Proof in the existance of God

[sagz4Christ]

Fovezer,

I have been looking for something that I could point you to to help answer some of your questions.

I remembered a book my father has called "Jesus amoung other gods" by Ravi Zacharias.

Here is the web site:

jesusamongothergods.com

And here is an introduction to the information. Note, this is taken from the front page of the site:

Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.  Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do not claim it to be a 'better' way.  Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it. How does one, to a mood such as this, communicate the message of Jesus Christ, in which Truth and absoluteness are not only assumed, but sustained?"

  Ravi Zacharias

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In our pluralistic day, when society can "customize" or choose what they want to believe, it is possible to find some expert from somewhere to defend any view. Why do we exist? Why can't evolution explain our moral sense? Why do we need God? Do we even need a god?

Ravi Zacharias, one of the world's most acclaimed experts on defending Christianity, provides answers for these postmodern schools of thought in his latest book, Jesus Among Other Gods. In this cutting-edge book, the claims of Christianity are compared to the beliefs of Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. Zacharias gives insight into the relevant cultures in which these faiths have originated by comparing the founders of each to the authentic life of Christ. In the end, solid evidence is given as to why one would want to choose Jesus as THE God when there are many other gods in which society says to place our faith.

You are invited to scroll through this web site. Included in these pages you find a chart comparison of the beliefs of these four major religions enabling you to have a greater understanding of these faiths. The Photo Gallery provides you with an exclusive set of images portraying the cultural traditions of both Hinduism and Buddhism. Chapter excerpts give you a sneak peak into what Ravi Zacharias teaches in the book. But more importantly, throughout the site, answers to relevant questions are discussed.

Perhaps Zacharias summarizes the truth of Jesus best in these words: "His uniqueness is beyond question. His answers are profound and relevant. His offer is to all mankind. Because of Him, every life can find peace and hope in God." May the truth of God penetrate your heart as you learn more about Jesus -- the God among many other gods.

I am looking for other more scientific sites for you to surf as well.

~serving Christ in humility

[Fovezer]

I can't prove anything.  For me, it is all about faith.  "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certian of what we do not see."  Once I opened my mind and heart in an ernest search for the Truth, it just became harder for me not to believe than it did for me to believe.  I can only testify of my experience.  My life was radically changed when, after many years of searching, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.  Do I understand all of God's plan and His workings?  No, but I can honestly say that my life has value now and I am inspired to share my faith with anyone who will listen.

See, to me, faith is a very illogical idea. You are basically blindly believing in something. I can't do that. I need physical evidence. Trying to witness will do no good. Its not any sort of evidence.

Don't be too hard on these folks.  I can't speak for all of them but I believe they argued with you out of a sincere concern for you and others that are still searching.  None of us would stand by and watch someone walk off into a deep hole to their physical death.  That's what they see you doing spiritually and they are just trying to wave you off.

I know you mean well with this statement, but I take offense to it. You are implying that I am just "lost." See, I am also not searching. I don't believe there is a god. I said, if you can provide evidence for a god, I am open to the idea of a god. It doesn't mean I am looking to believe in one, either. You are also automatically saying your religion is right, and if you don't believe, you are going to hell.

Once again, I suggest you read  "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life"

by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

I doubt I'll have any time, but if I do, I may.

God bless and protect you.

No thanks

Fovezer,

I have been looking for something that I could point you to to help answer some of your questions.

I remembered a book my father has called "Jesus amoung other gods" by Ravi Zacharias.

Here is the web site:

jesusamongothergods.com

And here is an introduction to the information. Note, this is taken from the front page of the site:

I glanced over the site. What it does, though, is attack the other religions prophets/spiritual leaders and saying "Since they aren't perfect, Jesus must be real."

I am looking for other more scientific sites for you to surf as well.

Now THIS is what I'm looking for. But if you even mention anything by that fraud Hovind, I will just laugh, because he and his material has been proven rubbish over and over. He also isn't even a real doctor. He got his degree from an unaccredited degree mill. (I'm just giving you fair warning.)

