Genesis Proof

Guess I type very slow...

Can you see gravity? Or hear it? Taste it? Smell it? Or even feel it? You know its there by its efects right?

You can feel gravity all the time. Remember when you fell down when you were little? I guess god wanted to punish you as you learned to walk.

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco Ok maju. What if God YELLED!!! Everyone else in the room heard it too. And the building fell down. And the rubble turned into sand. And then he yelled again as fire and brimstone fell from the sky. Would that be proof?

When you can tell me when he is going to do it, tell me. Then we can both listen. And when it doesn't happen as you predict, then you will have to drop your pretensions, won't you? Which is of course why you won't predict it.

 

I just thought that up by the way.

Nothing new about it. Seventh Day Adventists and Plymouth Brethren and all sorts of people have predicted that sort of thing over and over again. And the have ALWAYS been wrong.

Like all those people who believe the 'Rapture' will occur in their lifetime. It won't.

And i found some evidence. Hardcore evidence.

Where?

And your "translation" was inacurate (The guy whos name starts with an H). In fact, it was like you thought I wasnt even going to look at this thread again so you said it "behind my back" as you might have thought. I have had that happen to me on other sites forums. Can you see gravity? Or hear it? Taste it? Smell it? Or even feel it? You know its there by its efects right?

We know anything 'is there' because of its effects. Our seeing it is an effect.

The thing about 'God' is that there are no effects. None whatsoever. Anything that is totally indetectable is obviously not worth bothering with, even if it is there.

Then the way to see if there is God and The Bible is right is to look for efects of it. And if you want some evidence then get one book from Josh McDowel called The New Evidence. Its huge.

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco Ok we have decided (Some of us) 1. God exists. 2. this argument is whether Genisis is right and whether God does anything. 3. I have to prove to you why i am right while you must prove why i am wrong. Am I right or do you have any addons? Just to clarify.

1. I can't see me deciding if God exists. He/She/It exists or not. If it's true, then I cannot decide anything about it. If it's not true, I cannot decide either. Still, I can't help to notice that faith is so far the only "proof" of God's existence. If one decides to take the Bible for granted, or at lest some part of it, then God exists. I don't take that holy book for granted, yet I cannot say God doesn't exists. I don't know if it's true or false. If God exists, maybe He should present us with a proof of His existence that will be accepted by everyone. If He comes yelling and tear apart my home and kill people, I would probably look at Him as an invader, maybe call for some superhero to get rid of that nuisance.

2. This argument is about a proof that would be accepted by everyone, whether it's about God, Genesis, Lucifer, Satan, Zeus, Shiva or the little green men.

3. You do need to prove that you're right, and I and the others who think more or less my way, will have to accept that proof, according to our reasons. You should not expect people to consider that you are right only because you say so, or you point out at what someone else said and consider this to be enough for a demonstration. As many people pointed it out to you, it is necessary to prove a theory by facts. Since the confrontation is with people who do not have faith, it should be your concern to find out a way to convince those people not by denying their beliefs but by showing them that you are right without quoting the Bible. And also without something like c=1 => c=1.

I don't consider that those who have faith are wrong, I'm just saying that I don't.

I don't believe in science. Science is not to believe, it is to analyse to work, to experiment and so on. One cannot have faith in science since the basic fundament of science is not to have faith, but rather the opposite thing. A scientist, or someone who relies on science, doesn't just spread out a theory and expects everyone to consider it right. The theory must be proven by facts, and this is the hardest thing to do. Sir Isac Newton developed his theory because he didn't just take gravity for granted. And he stated, and proved it through experiments, that the apple doesn't fall on the earth, actually both the apple and the earth are falling against eachother.

Can you really prove the biblical Genesis? Or can you prove something else in that book, like the garden of Eden, the fall of Lucifer, Iona's adventure into the digestive system of a whale, the obliteration of Sodoma and Gomora? I can prove that Hiroshima was nuked, I don't have to relly only on historical statements. I can't prove 100% that Neil was on the Moon but the evidence that exists make this statemet true enough. If you cannot provide 100% evidence of the Genesis, go at least for a 25%. Or even 10%, that should be enough for the start.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Cezar Can you really prove the biblical Genesis? Or can you prove something else in that book, like the garden of Eden, the fall of Lucifer, Iona's adventure into the digestive system of a whale, the obliteration of Sodoma and Gomora? Does "that book" refer to Genesis or the Bible as a whole? We need to stick to Genesis here, because the Bible as a whole isn't just the Torah, but the secular stories and the histories, some of which as you get closer to the end are reasonably accurate - the accounts of the Maccabees for instance. But of course that the Maccabees actually did lead a rebellion, that Jews were exiled to Babylon, that Herod ruled part of Palestine and so on doesn't in any way prove any other part of the Bible. In fact from the end of Job to the end of the Tanakh God doesn't appear again, and what you have is simply a tangle of oral traditions plus relatively recent recorded events which is as good as we have for any ancient people, not much worse but not much better.

