I am not whining.  But it is difficult to reason with someone who is unreasonable.  No one can learn if the things you don't agree with are dismissed as false without evidence to the contrary as if a hand waving gesture makes the truth disappear.  There is evidence of eyewitneses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those people even testified to others of this and it was written down (i.e.-manually recorded).  Now many, including yourself, may dismiss this as not being evidence but you and others accept as fact other things without nearly as much evidence.     

If "virtually everyone" agrees with premise 2 (that the truth never changes) but you deny premise 1 as being "unsupported" (that God is the author of truth) then who determines what the truth is (who is the author of truth?)?  If God, the creator of the universe, is not the one that determines what is truth then premise 2 which you say "virtually everyone", including yourself, agrees with cannot be true.  

Because to make an absolute statement like that you have to have absolute knowledge.  If you don't know everything then there remains a possibility that God does exist but you just don't know it. 

No, it's the other way around.  Ignorance necessitates neutrality.  If you have "no idea" about a subject, in essence, it means you are clueless about what is being discussed.  You have nothing of substance to contribute on the matter.  You admitted that you had "no idea" if Jesus Christ existed yet you argue against those who "have an idea" of His existence.  If you have "no idea" it means you may be wrong so why argue against something you have "no idea" if what you argue against is false?   

You made the claim it is a myth.  The burden of proof is on you to validate that claim. 

No, I think God knows everything and knew what would happen.  It is not the same as predetermining things. 

According to who?

Again truth is not relative.  We do not define what the truth is. 

They absolutely do.

Finally, something we agree on.

Your comment here is interesting.  You use "tentative conclusions" as a basis for your truth or reality?  If they are "tentative" that means they are subject to change.  You admit as much when you say that your observations and conclusions are subject to "correction or updating."  If the truth needs correcting or updating was it ever really the truth?   If the truth needs correcting or updating then it wasn't true to begin with you only thought it was true.  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow where does that leave you in relation to God?  If what you believe is true today is found to be in error tomorrow then your truth or "reality" was never true or "real" you only thought that it was.  Bottom line with this line of thinking you don't ever really know what the truth is.        

I totally agree with this also.

That is a very good, rational and appropriate question.  I wish more people would ask these types of questions rather than mocking, ridiculing or insulting what others say or write. I measure reality on observable evidence as well.  I use both science and the Bible as part of that observation.  I include science and the Bible to make judgements on reality.  They are not mutually exclusive but they must be in agreemnet in order for it to be considered true.       

My conclusion that there is a God and that He is the God of the Bible is not based on blind faith but faith based on evidence.  

Firstly, when I look at the universe and see the scientific data that we have accumulated over the years it is evident to me that there is a God and He created this universe.  Why?  Well, logically and through the laws of physics we know that nothing cannot create or give rise to something.  Science has concluded that the universe had a begining.  (this is in agreement with the Bible but I'll get to that later).  The fact that this universe exists tells me something must have created it or else it wouldn't be here.  This is both logical and scientific.  To say that the universe is eternal and , thus, God is unecessary goes against the basic tenants of scienctific knowledge.  The begining of the universe and its existence demands that something created it.  The complexity of the universe, the vastness of space, the complexity of living organisms and the human body all play a part in convincing me that God does indeed exist.  If something has design or purpose then there must be intelligence behind this.  Purpose and design cannot come about by chance or random events.  It is a statistical improbability.  Intelligence is only found in living things. When you look at DNA you see purposeful infromation.  Purposeful information can only come about through an intelligent living being.  

To summarize:

Creation=Creator (God)

Design and purpose= intelligence= living creator (God)

Purposeful information= intelligence= living creator (God)

Thus, I conclude God does exist.

Now, as to who that God is?  That is an altogether different question.  When I study the different "religions" and who they claim that God is I see vastly different things between Christianity and every other religion of the world.  Firstly, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any other document in antiquity.  There are thousands and thousands of scriptural manuscripts which all say the same exact same thing.  Granted we don't have the original writings but the earliest manuscripts can be traced back and dated close to the time of its content.  Secondly, the Bible is a historical document.  Its writings are rooted in history.  The places, people, and historical events described are known to have at one time existed.  No other "religious" document can make this claim.  Not the Koran or the Book of Mormons or any other sacred book or writing.  Thirdly, archeological evidence validates the claims of the Bible.  There has never been one, not one, archeological find that has disproven something in the Bible yet there are thousands of archeological finds that support the claims of the Bible.  Coincidence?  Also, the prophesies of the Bible are evidence of its supernatural origins.  There are hundreds of prophesies in scripture written hundreds of years before they actually occurred.  How could a mere man be able to predict the future accurately without divine intervention?  Also, there is scientific claims in the Bible that were not discovered by science until hundreds of years later. For example:

The Bible long ago stated that the universe had a begining.  Science has since discovered that the universe had a begining. 