[Guest shiloh357]

See, to me, faith is a very illogical idea. You are basically blindly believing in something. I can't do that. I need physical evidence. Trying to witness will do no good. Its not any sort of evidence.

Your concept of faith is what is illogical. Faith is not blind belief. We have the Scriptures which people like you have never successfully disproven. It is you who have the burden of proof. You are the one who claims that the Bible is untrue. WHY DONT YOU PROVE TO US THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG??!??!??! In a legal setting YOU are the one who has to offer up the evidence. You have taken this whole "evidence" thing and stood it on its head. Instead of just sitting and acting like you can just brush aside anything everybody says, why don't we take a look at YOUR evidence for why there is no God. If you cannot prove that the Bible is wrong, then you have no ground to say that it's claim for the existance of God is wrong. Of course, people like you always find a way to chicken out of such challenges.

Blind Faith??? Blind Unbelief!!!

I know you mean well with this statement, but I take offense to it. You are implying that I am just "lost." See, I am also not searching. I don't believe there is a god. I said, if you can provide evidence for a god, I am open to the idea of a god. It doesn't mean I am looking to believe in one, either. You are also automatically saying your religion is right, and if you don't believe, you are going to hell.

You are not open to anything. What do you want God to do? Grow a wings on a cat? Turn the sky green, and the grass blue? Nothing that could ever be offered to you would be acceptable, because despite your claim to openness, you are nothing but a fountain of excuses. I have argued with people like you, and your type is completely disingenuous. You call for evidence and then dismiss it as no evidence when it presented, while claiming to be "open." Your openness is nothing but a fraud. You have already made up your mind that you will not believe in God, and nothing anyone could ever say, no amount of credible science, will change that. You approach this debate dishonestly.

Now THIS is what I'm looking for. But if you even mention anything by that fraud Hovind, I will just laugh, because he and his material has been proven rubbish over and over. He also isn't even a real doctor. He got his degree from an unaccredited degree mill. (I'm just giving you fair warning.)

There are many reputable scientists out there, but I am sure you will dismiss them just as easily. Most of your kind does. Their knowledge and expertise is wasted on someone who has already made up their mind.

[endure4salvation]

Fozever,

All the proof that one needs to show that God does exist is to ask someone who has personally encountered Him--I volunteer!!!

Please read my testimony at the following link:

http://www.xanga.com/endure4salvation

The changes in my life cannot be explained by me trying to search for God--I only wanted to murder myself from many years of clinical depression and was attempting to and Jesus Christ revealed Himself to me and took it all away.

I used to be involved with many bad things and now my life has forever changed.

I experience God and you can too--if you are willing to search with your heart that is!

Just wanted to make sure that this was noticed....

[AFaceInTheCrowd]

some say that columbus discovered america.i'm not sure that such a man ever existed.i mean,i have never seen him to believe in him.history books say that he was a real guy,but im not sure.this home i live in was built by buiders,so i am told.maybe it evolved from a rock.i never witnessed it being built.all things that are created needs a creator so i am told.everyday things that we use are made by someone,so they say.our cars,our roads,our homes,our tv's,our mailboxes,and even our computers.imagine that!please tell me what we use that has evolved from nothing into something without man's help.maybe you guys arent real.ummm i mean i cant see you,but i do see the proof that you guys are real.

[sagz4Christ]

I am looking for other more scientific sites for you to surf as well.

Now THIS is what I'm looking for. But if you even mention anything by that fraud Hovind, I will just laugh, because he and his material has been proven rubbish over and over. He also isn't even a real doctor. He got his degree from an unaccredited degree mill. (I'm just giving you fair warning.)

A Practical Man's Proof: Does God Exist?

The Discovery of a Scientific Proof of God

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

Scientific Proof of God

------------------------------------------------------------------------

These should get you started, my friend

[WayneB]

See, to me, faith is a very illogical idea. You are basically blindly believing in something. I can't do that. I need physical evidence. Trying to witness will do no good. Its not any sort of evidence.

I understand your hesitancy. Been there, done that. I also need proof. The only difference between us is that I found it when I quit arguing and truely opened my heart and mind to the Truth.