That book means any and all religious writings. It is not of the facts that are also mentioned in non religious archives that this is all about. Like I said, I'm not religious, I've read the Old and New Testament but so far this is where my personal knowledge of religion writings stopped. It is very possible that the Bible in Romanian differs from the same Bible in English. And remember that I have a Romanian Orthodox Bible. A friend of mine, who is a monk, told me once that he had found different versions of the same religious book (whichever it was) being held at different monasteries.  The form of language is ancient, and both are retranslations. I saw same quotes on this thread that I would like to compare with the book I have in order to see that the meaning is the same. I will do this as soon as I can get my hand on a Bible.

*BTW would it be possible for Chemistry to be different in English and Romanian?

1. God exists.

Not necessarily whether god exists but whether god exists in the way described by the Bible.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Hard evidence: I have hard evidence of other sentences such as knifes cut, cofee awakens, water is wet... and of course that such things exist. But I have no hard evidence of God existing. If God would exist and wanted to prove its existence, it would do it without problem. If it exists and wants to remain hidden, so good: it is its problem, not mine.

Let's put in diferent terms: a new mammal has been discovered in Borneo. While it was hidden no one knew it existed... it was highly unlikely that it existed at all (new big mammals are seldom discovered nowadays) but now we have two pictures and there is a team trying to capture one alive to study it in detail. That's the kind of proof we need: serious investigation, solid evidence not just speculations based on faith.

What would you say if I tell you that I believe in Santa Claus or elfs or dragons or the spaghetti monster or bigfoot... you would ask for evidence. I would say it's a matter of faith... and we would go nowhere.

God likes to play hide and seek; and he has a wicked sense of humor.

Ok I will start the elimination of religions:

1. Buddhism: Buddha didnt even want to be worshiped as a god, acording to my non-Christian history book (K12.com if you want to check if it is christian)

2. Confucius created a philosiphy not a religion

3. Mormons misinterpret the Bible

4. The 333 prophesees made in the old testament make judisiam obsolete due to the fact that jesus fulfiled all of them

5. The Greeks didnt even belive in their own Gods and they seem flawed and too much like them. It is safe to assume that the Greeks were wrong

 

That is 5 religions (Greek doesnt exist anymore, But it has been asked why they arent just as credible as christianity)

I will post the correct chance and Texas analogy later (I messed up)

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco Ok I will start the elimination of religions: 1. Buddhism: Buddha didnt even want to be worshiped as a god, acording to my non-Christian history book (K12.com if you want to check if it is christian) 2. Confucius created a philosiphy not a religion 3. Mormons misinterpret the Bible 4. The 333 prophesees made in the old testament make judisiam obsolete due to the fact that jesus fulfiled all of them 5. The Greeks didnt even belive in their own Gods and they seem flawed and too much like them. It is safe to assume that the Greeks were wrong   That is 5 religions (Greek doesnt exist anymore, But it has been asked why they arent just as credible as christianity) I will post the correct chance and Texas analogy later (I messed up)

Okay, so just because Buddha did not want to be worshipped as a god, that doesn't make buddhism less credible. True, Buddhism has incorporated elements of worship from other religions to appeal to the masses, but so has Christianity.

What about Islam, Hinduism, Taoism or Sikhism: how are they "less credible"?

I think this is a very slippery slide you're going on. You simply cannot prove that a religion is "more credible" than another, since they are all based on faith, and none of them have ever really been proven. Some of them may have a more advanced logical basis than others, but then you get into an argument of whether that logical basis was constructed artificially using logic and ideas foreign to the religion to support it. But that logical basis doesn't necessarily make them more credible than other religions.

To give you an example, the logic and interpretation of Christianity that is offered to you in church, owes its existence to countless philosophers which have drawn from the Greek and Roman philospohical tradition. Philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, John Scotus Erigena, the rest of the "doctors of the church", numerous popes, and more recently christian apologists like C.S. Lewis. Without their work, many would argue that christianity wouldn't be so "credible", as you put it. If you look at early christianity, in the time of Saul of Tarsus, people actually believed that Armageddon would come in their lifetime, and that didn't happen, did it? It took some very smart people to shape the ideas of christianity into the form we know today.

So please, give this a rest before you insult more than half of the people on this forum by telling them that their religions are not "credible". Oh, and by the way, you go on and on and on about these 333 prophecies. Would you please open up a separate topic about them, since you bring them up all the time?