KingEbukasBlog:


God did not create itself . God is eternal - no beginning , no end . God has always been .

HCpaul:


You are right bro cuz an imaginary god cannot even create itself not to talk of creating stuffs like the universe, the stars, planets and other planetary bodies.

If this remains your established fact upon which the existence formation of your god rest upon, then that truthfully signifies that your god ain't real and it's in it in-existing state.

Beside, the imaginary concept behind your god ideology is weird.

Imagine, 3 men was executed on the cross (same day) and one, out of greediness and a lust for fame and abiding popularity nominated himself as the saviour of mankind.

Please start living your real life my brother.

LiberaDeus:


1. Your first claim that god is perfect but humans arent debunks christianity already. If imperfect humans corrupted gods word then how do you know the extent to which it was corrupted. What if the whole religion is corrupted. Lets examine this facts
- The over 50 messianic prophecies werent fulfilled by Jesus in any way
- The claim of god being loving is totally contradicted by the behavior of yahweh in the old testament and the existence of a place of eternal torment for sinners
- The historical claims of the bible are very bogus and inaccurate
- The scientific claims of the bible are questionable and primitive

The above mentioned errors are not just slight errors that we can attribute to human failures but humongous monumental contradictions that cant be glossed over. These contradictions show that the whole stuff is man made.

2. There are 2 billion christians in the world. According to the gospel of mark, christians should heal the sick, raise the dead, drink poison and generally perform miraculous feats. Even if half the christians are heretics, the number is so large that we should see real life effects of this power. Independent investigations into faith healing claims have proven that no miraculous healing can be confirmed only remissions, psychosomatic effects of religion etc. This isnt rocket science. We all know that christians are normal human beings that can be sick, poor, rich, dumb, wise etc. There is nothing in your lifestyles and belief that show there is a seperate effect or power working on the life of the christian.

3. Many in which fields. The only people that put proofs forward are christian apologists like Ken Ham, Institute of creation research, discovery institute etc. Please show me any reputable unbiased scientific body that has confirmed biblical claims as fact. Let me list some biblical claims for you
- The resurrection claim
- The exodus of israel
- The wealth of Solomon
- The genocide of King Herod on babies in the gospels
- The miraculous stunts of Jesus
- The empire of David
- The existence of the garden of eden
- Noahs Flood
- Tower of Babel

There is no reputable institution or scientist in the fields of history, archaeology, geology, linguistics, anthropology etc that can confidently tell you that these claims are facts. The claims above are totally unscientific, unverified and outright mythological.

There is no paradigm affecting me, the facts are clear for everyone to see and a proper observation and weighing of the facts lead to the conclusion that these things never happened.

KingEbukasBlog:


Atheism is a man made idea . It was born out of ignorance . I will open a thread soon that expounds this .

PDBonline:

1. God is MY Father and MY God. I know Him personally

2. Because the more I reason and discuss with atheists, the more the foolishness of atheism hits me. Pardon me if you are an atheist. Just sharing my personal observation.

3. Because I rely on the grace of God to keep me from deception and God has been faithful to show me the errors of my mind at my down times.

randomperson:
Atheism is foolish?? Now, shall we consider what u consider wise...
- that the sun was made before light
- that u were made from dust
- that Noah packed millions of species of animals into a boat- carnivores included- for hundreds of days- though some animals don't even live that long,
- that a good god accepted a human being as burnt offering
- that a good god provided wild animals to tear 42 children to pieces
- that an omniscient god was surprised and sad that people were evil.
I could go on and on but it won't serve any purpose, u need your delusions

PDBonline:


Reference to the bold text: those are very false claims. Do more research. And don't be selected about whose"evidence" you are willing to check up.

My reference to imperfection is a summary of thoughts because there are many sides to that. The Bible will be contradictory and full of errors to you when you are not a student willing to learn. There are things I considered errors, contradictions etc before but the pursuit of knowledge proved me wrong.

ScepticalPyrrho:
How does these contemporary proofs, whatever they are, indicates that Yahweh of the Bible exists?

Which of the gods does your contemporary proofs identifies with?

Zeus, Allah, Vishnu, Brahma, etc faithfuls are all relying on the contemporary proofs as evidences.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jew demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

peacesamuel94:



so you mean you've witnessed the blind Receiving their sight In the name of Vishnu, or the Lame walk in Zeus's name?

ScepticalPyrrho:
Nope.
So?

peacesamuel94:



but your earlier assertions contradicts this.

"Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American historian, New Testament scholar, and philosopher of religion who frequently writes and lectures on the Resurrection of Jesus.

Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.[1] He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion and an M.A. (1973) from the University of Detroit in Philosophical Theology.[2] He has specialized in cataloging and communicating trends among scholars in the field of historical Jesus and New Testament studies.

In 1985, Dr. Gary Habermas and Antony Flew debated the question of Jesus' resurrection as a literal and historical/physical event, before a crowd of 3000 people. Five philosophers and five professional debate judges judged the debate. Of the philosophers who judged ON THE CONTENT OF THE DEBATE, four voted that Habermas won and the other was undecided. Of the debate judges who voted on debate technique, three voted for Habermas while two voted for Flew.."

several notable scholars have maintained that the early Christians had a thoroughly "Jewish" outlook on the nature of the resurrection. Contrary to Carrier, N.T. Wright argues that the earliest Christian belief concerning resurrection was thoroughly physical and very much related to the common Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection.

On the belief in resurrection in early Christianity, Wright says,
“Christianity began as resurrection movement... there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief, as it were, bolted on to Christianity at the edge. It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement. In particular, we can see woven into the earliest Christian theology we possess—that of Paul, of course—the belief that the resurrection had in principle occurred and that the followers of Jesus had to reorder their lives, their narratives, their symbols, and their praxis accordingly.

PDBonline:
ALSO ON RESURRECTION


Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus

PDBonline:
ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Source: Wikipedia (Dr. Gary Habermas)

Read the summary of the findings Dr. Gary made on information gathered from historians from 1975 here:

http://garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

The conclusion is that there was no doubting the fact that the disciples of Jesus truly believes Jesus rose from the dead and they passed the message on orally.

LiberaDeus:


Guy Gary Habernas is a renowned Christian apologist.

You could as well cite William Lane Craig, David Wood and Frank Turek as objective scholars. All these are renowned Christian apologists.
And even if Habernas won the debate then, it still doesn't move the scholarly consensus in the side of the resurrection. Do you know how many debates Bart Ehrman has won?

The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is one of the most famous from the Bible, and now an acclaimed underwater archaeologist thinks he has found proof that the biblical flood was actually based on real events.

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour for ABC News, Robert Ballard, one of the world's best-known underwater archaeologists, talked about his findings. His team is probing the depths of the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey in search of traces of an ancient civilization hidden underwater since the time of Noah.

See photos from her journey HERE

Ballard's track record for finding the impossible is well known. In 1985, using a robotic submersible equipped with remote-controlled cameras, Ballard and his crew hunted down the world's most famous shipwreck, the Titanic.

Now Ballard is using even more advanced robotic technology to travel farther back in time. He is on a marine archeological mission that might support the story of Noah. He said some 12,000 years ago, much of the world was covered in ice.

"Where I live in Connecticut was ice a mile above my house, all the way back to the North Pole, about 15 million kilometers, that's a big ice cube," he said. "But then it started to melt. We're talking about the floods of our living history."

The water from the melting glaciers began to rush toward the world's oceans, Ballard said, causing floods all around the world.

"The questions is, was there a mother of all floods," Ballard said.

According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path.

Fascinated by the idea, Ballard and his team decided to investigate.

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

Ambling through the parched and scarred landscape of eastern Washington state is the 60-mile-long Grand Coulee, the largest of the stair-step canyons that give the region called the Channeled Scablands its character. Looking out over this majestic scenery, a visitor feels compelled to throw open both arms, take a deep breath, and say, "Wow! How did this get here?"

That turns out to be a deceptively simple question. It's the same one that J Harlen Bretz, a geologist from the University of Chicago, asked in 1922. And it's the question that led him to propose one of the boldest ideas in all of 20th-century geology.

A river runs through it

To the trained eye, the terraced profile of Grand Coulee's cliffs says, "Water was here." So do the crisscrossing, stream-like paths carved into the floors of many of the lesser coulees. It's no surprise, then, that geologists in the early 1900s concluded Grand Coulee had been carved by a river, probably the Columbia, slowly etching its way down through layer upon layer of dirt and rock.

That was the mainstream view when Bretz went to the Channeled Scablands in 1922 to do field studies. And his first impression of the terrain was consistent with that thinking. When he came across hills of gravel 10 stories tall, for example, he considered them terrace remnants—the remains of a riverbank that had been slowly worn away.

But the more Bretz investigated the region, the more unusual landforms he found: winding channels that split off into smaller and smaller branches, crisscrossed each other, and sometimes joined together again; here and there inside the canyons, peculiar hills shaped like the prow of a boat; fan-shaped fields of debris on the canyon floors; and more.

