Tolken

Sheniy - I just think it's ironic that we get scolded for twisting and manipulating Genesis to fit our theology, but with Hebrews 11:1 it's allowed. Human nature perhaps, we only want to see that which confirms our preconceived opinions. I won't say that there weren't times when I was guilty of the same..........

LookingForAnswers - God word was never intended to be taken one verse at a time. Nor was it intended for verses to be interpreted by use of only specific words out of context.

gray wolf - As I have quoted Alistair McGrath before: apologetics is not about winning the argument, it is about winning people to Christ. So true, and Craig, Plantinga, Moreland, etc. would totally agree as they are in the forefront of such debate. Though there is no proof there is reasoned support for our beliefs so that Christians can defend the faith. (1 Peter 3:15 ""...answer...for the hope..")

Gray Wolf - Let's give it a rest. Perhaps I miscommunicated what I was trying to say. I don't feel that I demonstrably voiced a falsehood. I meant to say we do not have a proof to offer, just compelling reasoning. Sorry, I misunderstood you. You are correct we don't have proof we have compelling reasons for our Faith...exactly as the Bible teaches.

Gray Wolf - I am intrigued by the idea that what Thomas saw and felt was not tantamount to proof at any rate. However, we can't prove what Thomas experienced, or Peter, or anyone else in the Bible. Our assent is based on arguments that give reason for our Faith, but we can't prove it.

Sheniy – Post #127 is an excellent post. If one chooses to take either a verse or passage out of context it is difficult to show them the error. Recently there was a discussion of Christian atrocities (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) and someone posted Matthew 10:34 with Jesus saying “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” to suggest that Jesus condoned such violence. As grace and faith are paramount to Christianity the understanding of their meaning and role in our lives is essential.

Nebula - Firstly, do you beleive the claims that Obama has trampled the Constituion to be false? If you could point to an example perhaps I could respond. Trampled is extreme, he has not “trampled” the constitution any more than past presidents such as Bush and Reagan. I see much of it as merely right wing posturing. As noted in a previous set of posts the charge of President Obama being a “traitor” appears to me to be baseless and false. Second, if your desire is to turn their criticism in a way more antithetical to Christian behavior and speach, you need to address this specificaly, presenting examples of how to do so (not saying you have to agree with the statement, just show how it should be done), you might find better success at results. Defending Obama as you have will not accomplish this. I’m afraid I am not sure what you mean here. My point was that criticism of the President should not be Antithetical to Christian behavior and speech.., I don't see where hate speech is a Christian virtue. (Also, false accusations would come under the same banner) You and I seem to be capable of discussing issues, though we disagree, without resorting to inflammatory jabs and retorts. As in the other posts I can state my thoughts/opinions without resorting to such additions as ...”if you believe that you are either stupid, a liar, or a moron”, or name calling. I try and offer opinion with support for why I take the position that I do, as I trust others would also. Defending Obama as you have will not accomplish this. Again, I am unsure what you mean. I am not attempting to convince or persuade anyone other than to show that there are two sides to the issue. The facts speak for themselves, I do not pretend to know the heart of anyone. (1 Sam. 16:7) When Obama is called a socialist I am simply pointing out, by evidence, that then Reagan should have been termed a socialist. That was supported by proof of Reagan's tax raises, push to raise taxes on the wealthy, etc., one can choose to disregard the facts. One may continue to call him a socialist but they do so with no justification that I can see. The whole issue with Obama being a traitor is pure nonsense and I was more then willing to provide support. Bias is an extremely strong force in our lives .....

