Why the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

This question has been asked before and those who ask it think that it is a problem. Just reading it or hearing it makes it seem like a difficult problem.

But please tell me what you would consider to be satisfactory evidence for these things?

Perhaps a fossilized Angel? Angels are spirit creatures and have no body to fossilize.

Perhaps the remains of someone who lived 500 years? That was thousands of years ago, how many remains have been found from that time period and how would you tell that they lived to be 500 or not, seeing as to all appearance they would seem only 80 or 90?

How could you tell if someone had been resurrected? They would not be alive today and if you had the complete remains of that person how could you tell they were resurrected?

How about Jesus turning water into wine? Even if someone had bottled that wine and had saved it down to this day how could you tell? It would only be wine.

How could you tell if Jesus cured someone? They would be long ago dead and even if you had the complete remains of that person how could you tell they were they were cured of some disease?

So a lack of evidence is not necessarily proof of a lack of "Miracles" maybe it's just proof that "Miracles" didn't leave a lot of evidence.

 

well i would like to see it under scientific supervision, but i know that will never happen so heck, i would be satisfied if i just saw any of those things you mentioned with my own two eyes. i just cant believe it from reading a book. if god were to materialize in front of me do some hocus pocus and bring back my dead grandma, i would devout my life to him. plain and simple.

to aguest:

im not totally sure of what your saying here. i think what your saying is that "explained the bible becomes nothing more than another clumsy effort to make ends meet". does this mean that the bible cannot be explained? or maybe its open for interpretation?? maybe its literal?? which one??

if you say that it is literal, then there are obviously many proven errors (ill just give you one scientifically proven error in the bible that is that the earth was created in 7 days which is totally wrong as fossils show that dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart)


if you say it is open to interpretation then i guess everyone should be able to interpret them in their own ways right?? i mean who are you to say the way you interpret something subjective is the correct way?

u know whats even more historically and scientifically acurate? the big bang and evolution. by the way i would just like to point out that just because its more convincing is not a good point. the book of mormon might be more convincing for some but that doesnt make it true.

for all we know it could be happening right now, in a galaxy far, far away.
and as for the miracles, some of them actually go AGAINST basic principles of science. ill give you an example. the basic laws of thermodynamics state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. but god said hocus pocus and he created the earth, stars, sun ect. the big bang theory actually explains this more reasonably. large cloud of gas/matter collapse on itself because of its own gravity and the universe has expanded from that first primordial hot and dense condition. now dont get me wrong im not saying this is absolutely right, im just saying its the best model we have that is supported by ALL lines of scientific and observational evidence.

 

Sorry, IMjustfishin, if I wasn't clear enough.

I actually meant poor interpretations. This happens, when people try to bring in non-biblical and pagan teachings (like Trinity, life after death, hell tormenting etc) and explain the Bible using these. Since these are the teachings of the "nations" strongly warned against in the Bible itself, those holding such teachings will not be able to understand the Bible, neither experience its power.
I mean there must be an explanation, but this is not a trifling matter. The only way to explain the Bible is to 1)start from the point that it MUST NOT be self-contradictive 2)to try to understand the teachings of the Bible itself, instead of trying to find one's own ideas reflected in the Bible. Such approach has given good results with many, Isaac Newton for one.

"big bang" is only the way to say that there was a sudden and momentary beginning; evolution has been totally exposed to be false. There is actually NO proof whatsoever to evolution, but all evidence rather proves the Biblical account to be correct, where it says that God created species "according to their kind". The "missing links" between the species are still missing.

Right! Science gives a model, which would best explain the results scientists have got so far. The most up to date model is the Super String theory AFAIK.
Let's not forget, however, that all these laws are relevant in the context of space-time continuum. While God is the creator of the whole thing, including space-time continuum itself, if we should follow the terminology of the Bible. We don't know how he created it, but obviously he'd know better about the laws that we today call the fundamentals.

So, when it speaks about the "seven days of creation", it says the he "rested on the seventh day". And yet, in the end of the book Paul was pointing to the idea, that God's servants still were to enter into "God's rest", meaning that rest had not ended yet at that time -- which was some 5000 years later, than "God rested on the 7th day" thing took place. This shows such "day" to be a long enough period of time. Now if science says it was 15 bln of years since the "big bang", I have no reason to find it contradicting the Bible.

 

Thank you for explaining in a better way the OP original issue to me. One can explain one's own line of thinking and answer a question as he understands it, but I'm not as bright at understanding another one's thinking.
Another issue is, we are all different. Itsdarts has a totally different view on the book; I'd like to be able to reproduce it for myself, for this will give a lot of questions, to which it would be interesting to find answers in the Bible.
And different as we are, one can be unable to explain the things he never doubted to someone who has such doubts. I find this to be most difficult.

I only hope, that I haven't run off topic and somehow abused this thread posting "irrelevant" ideas? There is no hearing from Itsdarts for a while and I have a sense of guilt because I have posted a lot, he-he.