There was another man named Nicodemus who showed the same caution...wanted proof. He went to Jesus in the midnight hour to question him and Jesus patiently tried to witness to him as well. Nicodemus had a hard time accepting Jesus' testimony and Jesus simply replied to him, "I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things."

Physical evidence? Paul said, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." His point? Open your eyes to the world around you and there is the physical evidence you are searching for. Combine that with the testimony of credible witnesses and what more do you need?

One problem with the carnal man is that he adapts too easily. My point? The miraculous quickly becomes the norm; therefore, we no longer recognize the miracles of God as anything special or out of the ordinary. Jesus knew this when he refused to perform miracles as proof of his authority. He knew the heart of man.

I know you mean well with this statement, but I take offense to it. You are implying that I am just "lost." See, I am also not searching.

I meant no offense and you know that. Actually, I perceive that you are an intelligent and strong-willed person and it is hard for me to believe that you truely took any offense at all. Regardless, who brought up hell? But I offer you this Truth. God offered His one and only Son as a sacrifice for our sin and those of us who are unwilling to accept that sacrifice made on our behalf will go into eternity separated from our Creator, a fate worse than hell. So let me ask you this. If you don't believe, then how could you find that statement offensive? Is it possible that you post on this website looking for the Truth?

Speaking from experience, that was my tactic. I would argue with Christians just to see how they defended their faith. I was actually pretty bad and bold even to the point of going to a Methodist Church Youth revival during which they showed a film on hell. After the movie, I raised my hand and asked the youth minister how he knew hell to be like that? Had he visited? Needless to say, I was never invited back.

Fovezer, I enjoyed reading your posts. Your intellect is obvious. My last piece of advice for what it's worth, don't let your intellect get in the way of the Truth.

God Bless you friend,

Wayne

[Fovezer]

Your concept of faith is what is illogical. Faith is not blind belief.  We have the Scriptures which people like you have never successfully disproven.  It is you who have the burden of proof.  You are the one who claims that the Bible is untrue.  WHY DONT YOU PROVE TO US THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG??!??!??!    In a legal setting YOU are the one who has to offer up the evidence.  You have taken this whole "evidence" thing and stood it on its head.  Instead of just sitting and acting like you can just brush aside anything everybody says, why don't we take a look at YOUR evidence for why there is no God. If you cannot prove that the Bible is wrong, then you have no ground to say that it's claim for the existance of God is wrong.  Of course, people like you always find a way to chicken out of such challenges. 

Blind Faith???  Blind Unbelief!!!

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So, my I think I'm right when I say faith is believing without proof.

You also need other sources that a biased 2000 year old book. It is NOT my job to prove god doesn't exist, because I can't. You can't prove a negative. I can only disprove the evidence for a god. The burden of proof is on you. You're right, I can't totally disprove the Bible. I can disprove literal interpretations of it, though.(like the Flood) "People like you"? What is that supposed to me? I'm not going going to chicken out of anything.

You are not open to anything. What do you want God to do?  Grow a wings on a cat?  Turn the sky green, and the grass blue?  Nothing that could ever be offered to you  would be acceptable, because despite your claim to openness, you are nothing but a fountain of excuses.  I have argued with people like you, and your type is completely disingenuous.  You call for evidence and then dismiss it as no evidence  when it presented, while claiming to be "open."  Your openness is nothing but a fraud.  You have already made up your mind that you will not believe in God, and nothing anyone could ever say, no amount of credible science,  will change that.  You approach this debate dishonestly. 

I am open to the POSSIBILITY of a god, provide you supply irrefutable proof. Keyword, irrefutable. Most evidence offered is lame, overused, and long disproven evidence. Provide me with CREDIBLE, IRREFUTABLE evidence. It is all I ask.

There are many reputable scientists out there, but I am sure you will dismiss them just as easily.  Most of your kind does.  Their knowledge and expertise is wasted on someone who has already made up their mind.

Why are you so downright rude? You talk down to me like I am not as good as you. Well, I am not going to respond to any crap like this that feels neccessary to degrade atheists. And, if there are so many credibale (I am assuming creationist) scientists out there, then why hasn't ANY of their articles ever been published in a credible scientific magazine?