When everyone thought the earth was flat the Bible had said for hundreds of years that the earth was a sphere.  We now know that the earth is a sphere.   

When everyone thought the earth was in a free float in space the Bible said that the earth pivoted or rotated about its axis.  We now know that the earth rotates on its axis.

When science thought that there were only a few hundred stars in existence the Bible said that the stars in the universe were inummerable and could not be counted.  Science has discovered that there are billions upon billions upon trillions of stars in the known universe, too many to count.  

The Bible described wind and ocean currents long before meteorologist and oceanographers discovered them scientifically.

The Bible, wisely, taught that in order to avoid disease hands should be washed under running water during a time when people washed in standing water.  We now know, from science, about the existence of viruses and bacteria that can transmit diseases and use running water to better wash away these germs.  

There were people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles, death and resurrection, told others about it and wrote things down.  The disciples of Christ were scared and defeated, hiding in the upper room, afraid to go out after Jesus was crucified until they encountered the resurrected Jesus then became bold and were willing to spread the message of Christianity even if it meant dying for doing so.  Do you think they would have done this if they made it up and knew as fact that it was a lie? 

All these things point to the Bible being supernatural in origin and not just written by mere men without divine inspirtion. 

All other religions are about what man can do to please god and earn his favor.  How man can work to remove their sins and how man can reach up to god.  Only in Christianity will you find God reaching down to save man from their sins.  It makes all the difference in the world.  This last thing does not necessarily prove that the Bible is true.  I only point it out to make the distinction between Christianity and all other religions. Many lump Christianity in with all the other false religions of the world when true, biblical Christianity is unlike any other "religion" and is the only one that offers forgiveness of sins through God's grace.  

To summarize:

The Bible is true because of:

1. Manuscript evidence

2. Archeological evidence

3. Accuracy of prophecy

4. Scientific evidence found in the Bible

5. Historical evidence

Taking all these things into consideration I conclude that God exists and the Bible is correct in describing who this God is

Doc,

Thanks for giving me credit for that which I did not write, though I do agree with Buttlebattle's comments.

1. You cannot say that "we have lost the original manuscripts" and then proceed to claim you have, on the basis of what was later written, evidence of anything - except of course evidence for a later desire to furnish myth with a semblance of truth through apocryphal reference to supposedly real events.

2. Archaeological evidence has a habit of contradicting biblical claims and revealing the writings' historical references as shoddily researched by their authors. In some cases it reveals downright mistruths. Of course there is still a seemingly limitless queue of so-called "scholars of biblical archaeology" who cite as fact the discredited findings of Gerstang in relation to Jericho, for example, or who simply choose to forget that archaeology has showed that Ai ceased as a city a thousand years before the bible would have it, not to mention that archaeology stubbornly refuses to provide evidence of a Nazareth contemporary with the new testament claims.

3. The only accurate prophecies in the bible are those which it claims itself were fulfilled at time of writing. Fiction, in other words, and not even convincing fiction.

4. There is no scientific "evidence" of anything to be found in the bible, and nor should one expect to find any such thing in a document produced for the purpose it was at the time it was and by the people who wrote its contents. One will find however a plentitude of very unscientific claims.

5. Historical evidence when applied to the bible by its devotees is always accompanied by a latitude in interpretation and a dropping of normal historiographical standards that would be risible if applied to any other area of historical study. If the bible's historical claims are taken point by point and cross-referenced with other data sources,  the book's devotee finds himself repeatedly having to fall back on the old "absence of evidence does not indicate evidence of absence" aphorism - to such an extent of repetition that even the least cynical person with half a brain must at some point realise that what he is reading are pseudo-historical assertions, and lots of them.

In summary - your assertion that the bible is "true" based on the criteria you mention is founded on the assumption that the normal standards by which your criteria are judged simply should not apply to the document in whose veracity you have invested faith. No amount of lying and wishful thinking will make inaccurate data accurate or false claims true. The bible is riddled with both. Indeed it would have no value as a religious text if it wasn't.

I did but you did not offer any proof just speculation.  I asked for proof.

I do help others all the time.  I am continually learning and understanding.  You are wrong on all counts.

I agree a life is a terrible thing to waste.  A soul is also a part of that life.  And I don't worship Jesus because of a belief of a reward in the next life.  I worship Him because 1) only He is worthy of worship and 2) out of gratitude for what He has done for me already in sacrificing Himself on the cross to forgive all of my exceedingly sinful sins. Once again your assumptions are erroneous.     

No one can live the life of Jesus because no one is perfect.  However, I try the best I can to follow Him and obey His commandments out of love and gratitiude for Him.  But since you like to throw stones should I assume you have given up everything and have given all you have to the poor because of your selfless desire to help those in need?   