 

well since you didnt answer my first question ill make it easier for you. CHOOSE ONE:
is the bible
a)literal or b)open for interpretation.

ok im going to show you two simple facts that show how mistaken you are.
number 1: the 'missing links' you speak of. well it turns out MANY of them have been found. ill show you only HUMAN examples because there are many other fossils from other groups of animals that have been found but i dont want to make this post too long.
here are only a couple of THE MOST IMPORTANT findings:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens

these fossils show a clear pattern in increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. i think it would be logical to conclude that they gradually EVOLVED.
try disproving that!! Ill wait..........

number2: scientist took a look at chimpanzee genome and found that the human genome is 96% similar. uhm, thats almost identical. they are said to be our closest living relatives and scientists use their genome to study human biology and evolution.
try disproving that!! ill wait...........

oh, but contradictions there are...............

the biggest error is that it does not follow the chronological order of events which happend after the 'big bang'. for example:
1) verse 1 of genesis god makes the earth. simple enough. BUT! in verse 5 god makes light and seperates it from darkness yada yada yada..... yet he doesn't make the sun untill verse 16, many 'days' later. this seems to contradict the big bang theory which has earth and sun being formed at the same time. (note that earth was not developed at this point and was not "rocky" yet)

2) in verse 11 god says hocus pocus let the earth sprout vegitation. (uhm, someone shoulda told him that vegitations need energy from the sun to survive)

3)god creates vegitation on land before 'swimming creatures' which is just plain wrong and has been shown in fossil records that ocean life evolved long before any life on land.

4) i noticed you mention that the word "day" could mean a time of more than 24 hours. yet in almost every verse in genesis it says plain and simple at the end "there was evening and there was morning first day" "And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." and so on. how could you say that a "day" was more than 24 hours??

5) if your position is that a genesis "day" was more than 24 hours than that also causes even more contradictions. for example, lets go with your assertion that a genesis "day" is thousands of years.
-god created earth the first day
-god created two lights, the grater one to govern the day on, i believe, the fourth day.
-this would make the earth and the moon several thousands of years apart yet big bang THEORY (because its just a theory so far), and dating of moon rocks (dating of moon rocks is not a theory and is a precise measure) both show that the earth and moon are virtually the same age.

6) THE SIMPLEST CONTRADICTION, that anyone who knows a little about physics should be able to see. according to the genesis acount the earth was created before the stars and the sun. but simple math shows that this is impossible because light from distant stars takes millions of years to reach the earth. and there are many stars whos radiation has been traveling through space for alot longer than the age of the earth. this has been measured not only in light years but millions of light years. DUH!

 

Wow. There's a lot.

Sometimes it is literal, at other times it is figurative -- just as any other book written in human languages.

I didn't want to start up the whole thing over the evolution and the proofs thereof: you will agree, perhaps, that these are contradictory and while some scientists support these, others are sceptical. Depending on what they prefer!
Enough to say, that for the believers in God the striking similarity between the living creatures is mere evidence of ... their being creations of the same Person! But for the materialists it supports the evolution theory.
Here is a book in front of me, that merely tramples evolution under foot, so to say. But I guess you have a book to the contrary...
Since I respect the views of others, I don't see any reason for further discussion in this direction, for there'll be no end to it.

Let me change the perspective and state, that it makes sense to resort to the Bible if you are in sincere search for God. Then you will find satisfaction. Otherwise you will end up with all these questions and misunderstandings. It is a message from God to those who need a message from God. I don't know, frankly, how to put it otherwise.

 

ok so in other words you cant prove me wrong and I WIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAHOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! in yo face nigguh!!!!!!!

but c'mon just for the fun of debating i challenge anyone to disprove my last post.
damn dood i goota say im good. damn im good. im so good i got this guy to shut up.
aguest: "oh yeah im gonna debate every other person here but when someone stumps me oh im just gonna respect their views and shut up."
c'mon why dont u whip out that book of yours and try to disprove anything that i said in my last post.
go on ill wait.............

good job me!:cheers2: totally killed this guy oh yeah!

cmon it was a fun debate wasnt it i wish it could keep on goin.....

 

If God were to materialize in front you, it would be you that would be in need of being brought back not just your dead grandma!

 

C'mon, I can't deprive you of that pleasure. You sound so happy, so I don't mind
Yes, you are good. Good student and smart.

However, don't forget there are readers in this thread. It is also important what they think about it. Maybe they like my reasonings more than yours, how do you know?

I'll give you, however, one interesting point from the book I was talking about:
Multiple experiments and years of study strongly discourage mutation as possible cause of evolution. Mutations are mostly bad and inhibiting, in the very best cases the damage is least, but in such cases the product is almost the same with the original.
Conclusion: mutation CANNOT produce new species, they rather destroy the existing ones. But that was the strongest bet of the evolutionists, the main cause of it.

And here's another one:
(EDITED)And, whatever be the similarities between apes and men, still there is a gap! Apes are animals and we are intelligent creatures. The size of brain and skull can vary among men, but this thing still remains: even the smallest man is a man, and the biggest ape is ape, an animal.

