Is there proof God exists?

The only thing that I can say to KNOW that God exsists, is that I can feel him. How do you explain things such as healings? A little girl in my church was born deaf and when she was prayed for God healed her. I just don't understand how you can explain that?

Bart, it is very simple. I will walk you through it.

1) The bible is presented as the end all be all of answers with all thing regaurding life, the universe etc.

2) The bible has a story of creation.

3) The bible has many stories for that matter. The bible is presented by it's own supporters to be infoulable and 100% as it is claimed to be the "word of god." God being infoulable, it follows that the word of god, would additionally be perfect.

4) The bible gives a timeline which would date the earth as being very young.

5) The bible gives a origin for the languages of the world (as well as the genetic differences) with the story of the tower of Babel.

6) If the word of the bible is to be proven false in one area, it is only to follow that the entire bible is incorrect or that the bible is not perfect.

7) If the bible is not perfect uniformly, there is no way to tell the credibility of one story to the next.

8) Point 4 is easily addressed by the fossil record. Be the origin of the world evolution or creationism, the beginning did not occur as the bible accounts for.

9) Point 5 is easily addressed as the origins of our languages do not diverge from a singularity.

10) Being that the bible has been proven incorrect and contrary to even itself the claim that it is the world of god and therefore perfect is false.

11) Since it is not the word of god, and therefore not perfect, there is no basis to give any credibility to any of it's claims.

So here's the drill. If you truly belive what the bible claims, you have to believe in the whole thing, not just parts. You have to be ready to defend every word. You have to reconsile every contradiction. You have to be able to provide evidence for...

1) A flood that covered the entire earth at one time.
2) The origin of every race and language comes from a single event in history.
3) That man has one less rib.
4) That Jesus existed, lived, healed, died, resurected.

And be ready to explain why a god, any god be it abrahamic or not would need to hide evidence of itself.

Quite frankly, it's something nobody can do and there's a reason.

T
K
O

P.s. - This is the part where you try and sidestep me. I won't take it personal, I've come to expect it in this kind of discussions.

Bart, it is very simple. I will walk you through it.

1) The bible is presented as the end all be all of answers with all thing regaurding life, the universe etc. True, but it is not a scientific treatise. It was wrtitten for us yokels.

2) The bible has a story of creation. True

3) The bible has many stories for that matter. The bible is presented by it's own supporters to be infoulable and 100% as it is claimed to be the "word of god." God being infoulable, it follows that the word of god, would additionally be perfect. Infallible, yes. Though it has often been fouled

4) The bible gives a timeline which would date the earth as being very young. False

5) The bible gives a origin for the languages of the world (as well as the genetic differences) with the story of the tower of Babel. True for language.

6) If the word of the bible is to be proven false in one area, it is only to follow that the entire bible is incorrect or that the bible is not perfect. True; see 2Timothy 3:16

7) If the bible is not perfect uniformly, there is no way to tell the credibility of one story to the next. Huh?!

8) Point 4 is easily addressed by the fossil record. Be the origin of the world evolution or creationism, the beginning did not occur as the bible accounts for. Not as easily as you may think

9) Point 5 is easily addressed as the origins of our languages do not diverge from a singularity. Really?

10) Being that the bible has been proven incorrect and contrary to even itself the claim that it is the world of god and therefore perfect is false. BZZZT!

11) Since it is not the word of god, and therefore not perfect, there is no basis to give any credibility to any of it's claims. Unsubstantiated

So here's the drill. If you truly belive what the bible claims, you have to believe in the whole thing, not just parts. You have to be ready to defend every word. You have to reconsile every contradiction. You have to be able to provide evidence for...

1) A flood that covered the entire earth at one time. Left for future discussion
2) The origin of every race and language comes from a single event in history. Not so hard for language
3) That man has one less rib. Really? Why?
4) That Jesus existed, lived, healed, died, resurected. Much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence does exist

And be ready to explain why a god, any god be it abrahamic or not would need to hide evidence of itself. And he does that how?

Quite frankly, it's something nobody can do and there's a reason. Once again, it refers to your standards of evidence which I will soon address in another thread.
P.s. - This is the part where you try and sidestep me. I won't take it personal, I've come to expect it in this kind of discussions. Considering the fact that you have already sidestepped into the cheap seats, that would be difficult to do here.

Diest TKO wrote:

Bart, it is very simple. I will walk you through it.

1) The bible is presented as the end all be all of answers with all thing regaurding life, the universe etc. True, but it is not a scientific treatise. It was wrtitten for us yokels.

2) The bible has a story of creation. True

3) The bible has many stories for that matter. The bible is presented by it's own supporters to be infoulable and 100% as it is claimed to be the "word of god." God being infoulable, it follows that the word of god, would additionally be perfect. Infallible, yes. Though it has often been fouled

4) The bible gives a timeline which would date the earth as being very young. False

5) The bible gives a origin for the languages of the world (as well as the genetic differences) with the story of the tower of Babel. True for language.

