I was once a Muslim turned agnostic who is now a Christian. I created this thread because I know from experience, how hard it is to find a real Christian who actually knows what and why they believe what they do in order to get sound answers to burning questions.
If you have any questions about Christianity please feel free or ask.
If you would like to debate, I encourage you to do so; just as long as you remain respectful.
Looking forward to some great dialogue
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What proof can you provide that whatever gods or god you believe in actually exists?
URBAN, are you ever going to answer the questions posted, including mine?
and sorry for the delay
I can give you many examples of how God has changed my life. however, what difference does that make compared tot he person who was changed by AA or therapy or anything else? There are plenty of things that can change a person's life for the "better". That is why the burden of proof is on God to prove to that He exists. And also why that revelation, if you will, causes people like me who have truly known He really so enters the lion's den like I am on this site (lol) tell people that He really is real. Because I have seen Him (figuratively) with my own eyes. He revealed Himself to me. All you need to do is pursue Him genuinely and objectively. He will show you that He is real. Now what you do with that reality is another story. (As well as: how do I know the difference between which god is which and why I know the God of the bible is true - that a much bigger/longer answer for later.)
Thank you for the great question. - Matthew 7:7 / Psalm 34:8 / 2 Cor 4:3-6
"Because I have seen Him (figuratively) with my own eyes."
1. Anecdotes aren't evidence.
2. You can't figuratively see something with your own eyes.
3. See 1.
It's an idiom. What im saying when I say that is I know God is real.
"It's an idiom. What im saying when I say that is I know God is real."
No you don't - Hitchens's razor applied - slash.
Personal revelation is necessarily personal. Do you agree that your personal experience of a god should not and would not and could not convince me or anyone else that gods exist?
With all due respect I doubt very much that you will come up with anything we haven't heard before and I don't think you will be bombarded with questions on an atheist forum. Maybe rather try a christian one? The best I can do is reiterate what MCD asked above, what new proof do you have that what you believe is the truth? I am only interested in facts that can be scientifically proven so please don't quote from the bible.
Can you provide scientific proof that all facts require scientific proof?
Stop that roadrunner bullshit, turek.
sneaky strawman is sneaky
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 09:53 Permalink
freeatlast "I am only interested in facts that can be scientifically proven so please don't quote from the bible."
"JoC "Can you provide scientific proof that all facts require scientific proof?"
>>Where did he claim that? As far as I can see he offered a personal opinion illustrating what he considered a reasonable burden of proof. Given theology can't come up with anything beyond unverifiable anecdotal claims from people who already believe their chosen deity exists, I can see why you'd want to protest, but you're making a straw man argument.
Though I'd add the caveat that all 'scientific facts' require scientific evidence, and science has shown itself to be by far and away our most consistently successful method for understanding facts about the physical world and universe. It's not a flaw in science that it can't examine claims for which no evidence can be demonstrated. However where religious apologetics make claims that can be tested by science, the efficacy of intercessory prayer for example, science has proved categorically that they are false.
So the it would be permissible to believe in facts that aren’t based on science.
Thanks for the question! In regards to your question, I won't quote the bible. What I will do is reiterate what I said previously in a different way. A revelation of God is supernatural in nature. (Now, I can talk about all the ways the Bible lines up with science, but since that wasn't your question I will leave that for another time.) The reason why I frame it that way though, is because that's what comes first with true Christian conversion. Otherwise, whats the difference between our book and any other book? God is REQUIRED by His own standard to intervene. That's why we don't believe in God because we believe the bible. We believer int he bible. WE believer int he bible because we believe in God. so if you ask me straight up, "why do I believe what I believe?", its because God caused me to Himself.
Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your time!
So, to make this short and sweet, like every other happy clapper who flies in here, you;
Have no proof of any god's existence
You have no objective way of proving your choice of god's existence
To attempt to justify your faith you quote a rag tag of mistranslated, edited, retranslated and screwed with ancient texts by many different authors.
You quote "personal experience" with no evidence.
For real? Did you not read any of the xtian/muslim/deist posts in other forums on this site before you came back with this repetitive non proof, non argument for any god and particularly your god?
Meh. Come up with something compelling. Otherwise it is *yawn*
That question was do I have proof. And the answer is, yes I do. However, just because God gave ME proof doesn't mean He cant give YOU proof too. Asking me to give you proof that God is supposed to give you assumes that the proof is mine to give when I had already stated that the burden of proof is not on me, according to His own standard, it's on God to prove it to you; or else you never will know if He is real or not. The question I would ask, do you really want it? Because He will give it to you if you do. And what you do with it, is another discussion.
Regarding your comment on the bible translations: all Bible translations in every language are translated from the same two languages: Hebrew and greek - which are the original languages the bible was written in. Those arent dead languages either, which is why we can test our English translations with the originals.
Yawn. Same o same o.
You have no objective evidence just an internalised belief. Seriously? You can't do better than that? Your omniscient omnipotent talking bush god cant do better than that?
Internalised experience with no external correlation is not proof.
The razor applies. Slash.