And the last one:
And evolution doesn't take place now. Why? Can you point to any intermediate forms of living creatures, evident product of evolution? Don't forget: evolution is a CONTINUOUS process , must be going still on and on...
So, the "links" are still missing. Instead of gradual change from one species to another, we have clearly defined completely developed species and great variety within one kind. You have a variety of men, dogs, cats, birds, etc. But no intermediate links between species. Neither live, nor fossils, whatever you may hear sometimes.

 

You say you won, what did you win?

You have merely asked questions that have been answered thousands of times and when those are answered you merely move on to other questions that have been answered thousands of times and you keep going around in a big circle hoping that by the time you get back to the same questions again everyone has forgotten that you've already asked those questions and they've been answered. After a while even the most patient person will get tired of answering the same questions over and over again and will quit and move on.

Low and behold you've won again, but what did you win?

 

You got a hole lotta smarts you got from somekinda books and you remembered some homo names an shitt. If God wants to create something and make some other stuff later, out of the whole linier time line thats just what He dose. I dont know how God dose all the suff He dose but I know He dont have to stay in any timeline. God dont care what time you think it is. God dose what He dose and He makes what He makes and if He feals like it He can make something today that would happen on earth a billion years ago. I dont need to understand this. I think I do anyhow but I cant put it into words. I guess what Im sayin is that God trancends time. To Him a thousand years is like the blink of an eye. Or vice versa, which ever way He likes. He can juggle years around like lifesavers in a roll. This is nothin to Him. I praise God for what Hes doin today and for everything He ever done and everything He's gonna do!

 

lol you guys are frikin hilarious! except for olderwaters, what a sore loser yeesh!

 

The problem with your thought process is that you dont recognize God as the maker of miracles. These things are a stumblin stone to you.

 

I don't remember losing anything. Please refresh my memory.

 

I feel I might need to explain why I didn't bother to take the following "arguments" seriously. Well, they are obviously superficial and just cannot be taken seriously, for they are completely missing the point of what kind of book the Bible is, and what it IS NOT.

As I already mentioned, the Bible is NOT a scientific treatise on how God created things. On the other hand, all the science has now is but theories.
The more we understand and discover, the more we come to understand what the Bible says about our world and why it says the way it does.
You are right, it is not clear now why the Bible puts the events in this particular order. But we can tell, for example, to address your number (2), that plants can grow even without light (under pavement, for example). They also "sprout" without light, when still under ground.
What is more crucial to living things is the life force itself, that comes from the life giver. Does your science know what it is? Any theory? Yes, they know about chemical reactions and all that, but HOW DOES LIFE START? What IS life? No idea yet? The Bible says it was God and his Son (as helper) who commanded, and life "came to be". But how does science explain it?

Another one:
Why does it say in Job 26:7, that God "hanged the earth upon nothing"? Did Job have a spaceship to see it? And why did his contemporaries believe the earth rested upon turtles and wales and elephants and other kind of fantastic stuff? Don't you know, that science (which you trust so much) only came to the same conclusions some 200-300 years ago? And the Bible told it more than 3000 years ago!
So I have strong reasons to believe, that if the Bible puts the events of creation in this order, there are strong reasons for it, which we are still to learn. Just like humans had to wait for 3000 years until they learned about the earth being "hanged upon nothing".

And I didn't want to address the fossils at all, because anyone who studied this matter, knows full well, what these fossils really are.
Sometimes they are small fragments of bones that can belong to any creature (but are strongly believed to belong to the missing link!). Some other are bones belonging to humans of different sizes, but these are no doubt humans. Go to Africa and see great variety of humankind there.
And other fossils belong to big -- apes. These are apes, and not humans. It was already pointed out how similar apes' genome is with that of humans. But there still is a gap!!! And still these missing links between different families of creatures are missing. Latimeria is a fish, archaeopteryx is a bird (although extinc kind now) and not a transit form neither of these. Such are other discovered "links".

Look! I only wanted to show why I thought it useless to address these endless questions. OlderWaterBrother is absolutely right saying, that these have been asked and answered endless number of times.

I will only add here, that the Bible has proved right so many times in history, that it is enough for me to trust it, when the matters are unclear yet.
Did the Bible speak about Nineveh the ancient Assirian capital? Did them bible critics mock it because of "no historical evidence" existing? Yes they did. When was Nineveh found (excavated by archaeologists)? Only100 years ago. Who was right in the end of it? The Bible. Take it to your heart, please, dear IMjustfishin.

 

Looks like IMjustfishin, after declaring himself the winner, didn't wait for the 10 count and went fishing.

 

Yawn.On and on and on and on and on------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------how long has this shit been going on?Oh yeah--2000 years.Those that know the answers are stupid.Those that don't are ignorant.There's a differance.Figure it out.Or not.

 

And that makes you....

 

Ignorant about the purpose and meaning of existence.But curious.

 

arty:Bonus points for a good answer! arty: