2
   

Atheists....a question, if I may:

 
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 03:22 am
Frank Apisa wrote:


The dictionary defines logical in many ways…but I am willing to use this one. I do want to point out, however, that using it does not suppose that anything falling outside this parameter is, perforce, ILLOGICAL! "Black holes" "strings…as in string theory" "quantum particles"…were NEVER illogical even though at one time, they fell outside the definition of logical as outlined in this usage.


Is it illogical to state that the earth was invented by a flying pink elephant?

I think it is.

The notion of a personable, invisible, ghost-like figure doing the same is equally illogical.

It's only our modern reference to it that makes it appear more logical.

Quote:

This would be a good time to mention that I despise the use of the word "supernatural" to describe a god. It is an inherent impossibility…like a square circle. If a god exists…then by definition, it is a part of nature.


Ok.

Operative phrase here being "If a god exists". Also if a god exists it would have to subscribe to the natural laws of nature...like birth,death,etc. It cannot be above the laws of nature or transcend the laws.

Quote:

We humans obviously do not know the entire of NATURE at this time…
and even things like the so-called "laws of physics" are recognized by scientists as possible non-absolutes. (Scientists are unsure, for instance, that the so-called laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe…and do not know if they apply at all in any alternate dimensions. )


Maybe we should stick with what we know about god in this dimension, seeing that it is what we have to work with.

The concept of god is the product of religion.

Religion is a creation of mankind.

By entertaining the concept of a god existing, we are copying an invention of religion.

God isn't observable, measureable, or verifiable on any level.

Claims of God contradict everything we know about how our universe works.

If not for religion we would have no concept of god. I doubt the word would even exist.

The concept of god's existence is anectdotally underwhelming.

The scrutiny we hold all other knowledge to we dismiss when it comes to the possible existence of god. We grasp at straws and say it's irrational to make a conclusion with anything less than 100% certainty. But we do it all the time with other things.

The only argument for god comes from religion. The fact that you are not denying the concept of god, means that you are still holding on to the possibility that one exists, which comes from religion.

If you are an agnostic and like to look at the world objectively, what reason do you have to still consider the thought of god? Because if one exists it could reveal Itself to us at any time? We might also find a unicorn.


Quote:

Where does that come from??? It does not follow from what you wrote.


That's the direction I think the evidence points. I could be wrong.

Short of God showing up at a lab with positive id, I have no reason to consider it a possibility anymore than I do unicorns existing. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.


Quote:

To make such an assertion, you would have to make a convincing argument that we humans know all "the laws of nature" and that what we consider to be physics…actually is all there is to the mechanics of the universe. There is not a reputable scientist working today who would make such an assertion.


Technically you are probably correct. But, yet again you want 100% certainty that we humans know all "the laws of nature" before we can make a reasonable conclusion on the god issue. I don't think that is necessary. For example I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that the concept of god is a human invention.


Quote:

The ONLY logical conclusion is that we do not know if gods exist or not…and that the evidence for and against the existence of gods is incredibly ambiguous.


I think there are no gods for several basic reasons.

1) Gods are unobservable. If they existed in our natural world, they would be observable. They aren't. The only things I know that are unobservable are things that don't exist, never existed or are extinct.

2) Gods defy logic and explanation. We can't find any of them, but you cling to the possibility that at anytime one of them could miraculously appear. Rather ironic that you see through religion as ancient superstition, but consider this a plausible possibiity. I don't see that as a very logical possibilty if it hasn't happened by now.

3) The only thing one could logically conclude if gods exist is that they operate outside of our physical world. This would have to be accepted on "faith" since we have no way of knowing what is beyond our physical world. This is what religious people do. Agnostics claim to "not know" but they seem "to know" religion doesn't add up, but have enough "faith" to consider religon might be right about God. Not very logical at all in my book.

Quote:

You actually did not mention if you are an atheist or not, CK. Are you an atheist...or is this just an intellectual exercise for you?


I don't know for sure if gods exists or not...but if I had to bet...I'd bet they don't based on my experience, knowlege, logic, and reason.

I guess that makes me an agnostic than leans more towards atheism.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 03:47 am
real life wrote:


If God made the Universe and it's natural laws, then it by no means follows that He would be subject to and limited by the laws of nature.

How could He be subject to something that wasn't in existence before He made it?

Even scientists who hold to the Big Bang theory postulate a 'time before' the origin of the Universe when physical laws may not have existed as we know them.


And maybe the universe is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. No god, no cosmic ruler, just the result of purely natural phenomenon.

Sounds more credible than the creator theory.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:05 am
CerealKiller wrote:
real life wrote:


If God made the Universe and it's natural laws, then it by no means follows that He would be subject to and limited by the laws of nature.

How could He be subject to something that wasn't in existence before He made it?

Even scientists who hold to the Big Bang theory postulate a 'time before' the origin of the Universe when physical laws may not have existed as we know them.


And maybe the universe is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. No god, no cosmic ruler, just the result of purely natural phenomenon.

Sounds more credible than the creator theory.


If you want to postulate that the Universe is "all there ever was", i.e. it is eternal, then you have a problem with more than just theists.

Scientists who hold to the Big Bang also see that the physical universe had a beginning point, that it was NOT eternal.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:07 am
fresco wrote:
I of course cannot agree with your statement that "neural connections constitute software" . This is blatently false as its like saying that "Microsoft Windows" is hard wired into your computer.

However irrespective of the applicability of a software analogy your concept of "self awareness" is simplistic in the extreme as evidenced by the opinion of renowned reductionists like Dennett whoo sees "consciousness" as an epiphenomenon. I only cited him because of your own attempted isomorphism of "brain and self". (Isomorhism requires both necessity and sufficiency but you only attempted the first of these) You might note that reductionism ultimately breaks down at the subatomic level where physicality becomes conceptualised in "Hilbert space" and it is interesting that some neuroscientists (notably Hameroff) have advocated a concept of non-localised "quantum consciousness" in neural microtubules on the evidence of "time-reversals" and "non-locality" in perceptual circuits. Alternatively, at the opposite end of the "reductionist spectrum" we have the view of Maturana (et al) that "consciousness" is synonymous "life" and that its apparant complexity as "self awareness" in homo sapiens is no big deal. All of the issues seriously question the status of your proposed isomorphism.

Fresco, of course programs such as Windows are not hard-wired into a computer. I never said they were! But brains do not function and are not programmed in the same way as computers. The basic structure of the brain may be hard-wired, but neural connections are not. New connections are formed and/or the strength (action potential) of existing connections are changed every time we learn something, which is how the brain is "programmed." There is no "software" other than changing neuronal circuitry (and the effects of biochemical and homonal levels).

Your assertion that there is some "mystical transcendent holistic software ("cosmic consciousness" say) which fails to run on a faulty "computer"" fails to explain where this magical software resides (perhaps in Hilbert space? <chuckle>), where it came from or how it evolved, how it is inserted into each brain, and, if it cannot run properly on a faulty brain, how it manages to run at all once the brain dies.

I never said that the brain and self are isomorphic! Where did you get that idea?

What do Hilbert space, time reversals or non-locality have to do with the subject under discussion? You seem to have a habit of throwing random scientific concepts into a discussion instead of addressing the issues raised. Even if consciousness resides in microtubules (which seems unlikely), you still have the problem of explaining how it can persist when the neurons containing the microtubules rot or are incinerated.

BTW, what makes you think that Dennett classifies consciousness as an epiphenomenon? Qualia, perhaps, but surely consciousness is more than just a byproduct.
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:12 am
real life wrote:

If you want to postulate that the Universe is "all there ever was", i.e. it is eternal, then you have a problem with more than just theists.

Scientists who hold to the Big Bang also see that the physical universe had a beginning point, that it was NOT eternal.


That's not entirely true. Scientists don't claim that the Big Bang created the universe, merely the universe as we know it- Where did the matter for the Big Bang to occur come from?

Some scientists postulate that the universe is in an endless cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, forever.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:15 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm not interested if "most people do not see a difference", Terry. I am interested in whether or not you do.