Nebula - I can't speak for everyone, but I know my feelings of disdain are magnified because of this "Obama worship" from the left. I don’t see where President Obama has made such effort or endorsed this worship? We, I will include myself, often place people we greatly admire on a pedestal, ignoring the shortcomings and focusing only on the positives, I think it is a quite “human” trait. But do you have an objection to politics being expressed on a Christian message board in a section reserved for such? No, not at all, however, I do think President Obama is unfairly demonized. I truly believe that much of the “scandals”, calls for impeachment, and termed as traitor are simply biased hate, and upon closer inspection amount to pure partisanship. I also think that the republican house is equally responsible for the current malaise. If one chooses to criticize President Obama then they should do so in a manner not antithetical to Christian behavior and speech. I haven’t witnessed such behavior on Worthy. Change that "will" to "is" and I agree. If you don't see the evidence of such, I wonder how you could be seeing things from a neutral perspective? If one is going to accuse President Obama of socialism than by the same rational they should also place former President Reagan under the same umbrella. Reagan raised taxes, drove up the deficit, and pushed for increased taxes on the wealthy. As a matter of fact at the time the tax rate was considerably higher...tax rates are presently lower. One also can’t deny that Reagan has been virtually a “god” to many republicans, so to an extent there is worship involved. As I believe I noted in a previous post I have a number of issues with President Obama that I have clearly expressed through my reps and elsewhere. Though I would suggest that is quite common...”can’t please all the people all the time”... but I do express my opinions to the “powers that be”. *For whatever reason this thread is on the second page, and the last noted post is March 18 by Other One? Probably why I was late with this.............. Blessings

Enoch2021 - What part of ......"No disrespect intended but I'm done with this" didn't you understand? Especially when you replied back with.....None Taken. ?? Well, I saw you continue to post and thought that you'd changed your mind. But since you were unable to respond to me except with the above vacuous remarks...I will cease. Obviously Sheniy and LookingForAnswers understand Hebrews 11:1 and "Faith" so perhaps they will be able to correct your misinterpretation. .

Enoch2021 - With all do respect I can only assume that you were unable to challenge my post regarding your mis-reading of Hebrews 11:1 ...otherwise you seem to be continuing along the same lines?

Enoch2021 - No disrespect intended but I'm done with this. None taken.......

Enoch2021 - Well that begs the question....how in the world can you be "Certain" based on just a belief?? Ask God he inspired the writings...it is simply a paradox of which Christianity contains many. I would suggest that you look up faith and belief as obviously the meaning eludes you. It isn’t “begging the question” that is the core of Christianity...that is why people call it a Faith! "Hoped for" isn't the "key" for our purposes LOL. Faith -------> IS <-------the substance..... OF things hoped for. Then what's Substance?? (SEE: Slide above) There you are totally wrong “hoped for” is the key.” The verse does not say “Faith is the substance and evidence”. The “OF” is a preposition, prepositions are relational so you can’t merely dismiss “hoped for” as you see fit. The very purpose of a preposition is to relate words within a sentence thus “Substance” is related to “hope”, and any interpretation requires one to relate those two words. So, Faith is the substance of ( of what?) “things hoped for”. Therefore Faith is based on belief, it is the certainty, confidence, title-deed, and substance of things hoped for, it is a paradox. We haven't received the Red Rider BB yet, per say, that is.... we are not with HIM in Heaven just yet. But we still have the SUBSTANCE or EVIDENCE of it...more on this below. All analogies fail at some level but I see that you made use of it, although your final point is mistaken. We don’t have substance or evidence we have faith, trust, belief in the actualization of that trust, faith, and belief. BMW Again, any teleological argument is supportive not proof. One can take all of the arguments for God and you still end with a “Reasoned Faith” not proof. In a previous post I mentioned some names, which amusingly you went on a rant about, and all I was suggesting was that they are in the front line of debate on all of these arguments for God’s existence and the veracity of the Bible. It's not arrogance, just old hat...I've seen and refuted all of them @ one time or another. But since you never support your assertions we just won't know. I’ve supported my assertion as to Hebrews 11:1 and to Faith. Once you realize your mistaken reading of that passage you may understand why I no longer choose to hop aboard that merry-go-round...been there, done that. Perhaps too you will understand that you can support your faith/belief but never refute counter arguments based on proof – because it doesn’t exist. (Which is actually another Atheist argument) A more accurate description would be...... you will NOT respond to "the rest" of my response because of......whatever. Because, how would you Know whether to ignore my response or not if you had ignored it to begin with?? No, because what you continually fail to realize is that Faith and proof are contradictions. Having proof doesn’t require the need for Faith. Once again, belief in God, Jesus, the Bible is based on Faith which happens to be exactly what the Bible says. So your ramblings offer no validity when the very premise is amiss. "If the proposition is wrong, reason increases maleficence." RW Also look up "Appeal to Authority" and "Argument to Popularity" Unlike you I am quite aware of fallacious arguments, you toss them around so often they lose all meaning. First “appeal to authority” is not a fallacy when one actually uses an authority to support their claim. (It is a fallacy when you use a podiatrist to support your claim regarding biblical prophesy) So when I wrote “take your prophesy proofs up with them.” it was not an appeal but a suggestion for you to view counter arguments. "Argument to Popularity" once again, you attempt to apply something where no argument was made. “I would suggest that you contact a number apologists” is not an argument to popularity.

