Does any supernatural god exist?

[PearlSeeker]

I've seen threads of...
Theists: Does God Exist?
Atheist: Does God Exist?

IMO That refers to one certain God

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

I don't know. No evidence for supernatural gods outside of people's imagination has been presented yet.

 

[We Never Know]

Unbelievers worship nature instead of the One who created nature. Created things prove that a creator created them, unless you can empty yourself of all common sense and embrace the sad pseudo science theory that "everything came from nothing", that defies logic

IMO I don't think anyone worships nature.

I can interact with nature using all my senses.

Which senses do you use to interact with a god?

 

[Mock Turtle]

4. Unlikely (but not sure).

 

[We Never Know]

4. Unlikely (but not sure).

So you certainly don't know. Got it.

 

[George-ananda]

So painting with a broader brush, does any supernatural god exist?

I believe gods (lower-case 'g' and plural) exist as beings on the higher planes of nonphysical reality, yes.

I'm not so comfortable with the word 'supernatural' because, if it exists, they must be part of a greater understanding of the natural.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The Holy Bible is a documented, reliable record of the history of the universe and all life.

Historians apply historical methods ("historical criticism") to all ancient texts including Bible.

The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's relationship to history—covering not just the Bible's acceptability as history but also the ability to understand the literary forms of biblical narrative.[1] One can extend biblical historicity to the evaluation of whether or not the Christian New Testament is an accurate record of the historical Jesus and of the Apostolic Age. This tends to vary depending upon the opinion of the scholar.

When studying the books of the Bible, scholars examine the historical context of passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence. Being a collaborative work composed and redacted over the course of several centuries,[2] the historicity of the Bible is not consistent throughout the entirety of its contents.

The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[33]

The historical reliability of the Gospels is evaluated by experts who have not found a complete consensus. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[note 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[1][note 2]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea,[2][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[5] The only two events subject to "almost universal assent"[6] are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[7] There is no scholarly consensus concerning other elements of Jesus's life including the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events such as the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[8][9]

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Historical criticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you certainly don't know. Got it.

Not the same. Where is the certainty?

 

[PureX]

Unbelievers worship nature instead of the One who created nature.

Although I generally agree with this statement, there are a number of term in just this one sentence that need to be fully discussed and clarified.

Created things prove that a creator created them, unless you can empty yourself of all common sense and embrace the sad pseudo science theory that "everything came from nothing", that defies logic

Again, I generally agree existence logically requires a source, but it's easy to drive people off this point by diluting it with subjective musings and fancies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sorry to disappoint you but all the books of the bible are supported by other independent records and books. All the people were real historical people and nobody has ever found a error or fault with anything that is written in the Bible. The Bible is God communicating with mankind.

It's obvious to me that your simply regurgitating, what someone else has fed you and you can't support any of your claims.

No. There us no evidence whatsoever that supports that claim.

You could readily reference those independent records however for people interested in looking at it. I see no links to any independent source.

Plus the Bible is completely full of errors and contradictions with an extensive categorized listing in ...

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html

I used to be a Christian so I know all about its associated indoctrination and its effects on people deep in belief.

 

[We Never Know]

Not the same. Where is the certainty?

Really?

4. Unlikely (but not sure).

Unlikely = uncertain
But not sure = uncertain

So you certainly don't know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Really?



Unlikely = uncertain
But not sure = uncertain

So you certainly don't know.

No. On the spectrum between not knowing and knowing (either as to god existing or not existing), there is my position.

Unlikely is not the same as being uncertain. Unlikely is what I perceive the probability of God existing, whilst uncertainty is my belief as to such.

 

[Pogo]

It is estimated that there are some 320 million gods, but there is only One Supernatural God who claims to have created everything that exists. We have documented records of the God who made the claim. We don't have any evidence to suggest that any of the others gods exist outside of our imagination.

So the odds that you are right is 1 in 320 million at best?

 

[Pogo]

We have independent eyewitness reports from many people from different parts of the world who never knew each other giving the same evidence.

The One who created the universe and every atom in it came into the world 2000 years ago. He proved He was God by performing miracles, including raising dead people back to life.

The Holy Bible is a documented, reliable record of the history of the universe and all life.

Arthur Dent knows better.

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 91004

Got a new shipment just in time, proof there is a god.

 

[Pogo]

Got Salt?

No, old enough that I avoid it on my popcorn, BP and all that.

 

[We Never Know]

No. On the spectrum between not knowing and knowing (either as to god existing or not existing), there is my position.

Unlikely is not the same as being uncertain.

 

[Ajax]

The Holy Bible is a documented, reliable record of the history of the universe and all life.

I will give you one small example which I thought of when someone in the forum wrote about the temptation of Jesus.

If God is the ruler of the universe, then Satan knows it. The same applies for Jesus, if he is God as most Christians believe.
Now imagine that I stop you when you drive your car and tell you that if you worship me, I will give you the car you are driving.
Is it the most stupid thing you ever heard?
I'm certain that if Jesus and Satan are real, they would be laughing their heads off.
The story is simply fictitious.

 

[Ajax]

Created things prove that a creator created them, unless you can empty yourself of all common sense and embrace the sad pseudo science theory that "everything came from nothing", that defies logic

If all things prove that a creator created them, who created the creator?
You believe that you have common sense believing a book written 2500 years ago by goat-herders?
If you don't believe in science, and you have faith, you should behave as Jesus said (Mark 16:19 and Mat17:20) and you should not go to doctors when you get ill. Humanity would be grateful.

 

[Charles Philips]

IMO I don't think anyone worships nature.

I can interact with nature using all my senses.

Which senses do you use to interact with a god?

You have deluded yourself into believing you interact with nature. The sad reality is humans cannot communicate with nature in any way. Nature hates humans and seek to kill us at every opportunity. Just google how many people are killed by animals and nature every year, it will blow your mind

 

[Charles Philips]

Historians apply historical methods ("historical criticism") to all ancient texts including Bible.

The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's relationship to history—covering not just the Bible's acceptability as history but also the ability to understand the literary forms of biblical narrative.[1] One can extend biblical historicity to the evaluation of whether or not the Christian New Testament is an accurate record of the historical Jesus and of the Apostolic Age. This tends to vary depending upon the opinion of the scholar.

When studying the books of the Bible, scholars examine the historical context of passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence. Being a collaborative work composed and redacted over the course of several centuries,[2] the historicity of the Bible is not consistent throughout the entirety of its contents.

The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[33]

The historical reliability of the Gospels is evaluated by experts who have not found a complete consensus. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[note 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[1][note 2]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea,[2][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[5] The only two events subject to "almost universal assent"[6] are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[7] There is no scholarly consensus concerning other elements of Jesus's life including the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events such as the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[8][9]

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Historical criticism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If secular historians confirmed that the bible is historically accurate I would immediately burn my Bibles. God said He wrote the bible in such a way that it can only be understood by His Elect Saints . He said it is foolishness to the secular man, because the secular man has no concept of spiritual things as he is nothing more than a carnal animal.

I'm glad you confirmed what God said to be factual, thank you. God said, they will diligently seek to understand but I will hide the truth from them so they will never understand the Holy Scriptures. So, the scriptures only make sense to those who God chose to reveal it to. The rest are under Gods wrath and stand condemned to hell.

Although I generally agree with this statement, there are a number of term in just this one sentence that need to be fully discussed and clarified.

Again, I generally agree existence logically requires a source, but it's easy to drive people off this point by diluting it with subjective musings and fancies.

You don't get to dictate what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to what the bible teaches You must conform and never attempt to change or challenge anything God said.