Frank, if you are still here, I do see the difference. I just don't think it makes any difference to those who pay attention to what other people mean instead of arguing about how they worded it.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:47 am
Foley wrote:
real life wrote:

If you want to postulate that the Universe is "all there ever was", i.e. it is eternal, then you have a problem with more than just theists.

Scientists who hold to the Big Bang also see that the physical universe had a beginning point, that it was NOT eternal.


That's not entirely true. Scientists don't claim that the Big Bang created the universe, merely the universe as we know it-


That was my meaning. If I didn't make it clear enough, I apologize.

Foley wrote:
Where did the matter for the Big Bang to occur come from?


An excellent question. If matter/energy, as we know it, did NOT exist before the Big Bang (as most proponents of the Big Bang would hold), where indeed did it come from? How did it form, and from what?

The Big Bang as it is commonly described starts at a point in which all matter/energy in the now-known universe somehow come to be at a single point . This would be very similar to the classic description of a black hole, from which matter and energy(even light) cannot escape. So how did it 'explode' it's way out of there?

Foley wrote:
Some scientists postulate that the universe is in an endless cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, forever.


A point of speculation with no evidence. If matter/energy, as we know it, DID exist before the Big Bang but simply keep forming and reforming cyclically into 'universes' of various descriptions, then how is the concept of 'eternal matter' any less problematic than the concept of 'eternal God'?

Both involve a concept, 'eternity' , which is beyond the bounds of human experience and observation. Since it is not empirical in nature, not testable, repeatable, etc it is wholly outside the bounds of science, is it not?
0 Replies
 
Foley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:52 am
real life wrote:

A point of speculation with no evidence. If matter/energy, as we know it, DID exist before the Big Bang but simply keep forming and reforming cyclically into 'universes' of various descriptions, then how is the concept of 'eternal matter' any less problematic than the concept of 'eternal God'?

Both involve a concept, 'eternity' , which is beyond the bounds of human experience and observation. Since it is not empirical in nature, not testable, repeatable, etc it is wholly outside the bounds of science, is it not?


Good point. But they do have evidence that suggests that universe very well may come back in on itself and Big Bang all over again- which is why they think it may have been like that in the past.

Problem is, like you said, if the universe is eternal, then how is that more logical than God? And if it simply sprang into existence, then who or what created it?

I believe in an eternal universe, because Brahman is beyond time.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 10:05 pm
Foley wrote:
real life wrote:

A point of speculation with no evidence. If matter/energy, as we know it, DID exist before the Big Bang but simply keep forming and reforming cyclically into 'universes' of various descriptions, then how is the concept of 'eternal matter' any less problematic than the concept of 'eternal God'?

Both involve a concept, 'eternity' , which is beyond the bounds of human experience and observation. Since it is not empirical in nature, not testable, repeatable, etc it is wholly outside the bounds of science, is it not?


Good point. But they do have evidence that suggests that universe very well may come back in on itself and Big Bang all over again- which is why they think it may have been like that in the past.


If one 'localized' black hole cannot do this and will not let matter or energy escape........

...............how could 'the mother of all black holes' , the Universe just prior to the Big Bang, do this?

Foley wrote:
Problem is, like you said, if the universe is eternal, then how is that more logical than God? And if it simply sprang into existence, then who or what created it?

I believe in an eternal universe, because Brahman is beyond time.


The complexity of life is much easier to explain starting from an eternal Intelligence (God) than it is starting from eternal lifeless matter.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 01:03 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually, one cannot be "without elephants" so long as elephants exist. One may not have an elephant in his glove compartment or kitchen cabinet…but in the sense of "without gods"…one cannot be without elephants…or without horses…or without orange groves.


But you are merely applying a double standard to the notion of god in order to fit it into your circumscribed semantics. If god were an empirical entity then why couldn't one apply the same reasoning to it as one would to an elephant? One is without elephants if one doesn't have them in his glove compartment, or kitchen cabinet or anywhere else in one's vicinity or on one's person. What is it about your notion of god that, if it were an empirical entity, prevents it from being considered by the same empirical standards as any other empirical entity, such as an elephant?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 02:13 am
real life wrote:
Foley wrote:
Good point. But they do have evidence that suggests that universe very well may come back in on itself and Big Bang all over again- which is why they think it may have been like that in the past.