The bible was latterly written in Koine Greek for the NT, but the lingua franca of the time of the supposed Messiah was Aramaic. Heberew only in the temple and at formal, religious occasions.
The authors of the OT spoke and thought in may dialects and time periods from all over the area as each tribe had its own specialised words and pronounciations. It was unfied as a tex and,, as all these things are, later translated into ancient and now modern hebrew. Many of the texts would have been orally transmitted from the Sumerian and later the Babylonian traditions and texts.
The original King James was translated from the Vulgate or Latin bible. Which in turn was translated from various koine and classical greek papyrii, none of which are of the purported Messiahs lifetime.
Save your self some time and angst, read previous forums. So far you are just regurgitating tired old fallacies.
@Old Man Re: Urban Sturgeon
Hey, Old Man! Doesn't this dude remind you of somebody we already know and love on this site?
yep, but no obvious tell tales I can see...he will slip up soon. They always do.
@Tin-man and Old Man
Nope. Nope, nope. Too coherent. Too literate. Too many niceties- commas; paragraphs; correct spelling throughout.
I think we are miss understanding each other so let me take a step back. Me giving you proof that God is real, with the result of you believing in Him objectively a knowing He is real, is synonymous with salvation. Because its God who saves and not man, I can not give you saving knowledge of who God is. It is God Himself that can only do that. The external correlation is seen in the way we as Christians are 1) changed and live out that change and 2) obey and believe what this old book says.
"The bible was latterly written in Koine Greek for the NT, but the lingua franca of the time of the supposed Messiah was Aramaic. Hebrew only in the temple and at formal, religious occasions.... Many of the texts would have been orally transmitted from the Sumerian and later the Babylonian traditions and texts."
- your right about this but the to give context, the OT was written in Hebrew, translated to Greek (the Septuagint) because of Hellenization. Then the NT was written in Greek. Aramaic, was as you said the local language but of the Hebrew people only. That's why the NT was written in Greek. And it's from those Greek manuscripts, as you have stated, that we translate the Bible, we have today, from. Regardless of what the KJV was translated from and to.
"Which in turn was translated from various koine and classical Greek papyri, none of which are of the purported Messiahs lifetime."
- You're right. But the time they are written has nothing with to do with the truth they hold. Granted, It can make one sceptical, but truth doesn't operate off the premise fo consensus.
The Bible as a comprehensive book didn't exist until a committee of story tellers, artists, and writers produced three illustrated master copies in the early 690s. It was written in Latin. It was the Codex Amiatinus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus. All subsequent Bibles were translations of those master copies. The Bible was written as a counter-measure to the Islamic Koran that Uthman's committee made up in 640. Until the Codex Amiatinus the Christians didn't have an unified book. They had relied on oral stories and a few disjointed scrolls.
So when you think you are using an original Hebrew or Greek Bible as your source you are just using a translation based upon the original source, the Codex Amiatinus.
Actually, the first canon of the bible was in recognized AD 170. Whereas the Quran wasn't compiled until around 644.
There is no earlier Bible than the Codex Amiatinus, which was completed in the 690s. There might have been a few ragged scrolls floating around but there no no complete Bible of any kind. They have to sell the lie that the Bible existed centuries before that in order to give the religion credibility.
349 CE: Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures. Earlier at 1st Nicea they did not discuss the content of the scriptures but argued over the Arian (Gnostic) Heresy. It seems with a financial inducement , the Church Fathers were later able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books could stay and which would have to go.
These eventually made up the Vulgate Bible, of which many copies were made adopted by the Church as the official text in the 4th century CE. A sixth-century copy known as the Codex Grandior,(now lost) was the template for the Codex Amiatinus ( only 3 copies were made) of which only one survives. It was a direct copy of the Codex Grandior.
The KJV of the bible was translated from copies of a later Vulgate bible as adopted by the Catholic Church in the 6th Century and continued as the official Latin version for several hundred years.
It is incorrect to say that all bibles derive from the Codex Amiatinus which was English in origin and appeared after the official Catholic Vulgate version..
In India when the Portuguese arrived they were astounded to discover a population of christians with a bible...a bible which did not contain any Pauline texts but that did contain the Book of Thomas, hence the term Thomasian Bible.
There are also the Syriac versions of the NT as well as the Eastern Orthodox versions with less significant additions/subtractions.
Hope this helps
Can you tell us which specific God gave you proof of his existence?
I didn't ask if YOU had proof. I asked what proof you could provide ME that gods or god exists. Nice try but that is another fail. I get the feeling that you are intentionally dishonest
"That question was do I have proof. And the answer is, yes I do."
No you don't - Hitchens's razor applied - slash.
"it's on God to prove it to you; or else you never will know if He is real or not. The question I would ask, do you really want it? Because He will give it to you if you do. And what you do with it, is another discussion."
No he won't - Hitchens's razor applied.
"Those arent dead languages either, which is why we can test our English translations with the originals."
It's still unevidenced superstitious hokum, and I don't care if you have the original claims on a memory stick, or burned on a dvd.
they'll just tell you that crappy stereotype " yes i know god is real becoz of faith"