That is nice but on the day of judgement that won't help you. 

That is half right.  Only 2 things truly matter in this world: Your relationship with God and your relationship with other people.  Everything else is vanity and unimportant.   

You do not even know or believe Jesus and you are going to tell me what the most important part of His message was?  You clearly don't understand His message.  It was not ot make this world a better place by feeding the hungry or taking care of the poor.  Those are things that we should do and how we should treat each other but that was not His message.  Jesus came to testify of the truth and He came to suffer and die on the cross to shed His blood so that the sins of the world may be taken away to those who repent of their sins and trust in Him. 

How do you know this?  What proof do you have this is true and not just something you heard from someone else and are regurgitating it here?

You do not know me so you have no idea who I am or what I do.  Your accusations are baseless and erroneous.  Besides do some studying of statistics.  Christians help the needy more and give more to the poor and charities than atheists or other "religious" people.  It is not even close.  The statistics show this to be true.   

I don't accuse you of anything.  You accuse yourself.  The Law accusses you.  Your conscience accusses you.  God accusses you.  Are you saying you have never lied, stolen, cheated, lusted, hated, blasphemed God, dishonored your parents, coveted, etc?  As for me being a selfish, uncaring person you do not know me or know anything about me so there is no merit to your accusations.  Now, you may also say I don't know you but I do know that every single person has lied, stolen, coveted, lusted, etc (i.e.-everyone has sinned) myself included.   

As oppossed to atheism which has helped countless of people, right? Check your facts.  Check out the statistics.  Not even close.  Communism which is an atheistic ideology has killed more people, oppressed more, caused more suffering and has taken away more human rights than Christianity ever has.  Get the facts straight before making any conclusions. Meanwhile, Christians build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc.  Yes, what selfish people those Christians are. *sigh* What resources are you diverting and wasting that could instead go to feed starving children in Africa?  What do you waste your money on that instead can go to help the poor?  Isn't that causing more hardship in the world?  Why do you have a computer?  If you sell your computer you could use that money to feed several families in Africa.  Don't ever go out to eat in a restaurant again because with the money you waste there you could buy groceries for a month for a starving child.  Don't ever go to the movies, or buy music CD's, or jewlery, or books, or houses, or cars or anything else for that matter because all that money is being wasted and diverted from caring for the poor and ultimately causing more hardship in the world.  But then again, you don't really care about the poor that much, do you?  

I agree but who said anything about religion?  If people would stick to the truth and stop making up their own religions because of a rebellious desire to do things their own way we would be much better off.   

Understood.  For most people the truth is anything that is in agreement with fact or reality.   
 

So that means you could be wrong about the existence of God which would by definition make you an agnostic rather than an atheist. 

Do we not all have presuppossitions?  You presuppose that it is not true.   

How would you describe the universe if not a created entity?  If it was not created then you must conclude it is eternal and that goes against the scientific knowledge that we have.  If it is not eternal then how did it get here? 

Hence, validating that they were speaking about real places and real people and not making it up.  Also, there are references to people and groups of people written hundreds of years before those people or groups were known to have existed.

Untrue, many references are specific and have left unrefutable evidence.  You mention the flood.  The geological landscape and fossil evidence we see today are only completely compatible with a catastophic world wide flood.  (As the Bible records)  

Are you saying many scientists misunderstand their own theories because this is what they claim?

Are you really going to semantics?  Isn't a circle round as is the earth? It is making refernce to its shape. 

Job 38:12: “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
v.14 “ It takes on form like clay under a seal.”  Job paints the picture here is of clay being turned or rotated on the potter's wheel like the earth rotates on its axis.

Job 38:16, Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 

I am not refering to just hand washing.  I am refering to using running water to wash hands.  Neither was I refering to when the bible was compiled but when it was actually written.  When those verses were written the healers of the day did not use running water to wash but used standing water where germs can accumulate.  The writer of the scripture, because of the knowledge of God given through the Holy Spirit, said use running water to avoid disease. 

I agree. But would one willfully die for what they knew in fact was a lie? I don't know of anyone who would.  People can be willing to die for what they think is true even if it isn't such as muslim suicide bombers.  They beleive that what is written in the Koran is true and are willing to die for it.  But that is different than knowing something to be a lie and willingly dying for it or because of it.  If the apostles fabricated the story of Jesus' resurrection do you think they would have allowed themselves to be killed knowing as fact that it was just a lie?

I really want to go over this again because I thought it was extremely interesting.

It's not a matter of perspective. Our entire discussion is a debate over the existence of God. Yet, you have championed this as a fact in your first premise. This is our area of disagreement, so clearly, you must support this. Even if the rest of your line of logic was coherent, it would be invalid without establishing the existence of God.