[Fovezer]

some say that columbus discovered america.i'm not sure that such a man ever existed.i mean,i have never seen him to believe in him.history books say that he was a real guy,but im not sure.this home i live in was built by buiders,so i am told.maybe it evolved from a rock.i never witnessed it being built.all things that are created needs a creator so i am told.everyday things that we use are made by someone,so they say.our cars,our roads,our homes,our tv's,our mailboxes,and even our computers.imagine that!please tell me what we use that has evolved from nothing into something without man's help.maybe you guys arent real.ummm i mean i cant see you,but i do see the proof that you guys are real.

Strawmen arguments has no place in this discussion. I have already posted why that is a strawman.

[Fovezer]

FOR SAGZ4CHRIST

The first link is garbage. It takes ONE possible explanation for the universe, claims all atheists believe that, makes blatantly false accusations of what an atheists believes, and then tries to prove god that way. A very BIG strawman if you ask me. I, for one and like most atheists, don't believe the universe has existed in its present form forever.

The second link is....... I don't know. I really don't know much at all about psychology to answer that link. I'll be honest about that. It looks well-written, but at the same time, the arguments seem somewhat illogical. I'll try to look more into it, though.

For link three, I'll do this:

Evidence #1

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Blatantly false and entirely unsubstantiated. There have been many transitionals and evolution has definitely been observed. It takes so long, though, we can not see it in our life time. What they want to see in a transitional fossil is a half-cat half-dog thing, which would actually disprove evolution.

Evidence #2

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

That's not what natural selection does. Natural Selection is a process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment.

Evidence #3

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

False, false, false. Evolution does NOT deal with how life began. That is abiogenesis.

Evidence #4

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Even if this were true, it would not disprove evolution, because inconsistancy does not mean its entirely false. This satement is false because they blantantly show how little they know about evolution. If I were to provide a transitional between man and ape (which they have stated some), he would just dismiss it as either monkey or human, not similar to both, like it is,

Evidence #5

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

How he writes this, it is wrong. You will not see a half-man/half-ape combo. That is a misconception. What you will see is an ape-like creature that branched in its evolutionary tree, and one became humans, and the other, apes. The common ancestor could be more human-like or more ape-like, but definitely not a combination.

Evidence #6

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

See above

Evidence #7

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Wow. Equating evolution to evil. Nice. The writer completely misrepresents evolution. Everything said here is wrong.

Evidence #8

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

He just makes baseless arguments here. Saying similar patterns means a designer and not a common ancestor is completely illogical. Saying, "That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it." is just an opinion, and holds no water.

Evidence #9

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

If only a worldwide flood had not been completely falsified already, and the rock strata actually proves that a worldwide flood is impossible. It is impossible to find a detailed account of the globally correlatable strata that mark the onset, peak and post flood conditions. Creationists are not willing to be pinned down on the exact strata marking these events because the geologic record cannot (at any time in earth history) be harmonized with a global flood event such as the Noachian story. Don't believe me? Try to find a creationist who has defined a set of globally correlatable strata marking pre, post and syn flood conditions. Remember, the flood is no trivial event if biblical literalists are to be taken seriously. It is the most important event in earth history in terms of shaping the earth that we see today. It seems to me that something this devastating should be easily traceable from outcrop to outcrop and continent to continent. So here's the challenge to any creationist bold enough to take it on, where are these globally correlatable strata. Give me locations in North America, Europe, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Asia and South America that I can walk up to and say "Here's where the flood started", Here's where the flood reached its zenith and "here's where the flood ended". Describe the features in these rocks that make them correlable and distinctive. If modern geology can correlate a measly asteroid impact on a near global basis, surely flood geologists can do the same for the defining event in earth history.

All Link #4 talks about is looking for words hidden in the Bible. If you look hard enough in any book, you can find words and say, "Oh look, a secret message!!!" Its not scientific and its not proof. Here's a link to a Scientific America article about the Bible Code:

Codified Claptrap: The Bible Code is numerological nonsense masquerading as science