Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 null_locus_accede
Joined: 6/25/2011
Msg: 135
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry MattersPage 3 of 30    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
Why would anyone want to produce evidence of a god.

Do a test. Find anything within your awareness. Where that presence exists will always be within where it is absent. If you become aware of something, defining it will push it further from what it is within. You can define what encompasses it as it's own absence, or as another presence. It doesn't matter. It's the tragedy of demanding distinction.

Whatever could encompass everything, with any amount of sustainability, will likely NEVER be be made aware of. If humans loved god so much they never would have looked for it.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 136
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:46:39 AM
How is that circular reasoning? I explained why it's God's word.

One example is that life is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11, 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled" and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington).
Today we know the healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that "the life of the fliesh is in the blood" long before science understood it's function.

Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Evolution has no solution for this dilemma.

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enourmous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea". Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered spings on the ocean floors.

Is that enough or should I continue?
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 137
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 6:54:55 AM

If you bleed without stopping, you will die.


Yes of course we know that now. You're missing the point. There used to be blood letters who took out your blood because they thought it would make you better. Which is how George Washington died.

Then were did the chicken's egg come from? There's no contradictions in Genesis.

I'm showing that there's information in the Bible that no man could have known when it was written. Tell me where the information came from in order to write it down. Details of why and how aren't needed to demonstrate that there is science in the Bible that secular scientists are only just discovering.

The Earth free-floats in space (job26:7) affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the Earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true - "He hangs the earth on nothing".

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:30. not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7, 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth.

The first three verse of Genesis accurately acpress all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter and energy. In genesis chapter one we read "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).... Then God said "Let there be light (energy)". No other creatoin account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe has a beginning (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, sceince has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 138
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 6:58:02 AM

The only reasoning that makes a creator necessary for the universe to exist, also then applies to that creator, and whatever created it, and whatever created it, and so on.


Classic rookie mistake.
You are wrongly assuming that God had a beginning. Nothing created God because He has always existed. He doesn't have a beginning because He exists outside of time. Since God created time, how could He already exist inside it?
It's like a builder already living in a house he hasn't started to build yet.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 139
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 7:44:21 AM
Did you not know that God is light? God can produce light without the need for a ball of burning gas.


Rookie mistake backatcha'

You are wrongly assuming that there is a god(s).


Are you ten? I can just as easily say "Rookie mistake backatcha', you are wrongly assuming God doesn't exist and that evolution theory is true".
But that doesn't help my case. Just like I wouldn't just say the Bible is true because it says it is.

And God made reptiles and dinosaurs before birds just to make evolution theory look silly.
Oh and a note on the big bang theory (which I presume you also believe in) - the law of conservation of angular momentum goes against big bang theory because there's planets, moons and whole solar systems spinning backwards.

What are you talking about? My example of a builder has nothing to circular reasoning. Do you even know what the term means?
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 140
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 8:16:51 AM
Why do you ask where my god is now? I don't have my own personal god. He is our God. You ask as if He's in a different place to where He was 5 minutes ago.

No the miracles are just as impressive today. I think bringing people back from the dead is more impressive than anything you or I could acomplish.

If evolution theory (in it's entirety) is fact, then where is the proof? There's no proof that we share a common ancesotr with apes (or gorillas as some say), or that reptiles evolved into birds etc.
Sure the weakest die, the strongest survive. Sure there's variation within animal kinds. All of which creationsist agree with. It's observable and testable, which is science. But the rest of the theory that states all living things are related and evolved from promrdial soup or whatever you like to call it, is not scientific. Not observable or testable. A philosophy at best.

You say there's no need to disprove God. Then why are you even posting in this thread?

Btw, I've not used any circular reasoning, you just like to call everything I say that because you have no argument. and you don't understand the term.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 141
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 10:22:11 AM

How is that circular reasoning? I explained why it's God's word.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me... here's a similar 'proof' that one can always believe what a pixie says.

Pixies always tell the truth.
But how do you know pixies always tell the truth?
Because I saw it written down on a genuine piece of paper!
How do you know that what was written on the paper is accurate?
Because it said a pixie wrote it, and they never lie.

See! Irrefutable proof, not only that pixies exist, but that they are always honest!