If one 'localized' black hole cannot do this and will not let matter or energy escape........

...............how could 'the mother of all black holes' , the Universe just prior to the Big Bang, do this?


Black holes do let energy/matter escape:

http://www.sciencenews.org/20030405/a3376_1829.jpg
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030405/fob7.asp

Stephen Hawking was the first to theorize about thermal radiation emitted from Black Holes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Where did you get the notion of the Big Bang being "the mother of all black holes"? Black Holes exist within space/time. The Big Bang was the initial unfolding of space/time itself.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 02:56 am
Terry wrote:
fresco, if the soul requires a brain to run, then it is not independent of the brain. Your analogy is not accurate. Neural connections are the software. Souls are equivalent to the output of your computer, such as the image on your computer screen or the music coming out of your speakers. If the computer is turned off or destroyed, the output/image/music is no longer being generated and simply ceases to exist.


Analogizing a computer's output and the 'soul' or 'self' isn't accurate either, though. The output of one's computer are physical phenomena. As far as we can tell the 'soul'/'self' isn't a physical phenomenon.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 04:47 am
Whenever life gets you down Misses Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
And you feel that you've had quite enough,
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 11:40 am
Exactly why is "proof" not allowed? Exactly what evidence could be used? This type of situation is loaded to disqualify ideas that maybe fully rational and plausible.

example - What is the greatest number?
a) infinity
b) -infinity
c) infinity^2
d) infinity+1
e) infinity-1
f) other
Now prove it. What proof could be made? Infinity is a valid concept and is NOT finite/measurable. The concept of what is the greatest number is also a valid querry.

You're arguement is like saying you can count to infinity, and you're asking the atheist to provide evidence that you can't, but no evidence is needed only proof.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 06:24 am
A viewpont from an atheist (not me but the author of the following piece).

Quote:


http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsriskhell/a/CertianGod.htm?nl=1
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 06:46 am
And to be fair, the other side of the coin.

Quote:
Does God exist? Is there proof of God? The following offers candid, straight-forward reasons to believe in the existence of God...

By Marilyn Adamson

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?

3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.

The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.

This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.

There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence--arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, disillusioned people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.

Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."9

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.10

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."11 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."12

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.

If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."13 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."14

So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way. If you need more information about Jesus' claim to divinity, or about God's existence, or if you have similar important questions, please email us.


http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
0 Replies
 
MaxOz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 12:30 am
Frank, Atheism, Punchlines and the merry go 'round
Morning Frank.

Mate, it's been a while hasn't it. I finally got sick of some of the puerile arguments over at Google & came across this forum and decided to join up and lo & behold, within seconds I've found the Frankmeister.

Well after a cursory glance at some of your posts, it's clear that your mantra hasn't changed any has it. Still using the same 'ol tired quips and arguments (if you can call 'em that). Oh, how's Nancy & the cat too. Hope all is well.

Well anyway, maybe it's time to get the ball rolling again with a challenge for you.

You still require evidence, not proof apparently. Tell me master of Frankobabble, for the ignorant amongst us (mainly me), what kind of evidence would you like.

The physical type, or perhaps a photo, or would you need say some DNA evidence. Please, for the record, what evidence do you need.

I'm all ears

Max
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:22 am
MaxOz,

You should note that last month Frank claimed to have retired from this forum and to have "removed us from his browser".

Regards fresco.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 08:31 am
"Is there a god?" I see no reason to seriously consider the question. If I had a reason to consider it then I would consider myself an agnostic.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:34 pm
I still find it to be a credible question and one worth investigation. For instance, the assumption of God could simply be the misunderstanding of the unverse.

I think it is just as premature to dismis God as it is to blindly accept it. I don't dismis the idea of god, but I don't go out shopping for one either.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 07:59:47