For me this fails due to the fact that premise 1 cannot be justified, basically just for the reason that there is no possible way (that I have heard) you can establish that "it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance", as that implies that they could have been different, which we could not possibly know.

Anyway, thank you so much if you've tolerated all this. I hope that I can learn something from people's responses to this.

Thanks,
Luca

I can relate to all this. Add in the evidence from evolution (no God required), its all explained naturally and its hard to make a case for God. But then if it was then the whole idea of faith in God would be redundant. Take the fun out of it having to trust something beofre you get to sense it.

Also Hume said you can't get an 'ought from an is'. So morality cannot be explained in objective terms according to empirical measures.

But thats the point I think. That your using all the tools that measure the material quantities to understand something that lies in the non material and qualitative realm. It would be like using math to understand psychology. Though there may be some overlaps they are completely different categories.

To measure and understand belief this is more relational. Like trust in a relationship. You can't always prove someone loves you or is faithful. So you take that on their word and good faith. There are little signs that confim or cause suspicions. But ultimately its faith. If you accused your spouse of something that was not true because you got paranoid then you setback the trust and faith.

So in that sense someone believing and committing to God would be acting on a relationship or percieved personal relation between themselves and God. Not some connection to a cosmic force or consciousness. That depersonalises the relationship.

It almost sounds crazy that someone would be having a relationship with an invisible God. But that I think is the key. Its not reasoning or evidence, well not ultimately. Like I said you can make some cases for all the things you mention above. But obviously not to your satisfaction. Nor is it going to be to anyones satisifaction because tahts not how it works.

I say this to save you time lol. To say that you will not find any satisfactory answers in logic, reasoining and science. I went through all this with my doubts and I think its a necessary process for everyone to varying degrees. Some being more skeptical than others for a variety of reasons.

Thats why its a very personal thing. I guess in searching and asking questions its part of the journy to growing towards a relationship with God that you may one day after all questioning and still not satisfied you commit. Or you work out there is no God and as Dawkins says 'theres nothing to worry about'. Just live your best life.

Or take a each way bet and as Pascals wager goes live a life like you believe as it cannot do any harm.