Plus they don't contradict themselves endlessly, recommend wholesale smiting, or get into any of that vengeance or sinner stuff, so life everlasting in Pixieland is bound to be pretty sweet. Best get on board the Pixie express to paradise...


All physicalists are "Atheists". All or most "Atheists" are Physicalists, at least some of the time--they tend to oscillate between Atheism/Physicalism and unconvincingly-professed Agnosticism.

All theists are 'deluded'. All or most 'deluded' people are theists, at least some of the time -- they tend to oscillate between Theism/Delusion and unconvincingly professed pseudo-scientific Spiritualism.


There are no gods.

This is typical of the "Atheists" here. Sometimes they insist that they don't believe that there isn't a God, but merely don't have a belief in the matter. Then, every so often, they'll say something like what lyingcheat said above: That there is no God.

There isn't any. But how do you know I'm an 'atheist'?
I might be a Pixieist? And therefore, necessarily and uncontradictably, be telling the truth...
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 142
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 10:54:19 AM
But that is not the reason for why believe it is God's word. I've given examples as to why it must have come from a higher being other than man. Unless you know of a more intelligent being than man who isn't God.
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 143
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:03:39 AM
Unless you know of a more intelligent being than man who isn't God.


Some believe that Earth was visited by Extra Terrestrials long ago - perhaps THEY could've been the beings smarter than man who influenced man to begin religions ?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 144
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:08:35 AM

Unless you know of a more intelligent being than man who isn't God.

My money is on the pixies. See above for irrefutable proof of their existence and unswerving commitment to truth.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 145
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:16:56 AM

Some believe that Earth was visited by Extra Terrestrials long ago - perhaps THEY could've been the beings smarter than man who influenced man to begin religions ?


You're welcome to believe that if you really want to. But it doesn't really explain anything. How did the aliens come about? How did the universe come about? You could say evolution and big bang theory, but nobody knows where the singularity/particle/dirt came from that expanded to become the universe.
Doesn't explain where love comes from either.


My money is on the pixies. See above for irrefutable proof of their existence and unswerving commitment to truth.


There's no proof in your previous comment. Have you witnessed the power of the pixie?
 ComplekCity
Joined: 1/17/2011
Msg: 146
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:32:08 AM
You're welcome to believe that if you really want to.


I didn't say I believe it, I'm just saying it's possible.


But it doesn't really explain anything.


You asked who was smarter than man back then and that was my response to that.


How did the aliens come about? How did the universe come about? You could say evolution and big bang theory, but nobody knows where the singularity/particle/dirt came from that expanded to become the universe.
Doesn't explain where love comes from either.




I'm one of those " delusional " theists who does believe in an underlying intelligent energy running the show aka " God " .

But, I don't believe much of what humans tell me I SHOULD believe .
Humans are imperfect creatures who tend to manipulate to control the masses if it benefits them.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 148
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 4:20:26 PM
Alan, Genesis 2 is a revision of Genesis 1. it is not be any means a second or seperate account. Gen 1 is the headline, the basics of what happened each day, then Gen 2 goes into more detail. Like how a newspaper works - you get the headline, then you get the detail. I don't hear you or anyone accusing a newspaper story giving 2 seperate accounts.
It took 6 days for creation and the order is explained in Gen 1.
Just for the record, this is also another classic mistake of non-believers that I hear time and time again when they claim there's contradictions in the Bible. When will you guys come up with anything new that hasn't been debunked yet? Erm, I think it's because there are no actual problems with the Bible - if you have the right version of course (the KJV).