Nebula - why is this thread is so far down? I have to go to the second page to find it...and the main post doesn't show it being updated? Thought maybe you would know as you are much more experienced here...

Nebula - But why are you ignoring the hate and spite filled comment spewing out of the MSNBC, John Stewart, Whoopie Goldburg, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, etc.? I don't believe I did...aren't Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz liberals? I didn't attempt to list everyone as there are far too many on both sides. My only point is that one will gravitate to whatever their bias and simply parrot what they hear from whomever they happen to listen/watch. More often than not there is quite a bit left out, and truth is most Americans simply want to hear what they want to hear - left or right. No, but I have no problem admitting it. I don't act centrist while speaking leftist or rightist. I simply believe in equal opportunity criticism. If one actually takes a historical perspective they will certainly see that whether government is dominated by Repubs or Dems the very same issues never seem to be resolved in any positive way. Oh, and I am a centrist politically because I am a realist in that compromise is the only way forward. At the moment we stand at zero because one side wants 50 and the other 100, when they should agree on somewhere in between. If you can offer examples of how to hate the policies and actions without hating the man, please display this. No, it is one of the reasons that I left the boards 7 years ago. I can't recall which "Christian" site I was on then, and I don't feel like taking the time to track down those posts, even if I could. I do recall a posting where a "Christian" maintained that President Obama was the Anti-Christ...so I took a minute to look up that, and low and behold: *A Texas megachurch pastor recently claimed that President Barack Obama's re-election victory would lead to the rise of the Antichrist. (In the Christian Post) *A sign at Spirit One Christian Center in Wichita, Kansas, claims Barack Obama is a Muslim and describes his election as "a sin against the Lord." *As Steven Anderson told his congregation on August 16, 2009, "you have probably never heard a sermon like this before. Actually, you probably have if you have been coming to church here for a while. But you know what? Here is my sermon, why I hate Barack Obama. That's my sermon tonight, because Barack Obama is coming to town tomorrow morning." Pastor Anderson has gained national and international media attention for that sermon, in which he declared he is praying "imprecatory prayer" for Obama's death. http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/9/2/12392/06622 *Pastor Hagee Warns Christians That `Obama Will Bring Absolute Socialism to America' I'm sure there are myriad more examples...I will state this, I would never attend a church where the Pastor expressed by sermon his political views.

Define Faith? See my previous post. Define Substance? No, let’s not take a term out of context but rather put it into context. Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, ...” “Substance” can be interpreted a number of ways but for the sake of your argument we will leave it at substance. You wrongly focus all of your interpretation on that very word “substance” and neglect the meaning of the verse. “Hoped for” is the key. As a child if you “hoped for” a red rider BB gun, one could conclude that the BB gun has “substance” but at present it is only a “hope”. Obviously then if you do receive the BB gun you would no longer “hope”...why would you hope for something that you already have. Same with Faith, “substance” is hoped for not as of yet actualized. But the verse continues “..., the evidence of things not seen.” If you can’t see the “evidence” how can you prove it exists? The ability to see the effect in no way authenticates the cause. Same with Faith is “not seen”. We can see the effects and and by Faith we believe in the cause, God. I’ll ignore the rest of your response as you seem to be having enough difficulty with the definition of Faith.

Part 2: And unlike Obama, nothing Bush did got americans killed. I would suggest that 4,486 deaths of American soldiers is significant...especially when the “war” was a fabrication. It matters little to America but estimates put the civilian deaths over 100,000. Look at fast and furious “Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.” So how easy is it to get guns? Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases. Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich." By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others." whats happened in the past doesn't matter-we can't change that, its whats happening now, that we can. Nonsense, those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. All that I am suggesting is that we should address history. Obviously the actions of Reagan, Bush, etc. can be swept under the carpet...no big deal it was in the past. I am simply suggesting that by evidence and fact the “traitorous” allegations you’ve made are without foundation and simply motivated by right wing bias. The simple question was should Reagan have been "jailed" for his "traitorous" acts? Should Bush have been "jailed" for his "traitorous" acts? How can you stand behind a president who is wrecking our economy and leaving americans out to die, and then covering it up? how can you? Because you are wrong....simple as that. If anyone is wrecking the economy it is the republicans with their norquistian tax mandates, and their unalterable defense of corporatism and plutocracy. You do realize I trust what the responsibilities of the house of reps comprises and they have simply thwarted any attempt to move this country forward. If you want I will spend some time looking up quotes from any number of republicans supporting stimulus packages under Bush and yet rejecting the same scenarios under Obama. So put blame where blame is due. You want to walk away? agree to disagree? then do so. “I will just add, few recall that a professor from the University of Chicago predicted the financial collapse of 2008, though totally dismissed by the large majority of economists, his prediction was based on several factors one of which was income inequality. An interesting read is Hendrick Smith, or Hacker and Pierson's "Winner-Take-All Politics", and also Wendell Potter” I guess I didn’t realize this was anything but a suggestion of some informative reading material. It was not written as an argument, I’m afraid I don’t see an argument in there.. As for Bengazi I can address that later after I get a few priorities accomplished.

Nebula - And you are blaming average American citizens for this? I don’t believe that is what I wrote, but what I am saying is that the “vitriol spewed in politics” has translated into civil conversation. The rush limbaughs, rachel maddows, sean hannitys, ed shultz, etc. simply inflame the fracture and very often with outright lies on issues. Yet, now that you mention it, yes the American people simply blindly follow whatever bias they embrace. It is quite clear how one-sided you are are; so please quit acting as if you are not. Am I to assume you are not one-sided? For me absolutely, I am one sided in defending the Obama bashing right, and did the same to the left when Bush was President. No, I am not completely blaming the tea party but such narrow minded inertia leads nowhere in the political sphere. If the situation was reversed, Republican president and democratic house, the right would be screaming their heads off at the obstructionism....wouldn’t they? I have my own disconnect with Obama and I actually write to my senator and congress man on issues important to me...and receive responses. The vitriol and hate spewed by many “Christians” I find appalling, rational criticism is not an issue. I personally take Romans 13 with some seriousness which doesn’t negate disagreement but certainly places limits on unchecked hateful rhetoric.