6) If the word of the bible is to be proven false in one area, it is only to follow that the entire bible is incorrect or that the bible is not perfect. True; see 2Timothy 3:16

7) If the bible is not perfect uniformly, there is no way to tell the credibility of one story to the next. Huh?!

8) Point 4 is easily addressed by the fossil record. Be the origin of the world evolution or creationism, the beginning did not occur as the bible accounts for. Not as easily as you may think

9) Point 5 is easily addressed as the origins of our languages do not diverge from a singularity. Really?

10) Being that the bible has been proven incorrect and contrary to even itself the claim that it is the world of god and therefore perfect is false. BZZZT!

11) Since it is not the word of god, and therefore not perfect, there is no basis to give any credibility to any of it's claims. Unsubstantiated

So here's the drill. If you truly belive what the bible claims, you have to believe in the whole thing, not just parts. You have to be ready to defend every word. You have to reconsile every contradiction. You have to be able to provide evidence for...

1) A flood that covered the entire earth at one time. Left for future discussion
2) The origin of every race and language comes from a single event in history. Not so hard for language
3) That man has one less rib. Really? Why?
4) That Jesus existed, lived, healed, died, resurected. Much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence does exist

And be ready to explain why a god, any god be it abrahamic or not would need to hide evidence of itself. And he does that how?

Quite frankly, it's something nobody can do and there's a reason. Once again, it refers to your standards of evidence which I will soon address in another thread.
P.s. - This is the part where you try and sidestep me. I won't take it personal, I've come to expect it in this kind of discussions. Considering the fact that you have already sidestepped into the cheap seats, that would be difficult to do here.

If you Deist had a kidney removed...would your offspring be born with one kidney because of it? How about a leg, foot, finger....etc.

4) The bible gives a timeline which would date the earth as being very young. False

5) The bible gives a origin for the languages of the world (as well as the genetic differences) with the story of the tower of Babel. True for language.

6) If the word of the bible is to be proven false in one area, it is only to follow that the entire bible is incorrect or that the bible is not perfect. True; see 2Timothy 3:16

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

7) If the bible is not perfect uniformly, there is no way to tell the credibility of one story to the next. Huh?!

8) Point 4 is easily addressed by the fossil record. Be the origin of the world evolution or creationism, the beginning did not occur as the bible accounts for. Not as easily as you may think

9) Point 5 is easily addressed as the origins of our languages do not diverge from a singularity. Really?

I'll let you argue with the other creationists Neo. Christians get what you believe straigt first before stepping into the arena of debate.

I was speaking to your assertion that man has one less rib.

Diest TKO wrote:

I'll let you argue with the other creationists Neo. Christians get what you believe straigt first before stepping into the arena of debate.

I've always held that unbelievers have no need to create straw men when believers provide them in abundance. I'll have to get back to you later.

Bartikus wrote:

I was speaking to your assertion that man has one less rib.

Lol. It's not my assertion.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

I was speaking to your assertion that man has one less rib.

Lol. It's not my assertion.

T
K
O

Oh...you assert that the bible asserts it and therefore bible believers must back it up?

Bartikus wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

I was speaking to your assertion that man has one less rib.

Lol. It's not my assertion.

T
K
O

Oh...you assert that the bible asserts it and therefore bible believers must back it up?

You're catching on.

T
K
O

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

[ how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.

The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.

If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.

This is not a matter of light but of the order of creation. The stars were created before the earth, not after.

You asked how to account for the light.

OK, then account for it. And account for the conflict in the order of creation.

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

[ how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.

The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.

If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.

This is not a matter of light but of the order of creation. The stars were created before the earth, not after.

You asked how to account for the light.

OK, then account for it. And account for the conflict in the order of creation.

What conflict, xingu? Your assumption of a conflict is based on your misunderstanding of the text.

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

[ how do you account that we can see light from a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Your Bible says the earth was formed before these galaxies when the universe was an empty void. Therefore the earth would have to be older than 10 billion years, if we are to believe the Bible. Science says the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, younger than the stars of the universe. This is in direct conflict with the Bible.

The Bible states that light was in existence before the stars, so I am not sure why you think there is a conflict.

If the light was seen before the stars were made, why do you have a problem with the distance of the star? The light was already seen.

This is not a matter of light but of the order of creation. The stars were created before the earth, not after.

You asked how to account for the light.

OK, then account for it. And account for the conflict in the order of creation.

What conflict, xingu? Your assumption of a conflict is based on your misunderstanding of the text.

Real you don't know what your talking about. Quit beating around the bush. The Bible says plants and trees were created before the sun, moon and stars.

The Bible is wrong. Science says otherwise. If you disagree with science than give us evidence.

Is science ever wrong?

Bartikus

You know why you don't want to prove the Bible right?