A man can survive anywhere if he has the protection from God, even inside a whale.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 149
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 8:20:40 PM
Mmmm....copypasta from the Institute for Creation Research. Could use more garlic, though.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 150
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 8:21:57 PM
Define God: the toothache you had, then dealt with it and then felt such a relief. All of the parts leading to the sum indicate that God indeed exists. And if not....God exists beyond the clambering to be heard. lol.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 152
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 9:45:57 PM
O.k. and o.k. and finally the jab. If you do not worship reason you are an Islamic fundamentalist nut job. Oh please. How very lacking in the very religion you worship. Intellect. Or an analog. Or a diatribe on how transcendental has no meaning. Keep talking and thinking K. Offishal....at some point the transcendental will visit you in your dreams and if not.....
Like...I should believe that I can rely on reason and evidence to adjucate moral concerns and moral disputes. Frankly...the transcendental instructs and offers way more comfort than the god of reason. Proof? Fiends such as Hitler, Stalin and et al who buried themselves in perverted forms of reason. Transcedental tunings escape the human, ugly, petty ego.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 153
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 10:11:15 PM
K.Offishal....irrational? blather? Your inexperience and lack of depth shows itself all of the the time. Knowing is very different from experience. Anybody can study a philosophy of words, science, biology, etc. Not many can synthesize properly. Young pup. I absolutely will call you on your pride.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 154
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 10:30:09 PM
Your Emoto card needs to be activated. Whats next, Ramtha?? Afraid to feel? Here...when you get clubbed over the head because you choose to disengage when you should not ...
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 155
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 10:42:01 PM
Wrong..mmmm.....virtual denial. Akin to a black, black and grey hole. Or sitting on a fence. Or hoping you are right when you are definitely in the territory of the lost. Transcendental.....found!!! Got it.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 156
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:16:50 PM
frankly ....you would not understand the gravity of wisdom if it jumped up and bit your pork chop and your friggen nose.
Here's what I recommend. No sources on the Internet but a litmus test that questions who you would take your greatest problem too? This guy Irregulator, et al. I wouldn't ..would you? There is indeed beauty in the arc of the intellect but there is no beauty in arrogance and lack of compassion and this frankly worthless admiration for what in the end counts for a big, fat zero. Hey Irregulator when was the last time you comforted somebody in need? Where your words meaningful? Probably not.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 157
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:27:47 PM
Because...you and the rest are the end of the argument. Yikes. Uck.
god exists because Irreg. and et al leave us witless and lost and longing for the transcendental.
God may not exist. But neither do these egotists who fancy themselves ???? Why.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 158
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/12/2011 11:32:39 PM

My money is on the pixies. See above for irrefutable proof of their existence and unswerving commitment to truth.

There's no proof in your previous comment. Have you witnessed the power of the pixie?

How dare you malign the sacred pixie. If you would only open your mind and heart you too would understand.


All theists are 'deluded'.

That's just another way of expressing your firm and fervent belief that God doesn't exist.

Which 'god'?
But anyway, you seem not to have noticed the whole statement (you selectively quote a fraction of) was a parody of this piece from you -
All physicalists are "Atheists". All or most "Atheists" are Physicalists, at least some of the time--they tend to oscillate between Atheism/Physicalism and unconvincingly-professed Agnosticism.

Here's the full parody reply -
All theists are 'Deluded'. All or most 'Deluded People' are theists, at least some of the time -- they tend to oscillate between Theism/Delusion and unconvincingly professed pseudo-scientific Spiritualism.

Note that all I've done is use your sentence and just substituted equivalent terms.

You seem resistant to the idea though that your sentence is "just another way of expressing your firm and fervent" unsupported belief that "Atheists" and "Physicalists" are roughly the same thing, with occasional excursions (in "Atheist" mode) toward incompetent Agnosticism.
None of which expresses anything worthwhile of course, it stands simply as a peculiar opinion, derived one supposes from your strange philosophy.

Speaking of which...

As for "pseudoscientific", I and most other Theists here, and others that you refer to as "spiritualist", don't claim to be invoking science in this discussion. Only the "Atheists", are trying that. So, that's who's being pseudoscientific, by trying to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability.

You mistakenly assume pseudo-science is a branch of regular science.
It isn't.
Pseudo-science is mumbo-jumbo dressed up as science. In that sense it perfectly describes your interminable output.

You also mistakenly, and somewhat arrogantly, assert that science has some "legitimate range of applicability".
It doesn't.
Science is simply a search for knowledge. Knowledge has no boundaries, despite your obviously "fervent" wish that your philosophy has some special reason to be corralled behind a science-proof fence.

For your edification, here are a couple of definitions of pseudo-science.

1) It is not scientific, and its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
2) It is part of a non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific.
3) It is part of a doctrine that conflicts with (good) science.
_________________________________________________________________________________
1. Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others have to accept their judgments.
2. Non-repeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome.
3. Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category that the investigation refers to.
4. Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.
5. Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments that conflict with a theory are neglected.
6. Built-in subterfuge: The testing of a theory is so arranged that the theory can only be confirmed, never disconfirmed, by the outcome.
7. Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one. (Hansson 1983)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/



Science
The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world.
Most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline.