Part 1: the_patriot2014 -So please, actually read what I have to say. So please, actually read what I have to say. “America has been in a very materialistic cycle for decades-people want more and more and more, and didn't want to pay for it, so they went more and more into debt-our government included. When you spend more then you make, ya doh your going to go bankrupt.” That is what you stated initially, I appreciate that you backtracked after my comments. As far as stagnant, I dont see it. Obviously you haven’t been looking. And anecdotal “fact” of a personal account hardly extrapolates into the broader issue. “These data underscore that there is a bigger story than public versus private compensation and a more penetrating set of questions to ask than who has more than whom. The ability of the economy to produce more goods and services has not translated into greater compensation for either group of workers. Why has pay fared so poorly overall? Why did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)? Why are corporate profits 22% above their pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3% below pre-recession levels? The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.1 Essentially, economic policy has not supported good jobs over the last 30 years or so. Rather, the focus has been on policies that were thought to make consumers better off through lower prices: deregulation of industries, privatization of public services, the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage, erosion of the social safety net, expanding globalization, and the move toward fewer and weaker unions. These policies have served to erode the bargaining power of most workers, widen wage inequality, and deplete access to good jobs. In the last 10 years even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.” http://www.epi.org/publication/the_sad_but_true_story_of_wages_in_america/ If you would like I can post myriad sites, books, and such that support the same exact scenario...wages are stagnant. Bush was justified about Iraq. Ive talked to the soldiers that have come back-they did find strong evidence that hussein was indeed making chemical weapons as well as in the beginning process of nukes. It was even released to the media, where it got one article-yet another example of a biased media covering up the truth. No, he wasn’t justified, and if that is what your “soldier” friends told you they were wrong. No media cover-up...as if fox news would cover such a story up. “ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes." “Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.” “The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005.” Call President Bush...he will tell you that no weapons were found. The war was a total fabrication of falsehoods and there was no media cover-up, a convenient way around the truth. the geneva conventions been around for much longer then Bush, so I fail to even see your argument there. Shouldn’t Bush/cheney be held accountable? “The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.” http://www.alternet.org/story/140352/us_violated_geneva_conventions,_bush_iraq_commander_says/

Enoch2021 - Well your problem is your Fallacious Faith Definition. The 1st step is recognition. Then please explain Ephesians 2:8-9? Explain why Faith is necessary if something is proved? All of your attempts at proofs ultimately refer back to the bible...simply put it is circular regardless of whether you mask it with 1LOT or not. As you are aware or should be there are other options, I would suggest that you contact a number apologists to inform them that you have proofs that don’t require faith. William Lane Craig would be very interested as he can take his book “Reasonable Faith” of the market.. A Blatant Generalized Unsupported Conjecture LOL...... "A simple search", eh? You are well beyond your depth, I can assure you. Arrogance becomes you... I don’t choose to post refutations from Atheist sites. That is why I chose to offer a “blatant generalized unsupported conjecture”...which by the way seems to be an excessive use of adjectives. The best I will do is you can look up Chris Sandoval, Richard Carrier, Curt van den Heuvel, Jim Lippard, and a few others, take your prophesy proofs up with them. Just fyi....you're already in Checkmate.Then I'll post about 25 or more SPECIFIC ones in the OT concerning Christ to put an Exclamation Point on "PROOF". You must be a very poor chess player if you think you have even approached checkmate. Define Natural Means? You will not prove God though physics, geology, biology, etc. Nature can certainly point to a creator but it can not prove God. Define Proof? Evidence that supports a specified assertion. Irrefutable certainty and validity. Define Biblical Faith? Certainty based on belief. Confidence that doesn’t reside on concrete evidence. Is Hearing Proof? Or is it Blind Faith, from the Hearing? I believe Sheniy, and she may correct me if I am mistaken, means hearing the Word draws one to the Bible. That the Word of God is fundamental to our beliefs. Fideism is blind faith, the arguments for God, for the Bible give “reason” to faith.

the_patriot2014 - Yes stagnant wages are tough on workers. however let me point out if you improve the economy, the wages will improve on their own. The stagnant wages arnt what caused the economy to collapse theyre just a symptom of the problem thats making it worse-the answer is to back off the idustry and the wages will take care of themselves. I will continue this tomorrow, as I sit "behind my desk reading news", and since clearly you know absolutely nothing about me perhaps you should rethink making comments without appropriate information. I know what income inequality is. Its when some people make more then others. Actually, you don't as it is not simply spending more than one makes. Further, since you weren't aware, worker wages have been virtually stagnant for some 30 years. At the same time executive pay has increased exponentially. What you aren't aware of is that at one time workers were considered stakeholders so that as the company succeeded so did the workers/employees. So your assertion is totally wrong as proven by the WSJ article and many others. If Wall St. is at an all time high, if corporate profits are at an all time high, and if executive pay is at an all time high, then why do tell are worker wages stagnant. Also, have you checked the healthcare cost percentages over time? I stand corrected on the EPA. Doesnt change my point however. Yes, tell the people in Arkansas how wonderful oil pipelines are, lousy EPA who needs a clean environment....so oil companies overcharge so that they may make record setting profits. As to the debt please check into the fact that tax rates are the lowest i 30 years...but norquitrian republicans refuse to touch taxes. Fast and furious/Iran-contra ... patriot act, Iraq, Geneva convention, if you want I can list 20 scandals under Bush. I know his heart was in the right place...wherever that is. I would be glad to pick this up tomorrow since you refused my offer to just agree to disagree. (For your information I worked in management for some 20 plus years in publishing/printing. For the past 20 years I've run my own business in music post production and graphics... when I'm not sitting behind my desk reading news.)