He began to realize that slow-acting erosion by a river could not adequately explain it all. Something sudden and much more violent was required. And the massive proportions of the scabland features, often measuring hundreds of feet, meant that whatever had formed them happened on such a gigantic scale, nothing like it had ever been seen.

The best fit for all the evidence, Bretz concluded, was a catastrophic flood. This hypothesis was so contrary to the collective wisdom of hundreds of years of geology, however, that even Bretz doubted it at first.

The key to the past

The slow, steady action of erosion was quite familiar to geologists of Bretz's day. Eons worth of its handiwork could be seen worldwide, and geologists were busily observing the process in full swing. Thus, erosion fit nicely with "the present is the key to the past," a phrase that had practically been the slogan of geologists since being coined in the 1830s by Charles Lyell, one of the founders of modern geology.

LiberaDeus:


Guy read before you lost something.

This just shows that at the beginning of Christendom, resurrection was a central belief in the early church. Please when does having a belief equate to reality.

We can also say since most Greeks in the classical era believed in mount Olympus, that means mount Olympus must have existed and since most Greeks believed in Hercules then that means Hercules must have existed.

What you posted doesn't prove the fact of a resurrection occurring the same way the existence of Islam doesn't prove that prophet Muhammad rode to heaven in a flying horse named buraq.

PDBonline:
Edited: Refer to the questions below and those after for the same thought I'm trying to communicate.

If the resurrection was not true because there was no "evidence" to support it, is there evidence with the same level of certainty you demand to the contrary? For example, is there undisputable evidence of where the body of Jesus is. After all, with the "noise" (which historians don't doubt) about the resurrection, those who are against it and the Romans should have just produced the body of Jesus to shame the believers. Do you have evidence that this most logical thing happened?

Especially giving that authoritative sources (historians and philosophers) do not doubt that the disciples of Jesus were genuinely convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

PDBonline:
ScepticalPyrrho, Randomperson the above questions are for you too.

The truth us that there is more in support of the death and resurrection of Jesus than against. That's why the first attack is to disrepute the Bible as if it is one piece of material. When you disregard what you can find and insist on what hasn't been found (as if not yet available equals never will be) then you show insincerity and a second motive behind such stand.

PDBonline:

I know God is real to the point that if I say otherwise, I know it is a pure lie... because this "Knowing" is not academic. It's deeper than knowing Buhari is the president of Nigeria. It's an experiential knowledge.

The problem is, people who don't know God personally trying to convince someone who does otherwise instead of honestly asking how to know.

dblackninja:


You've made this claim far too long without actually telling us how you knew this God. You might have discovered something that will ultimately change the course of humanity. Please tell us HOW YOU KNOW GOD IS REAL.

ScepticalPyrrho:


Well, good observation.

My position is not dependent on the popularity of the story of the death and resurrection of christ stories.

Why is this so?

If you read through history, there have always been cases where an entire race can be wrong. And a single person is right.

Besides that the growth of knowledge and technological advancement have always been championed by people who are not shy but bold enough to challenge the existing customs and beliefs.

In the field of jurisprudence, it is absorbed that the truth of a matter may not be determined by the higher population in support of a claim. Accepting the opinion of majority as definitely true is considered a fallacy in logic and law (argumentum ad populum).
It took a bold Copernicus to inform the whole world that the world is spherical and not flat. Even the bible writers thought the world was flat(unarguable!).

That being said. I believe you can understand why the fact that our position is unpopular doesn't flutter us.

That asides. It can still be argued that christianity is not the most popular of religions when we can assume that China having about 30 percent of the world's population are majorly Buddhists. And a good number of Indians, Thai, Vietnam, and other far-Eastern countries are Buddhists.

Lastly, Buddhism was earlier practised. And the story of the life of Gautama Buddha is similar to that of Christ, who were all from the same continent. I'm sure you never knew this. But read about the similarities of the two interesting stories then tell me who is the likely copy.

Read more bro, read more.

jonbellion:
actually the problem isn't the belief in God
The problem is religious Gods
Religious Gods aren't real
I cant say the same for a supreme being
But the supreme being is NOT the a Abrahamic God
You can be a diest
Deism is much more logical
Diests acknowledge God
But they don't see why a perfect God should demand worship from it's followers and punish those who don't abide
Same with atheists
And that's the kind of God religion portrays
I'm an agnostic athiest
I'm very much open to the idea of a creator
If I should acknowledge one I'd be a diest
Thiesm is dumb

NubiLove:
You are agnostic atheist... I am a Deist. You talk like a Deist, most Atheist are usually just about ridiculing theists and God.