Arguments for or against god

[SA Huguenot]

Right. And I still don't accept that the Book of Mormon describes the truth.

Since it seems that @SA Huguenot also doesn't accept this, I wonder why he feels that a lower standard of testimony should be more compelling.

Do you enjoy talking to Audie.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Lets put this all into perspective.
if God exists, I would expect the following from Him.
He must somehow tell me that He exists.

This is the only , and only way we will know that God is a reality.
Now, due to the age of mankind, it is obvious that if this God did tell His Creation about Himself, Man would have recorded these encounters.

Now we are getting somewhare.
In these recordings of Man, we should have claims about God speaking to His first created people, Him visiting more, doing miracles, telling us how He created everything in the Universe.

But of most importance, this God should prove that He is God.
Even taking it from His own viewpoint, He knows that people will be sceptic about what He says, and He will obviously give a falsifiable test as insurance that someone, a prophet, speaks in His name.
We have this in Deut 4: 18 to 22.

Now, it is up to Man to investigate these claims to determine if what "People" recorded about God, is true or not.
But be cautious, once you engauge in your investigation, you should treat all these revelations with the same measure and thought, not to be bias on one prefering the other.
Continue with this with the greates information we today have and compare it with what these books say.
lets tke the origins of our Solar system, for instance, and see what science says.
Then we take the Books, and compare their descriptions on what it claims the Creator in those books told the prophets on how He didit!

And once you completed yor studies, you will find that the Bible was the source of the Nebular theory where Christians took Genesis in 1755 and formulated what science today calls the Nebular theory.
You will find that Christians were the explainers of the Goelegical science we know of today, and they took the Bible as their source.
So you can go on with many more examples where scientists used the Bible as the foundation of what we today call science.
And these men did this 400 and 300 years ago!

Now, try this with any other so called holy book, and you will fail.
This is just one facet of the information one can use to test the validity of the bible.

Now, If we have such incredible evidence, why should we not believe the account of Jesus?
There is only one reason to deny Jesus' life on Earth as God in the form of Man.
Free Will!
Oh, golly.
Who gave Man free will?

 

[ratiocinator]

And once you completed yor studies, you will find that the Bible was the source of the Nebular theory where Christians took Genesis in 1755 and formulated what science today calls the Nebular theory.
You will find that Christians were the explainers of the Goelegical science we know of today, and they took the Bible as their source.
So you can go on with many more examples where scientists used the Bible as the foundation of what we today call science.
And these men did this 400 and 300 years ago!

Is this a joke?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And these 8 did not give their lives under torture as did the Apostles my friend.

I'm not your friend.

Which apostles "gave their lives under torture" and how do you know?

Why would you even use this as an argument?
You claim you are an Atheist, but I bet you if say Islam sharia law takes over in your counry and you are threatened with execution for being an Atheist, you will be the first to call out the Shahadah.

Don't presume to speak for me.

The Apostles, from Stephanus to John, and their students such as Polycarp, were burnes on the stake, fed to wild animals, boilled in oill, crucified, and they just continued to insist that Jesus was God, He was here on Earth, and their lives means nothing, because they knew what they saw and experienced.

Doubtful.

And the mere fact that someone "died for their beliefs" is no indication of the truth of their beliefs by itself.

If it's clear that someone actually reached a point where they knew that preaching their religion would lead to their death, then we can be relatively sure that they sincerely believed it to be true (or that they were suicidal, which shouldn't be automatically discounted, especially in a religion that praises martyrdom). This doesn't describe many people who "died for their faith."

And even when we're sure that the believer was sincere, this doesn't tell us whether their beliefs were accurate. I have no issue with the idea that Polycarp, for instance, really did believe what he claimed to believe. However, since he was in no position to actually confirm whether what he believed was true, his death doesn't imply anything about the truth of Christian doctrine.

 

[Audie]

I'm not your friend.

Which apostles "gave their lives under torture" and how do you know?


Don't presume to speak for me.


Doubtful.

And the mere fact that someone "died for their beliefs" is no indication of the truth of their beliefs by itself.

If it's clear that someone actually reached a point where they knew that preaching their religion would lead to their death, then we can be relatively sure that they sincerely believed it to be true (or that they were suicidal, which shouldn't be automatically discounted, especially in a religion that praises martyrdom). This doesn't describe many people who "died for their faith."

And even when we're sure that the believer was sincere, this doesn't tell us whether their beliefs were accurate. I have no issue with the idea that Polycarp, for instance, really did believe what he claimed to believe. However, since he was in no position to actually confirm whether what he believed was true, his death doesn't imply anything about the truth of Christian doctrine.

Who could doubt the sincerity of the boys of 911?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Is this a joke?

Nope.
Try Emmanuel Kant in his Nebular theory 1755. Newton in his Optics and Principia 1666, Nicola Stenno on the geology.
Do you know that Kant formulated the origins of the Universe on the principles of Newton and that this is the accepted and proven model of the origins of at least our solar system?
Take note, He got it from Genesis. Guess how many scientists learned about
Kant, but never learned that he knew Biblical Hebrew and Greek. he memorised most of the Bible.
Newton knew that the Jesuite scientists must be wrong when he worked on optics, when they claimed that white light is pure light, and colored light must be tainted, because of the color change when it passes through colored glass. Think about the APPLE that FELL on his head. Newton loved cryptic puzzles and being one of the Worlds' greatest Bible scholars, left this clue about Genesis, the apple, that fell on his head, knowledge in his mind.
Newton thought that if God was light, and if Genesis said, let there be light, it would mean all colors.
Well he was correct, white light is a mixture, and colored light were pure.
Stenno was asked to look at a huge shark, he realised that the tongue stones everyone picked up in the hills, was shark tooth. Today we know it as Megalodon teeth. He realised that these teeth was crystalised, and he started to work in Crystalisation, and Geological formation of rocks.
Guess what Stenno proved?
A global flood. Why?
Because if he did not direct his thinking in the Biblical sense, he would not have formulated what he did.
The above are but 3 men which changed the understanding of our Earth and how it was created.
All found their sources fromn the Bible.
There are thousands more examples, but think and research the above.

 

[ratiocinator]

Try Emmanuel Kant in his Nebular theory 1755. Newton in his Optics and Principia 1666, Nicola Stenno on the geology.
Do you know that Kant formulated the origins of the Universe on the principles of Newton and that this is the accepted and proven model of the origins of at least our solar system?
Take note, He got it from Genesis. Guess how many scientists learned about
Kant, but never learned that he knew Biblical Hebrew and Greek. he memorised most of the Bible.
...

You're rambling - where is there an actual passage from the bible that that relates directly to a subsequent scientific discovery?

Guess what Stenno proved?
A global flood.

The global flood is a myth - it never happened. The evidence is quite clear on that.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The global flood is a myth - it never happened. The evidence is quite clear on that.

OK, Lets start with this claim you made.
What evidence are you refering to that proves there was never a global flood?
Emmanuel Kant and Nicola Stenno formulated their theories on just that.
Do you know what the Nebular theory is?