Pseudoscience
Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.
The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it, and the field has evolved very little since it was first established.

The search for new knowledge is the driving force behind the evolution of any scientific field. Nearly every new finding raises new questions that beg exploration. There is little evidence of this in the pseudosciences.

Science
Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.
In science, the person who shows that a generally accepted belief is wrong or incomplete is more likely to be considered a hero than a heretic.
Sciences advance by accommodating themselves to change as new information is obtained.
Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies.
Science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time.

Pseudoscience
In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.
Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.
The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.
Enthusiasts incorrectly take the logical impossibility of disproving a pseudoscientific principle as evidence of its validity.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html


It all sounds like a description of theism hey?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 159
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/13/2011 12:10:03 AM
God is not nature. God is beyond nature. God is more than nature. God granted Nature.
Intelligent architects are not always intelligent in the ways that make sense. Intelligence is often nothing more than glib offerings.
Of course we are not included in certain truths. Why should we be? Life is a path...life is more than science. Always. What does take my breath away is ...my lack of knowing. What stills and stops my breath are conclusions.
Egotists are beside the point. There are too many and no variety. All the same. All expressing a cacaphony of a endless void.
Birth is a gift. Birth is just friggen fantastic. Birth is the biggest lottery you ever won.
Even if only for the shortest time imaginable. And ...
Who cares if God does not exist? What exists is not just you and the rest.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 160
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/13/2011 1:22:55 AM

God is not nature. God is beyond nature. God is more than nature. God granted Nature.

Which god? The one in your imagination? Or some other one, like the one in the imagination of Muslims? Or maybe it was a host of deities all sharing the task, like in the imagination of Hindu's, or the different set Sikh's imagine? Perhaps it was all those ancient deities, like the Egyptian, Roman, or Greek ones, that pre-date the deities currently in vogue?

Perhaps the ones those ancient Egyptians imagined got there first and created everything, so there was really nothing to do for the one you imagine, other than hang around for an eternity of imaginary boredom.

On the other hand, it could really have been the pixies though hey? There's no evidence it wasn't after all...

What does take my breath away is ...my lack of knowing.

Yeah, that takes my breath away sometimes too.


Birth is a gift. Birth is just friggen fantastic. Birth is the biggest lottery you ever won.
Even if only for the shortest time imaginable.

Gosh, you should go to Dadaab, the biggest refugee camp in the world, and spread the good word.
There they are thinking they've been cursed to endure some interminable nightmare but really they should rejoice hey? They all just need to realise all those starving and diseased little babies are really the big winners. They'd be so happy I'm sure if you went there and told them all about your powerful and merciful imaginary friend who's watching over them.
 Quello79
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 161
view profile
History
On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
Posted: 7/13/2011 3:05:05 AM
@Alan
I have not ignored or brushed aside your apparent copy and pasted contradictions. Ok, if you're too lazy to look up the answers, I'll just copy and paste them.

Apparent contradiction:
God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

Answer:
"I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will."

Apparent contradiction:
God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

Answer:
"These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction....

In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

He notes:
"If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".

How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT):
Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)

"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)

"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)

"they saw God" (Ex 24:11)

"We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?

Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed.
So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).

Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach.
Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.

"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".

Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father.
Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father. "


Apparent contradiciton:
God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

Answer:
"The term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work."


Aparrent contradiction:
God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

Answer:
"Let's also add the next verse to strengthen the critics case: "But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?

First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize. Note that God asked several questions:

"Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?"

Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others?
"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." [Gen 11:5]

"The the LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." [Gen 18:20-21] These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into human history.

But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word 'descend' implies turning one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a "mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable.

Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established."

More answers can be found here:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#2

Jonah and the whale doesn't occur in the Bible? Eh?

You want proof of God? Go seek the power of the Holy Spirit. Watch the documentary called A Haunting that was shown on the Discovery channel which reinacts hauntings and converts atheists into Christians after having to ask a Christian pastor/vicar etc for exorcisms - that worked.
Watch the testimony of Ian McCormack on youtube - which is about an atheist who was stung several times by the world's deadliest jellyfish, he died, saw Hell, Heaven and God, came back a live in the morgue and is now a Christian and travels the world evangelising with his testimony.
And there's Don Piper's 90 minutes in Heaven testimony.

Just go to a good church that has a strong presence of the Holy Spirit.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  >