Actually, on second thought, the existence of God is the claim that you're trying to prove, so, shouldn't it be the conclusion?

Sounds like a wonderful communication implosion to me. JillSwift wants you to give a definition for the word "truth," but you interpreted this as needing to establish what is true.

Please define "truth."

I define truth broadly as "the actual state" or "conformity to reality." If truth conforms to reality, then truth must change because reality changes. Here's what I mean. If I am holding two dollars in my hand, then the truth is that I have two dollars in my hand. However, if my friend walks over and takes one dollar, then the truth is that I only have one dollar in my hand. Thus, under this definition, truth changes.

Thus, perhaps you are actually trying to state that truth doesn't change based on opinion. I would agree with this.

However, this would inevitably cause it to mean the same thing as conclusion 1. Additionally, conclusions 2 and 3 are the same claim, worded as a positive and a negative, and they can be derived from conclusion 1 with a single syllogism. We also don't need conclusions 2 or 3 as they add nothing to the argument.

Okay, so now that I've attempted to dissect this argument as much as I can, what do we have left? 

- Premise 1 is the conclusion.

- P1 and C1 mean essentially the same thing.

- We can take out C2 and C3

So now, I'm going to risk being completely wrong and rebuild the argument.

Premise 1 - Truth doesn't change based on our opinions. 

Premise 2 - Thus, God exists whether we believe in Him or not.

Conclusion - God exists.

That looks better. It's a lot easier to see the fallacy this way.

First: I don't even know if the apostles ever really existed.

Second: If they did, it is very possible that, rather than fabricate any stories, they misinterpreted the situation they found themselves in and ended up with a stoy that was more mistake than description.

By the way, do please register with the site so the admins don't have to approve your posts. I almost missed your reply because I keep coming to the end of the thread looking for new posts, and there were posts following your hidden-till-approved posts. Fortunately I went back to re-read some posts and spotted your new posts.

What is insulting is that you consider dissmisal of someone's arguement by a hand wave critical thinking.   

Despite all that Jesus said in the New testament, you believe that Jesus is some sort of horrible evil demon who will be throwing innocent people into the lake of fire on Judgment day. You’re not a Christian, you do not believe in the Jesus of the NT, you’re a Satanist.

You can save us, you can save all of us, all you have to do is provide some reasonable evidence for your assertions. But you cannot do that, can you, because all your religious beliefs are false, aren’t they, because you do not have any reasonable evidence that they are true, isn’t that right!

We do not believe in your evil demon Jesus boogeyman. Christians spend their lives in horrible fear that their friends and loved ones or even themselves might do something wrong and end up burning alive forever in the lake of fire. Imagine the evil Jesus demon with his pitchfork poking your mother and father and your wife and your children to keep them in the lake of fire.

Christianity is a hoax, you’ve been conned, you’ve been a gullible sucker. Christianity is fiction just like the other 10,000 religions in the world. Your God and Jesus are a fictional characters just like the tens of thousands of other Gods that are worshiped in the world. Your scripture is fiction just like hundreds of similar scriptures of other religions in the world. You have no reasonable evidence for your god or your scripture, just like all the other religions in the world, because your religion is false, just like the other religions in the world. We all know that Christianity is no more special and no more unique and no more moral than any of the other 10,000 religions in the world.

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

Let us speculate about the nature of God, if he were to exist, just like we might speculate on the nature of fairies, if they were to exist.

If there were a God he would have to be rational to have created the universe, and he would not believe in a higher power then himself, because he would have no evidence of a higher power, so he would be an atheist with regard to a higher power, and if there were a heaven, then god would want to be with rational atheists like himself, and if there were a hell, then he would throw irrational theists into hell because irrationalism is evil.

The best strategy to get into heaven and avoid hell is to become a rational atheist.

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

For 1500 years Christianity terrorized the western world in the name of Jesus. They burned scientists for knowing that the bible was wrong, they burned free thinkers for not being orthodox, they burned innocent moms and dads for being witches. The methods and crimes of Christianity are the same as the methods and crimes of fascism and communism and Islamic terrorism because basically Christianity is not any different then fascism and communism and Islamic terrorism. They are all irrationalism, and they all naturally form right wing authoritarian regimes, crush all opposition, and impose tyranny.

You sound like an apologist for a pedophile.

Nazis build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those Nazis are.

Communists build schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those Communists are.

Hamas builds schools, feed the poor, build houses for the homeless, build hospitals, care for their neighbors, take care of the sick, protect the innocent, help prevent the murdering of unborn children, give to charities, etc. Yes, what selfish people those terrorists are.

Right wing authoritarian regimes always do charity as they crush the slaves under their iron boot.

Christianity is irrationalism just like Communism, Fascism and Islamic fundamentalism. Irrationalism is the most horrible human evil that the world has ever known.