the_patriot2014 - Two, im pulling out to. You have yet to bring forth a single argument based upon facts, and continuing debate not based on facts isn't beneficial to anyone. Interesting, because all that I see above is your opinion...facts? It is amusing that you dismiss the professor from UoC when in fact his predictions were dismissed..calling him a "moron" is your idea of fact. I would call it an ignorant comment. Obviously you have no idea what income inequality is being referred to, as it is not some sort of egalitarian philosophy. (Nice strawman) You erroneously jump to some sort of socialist view...I suggested some possible sources to enlighten you. Wall St. Journal headline (hardly liberal) - if you need more such reports let me know.....Guess that professor isn't such a "moron" 10 or 12 years later. "Stagnant Wages Are Crimping Economic Growth"...Wall Street is setting records but "Stagnant wages aren't only tough on workers — the American economy is paying a price, too. Living standards aren't rising. Consumer spending, which is 70% of the economy, is more restrained. And the recovery advances at a slower pace." You really should check your source for facts. Interesting to that the stock markets are breaking all time records...someone's making money. (I know, the EPA was started under Bush-but it has only gotten worse under Obama) The EPA was started under Nixon...fact. how the EPA is choking out work in natural resources such as coal and oil Really, and yet Exxon Mobil has had the largest profits of any corporation in history...Fact. So if you want to continue I can post facts that show that the moron (and I guess you) predicted the worst recession since the 30's in deference to the majority of economists... and substantial facts regarding income inequality... not socialism.

Sheniy -But what I said was God can't be found by natural means. We can never prove He exists. That's where faith comes in. And faith comes from hearing the Word. Exactly, unless one chooses to deny Ephesians 2:8-9 "...through faith...".

the_patriot2014 - Secondly, my opinion about whether they should be impeached as well as yours-does not matter. Now see we are in almost complete disagreement as to Obama being a traitor and Bush/cheney having their hearts in the "right place" but rather then an endless cycle I will leave it at...the old - we'll agree (or not) to disagree. I will just add, few recall that a professor from the University of Chicago predicted the financial collapse of 2008, though totally dismissed by the large majority of economists, his prediction was based on several factors one of which was income inequality. An interesting read is Hendrick Smith, or Hacker and Pierson's "Winner-Take-All Politics", and also Wendell Potter concerning healthcare. Blessings....

Enoch2021 - What was it....a "Lucky Guess"?? No, it is called Faith. If absolute/irrefutable proof existed then Faith would not be necessary. As I've shown you before God as the creator because it states so in the Bible is circular reasoning... the proof depends on the truth of the statement itself. God exists because the Bible says The Bible is true because it is the Word of God Both are based on non-proven assumptions. **** There exists many refutations of biblical prophesy including Daniel. A simple search will lead you to many examples of the prophecies being refuted based on both date and fulfillment. Again, we are right back to Faith.

JerryR34 -Bottom line...if a person did not know of the bible, there is no proof in nature that could lead him to Jesus. I've been looking for that proof, but it's nowhere to be found. True, we can posit an intelligence for the cause of the universe, earth, nature, humanity, etc. but otherwise only through the biblical record can we commit to a Faith based belief in the Christian God/Jesus. Trust in the Bible as authoritative still demands Faith.There is no irrefutable proof that can lead to God or to Jesus, if there was then faith is rendered pointless. Yet Faith can be supported with reason and need not be blind.