"Does God exist?"

Originally posted by twhitehead

I notice Grampy has gone deaf as usual and is ignoring all responses to his posts. When will we ever see an honest theist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I notice Grampy has gone deaf as usual and is ignoring all responses to his posts. When will we ever see an honest theist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?"

> twhitehead, here's an atheist who changed her mind; her reasoning for doing so is the context of this conversation. I've provided it for you, and your atheist friends, thinking you'd identify with a kindred spirit.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Does God exist?" Here are six straight-forward reasons to believe that God is really there. By Marilyn Adamson

"Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists. But first consider this. When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. 2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it? 3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it? 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

Proof of God: I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England." Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you." This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.

God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand." Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way." http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Note: If you decide to believe in Christ, you can be confident you have eternal life. You will share an eternal relationship with God. You will live with Him forever in heaven. Faith alone in Christ alone is salvation. Your decision. (OP)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, quite frankly, most of the atheists are just plain lousy representatives of science, usually with less understanding of it than theists have of their stripes of faith yet they bandy it around like a bully club nonetheless.

The great thing about science as opposed to faith, is that with science it is possible to know when you are wrong, and when two parties discuss science, it is usually possible for one party to prove that they other is wrong.
My complaint here is that when this happens and the theist is clearly wrong, they do not admit it.

What really grinds the gears, however, is the absolute refusal of the atheist to respond to the logic plainly evident in situations where something can be measured, objectified or in any other fashion decided.
Actually it is the theists that run from any such discussion.

They read half of every sentence while ignoring the salient half, and then resort to ad hominem attacks or flat out name calling.
Once again - thats theists you are describing.

The atheist truly couldn't give a rat's ass about spirituality: they come looking for a fight and refuse to leave until they get one.
Why should we give a rat's ass about spirituality, and why should we be made to leave? There is no rule which says we must be interested in spirituality and must leave if we aren't.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Theists are not wrong, that's why..

I have shown conclusively that Grampy has made some false statements with regards to science. I have done the same with many other theists over the years.
He does not deny it.

If you deny it, then please feel free to discuss the points I have made in this thread and explain where I got it wrong.

What if I had just said, "When will we ever see an honest atheist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?"
Feel free to show me a thread with an atheist that is clearly wrong (where any impartial observer would agree that the atheist lost the argument) and where the atheist refused to admit his error.

But you know, I wouldn't since that doesn't even make sense to me. Not that they are not wrong, it's just that not one will admit it. Because, in their mind, they are not wrong.
If grampy is not wrong in his mind about the science claims he made in this thread, then why does he not address the points I made? Why does he instead move on to other claims which also turn out to be false? Why do you not address my claims? The great thing about science is these things can be resolved. The answers are there for all to see- everyone should agree on the answers after some discussion. But the theists do not want to discuss it because they know the answers are not in their favour.

And there's your answer. It's not even really a question of honesty/dishonesty, so you can stop your trolling now
If its not a question of honesty/dishonesty are you willing to answer a few of the questions I have for you with regards to claims made in this thread. I just want you to say whether you think grampy is right, I am right, were both wrong, or you don't know which of us is right. Are you willing to do that?

Originally posted by Suzianne
But Matthew was. Whether the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew or not is, as I said earlier, a matter of opinion and conjecture. But Matthew was charged with providing his testimony, and there it is.

So do we agree that the testimony in the Gospel of Matthew may not have been written by Matthew? Why do you think it was reported from Matthew? I don't think it claims to be.

And what about where some of the Gospels report on things like Jesus' birth, or what happened at the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead (and there were only women present). Were the writers still eyewitnesses of these events?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do we agree that the testimony in the Gospel of Matthew may not have been written by Matthew? Why do you think it was reported from Matthew? I don't think it claims to be.

And what about where some of the Gospels report on things like Jesus' birth, or what happened at the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead (and there were only women present). Were the writers still eyewitnesses of these events?

The book of Matthew was written no later than 50 A.D. by a Jew named Levi, who collected taxes for the Roman government. He was also one of the twelve original apostles or disciples of the Christ. Matthew was his Greek speaking Roman name.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have shown conclusively that Grampy has made some false statements with regards to science. I have done the same with many other theists over the years.
He does not deny it.

If you deny it, then please feel free to discuss the points I have made in this thread and explain where I got it wrong.

[b]What if I had just said, "When will we ever see a ...[text shortened]... I am right, were both wrong, or you don't know which of us is right. Are you willing to do that?

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I have shown conclusively that [Grampy] has made some false statements with regards to science. I have done the same with many other theists over the years.
He does not deny it."

twhitehead, you've attempted to refute [Marilyn Adamson's] statements regarding her empirical and rational observations.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The book of Matthew was written no later than 50 A.D. by a Jew named Levi, who collected taxes for the Roman government. He was also one of the twelve original apostles or disciples of the Christ. Matthew was his Greek speaking Roman name.

These reputable sites would disagree.

http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-matthew/introduction-to-matthews-gospel/

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm

http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/matthew.htm

And from Wiki
The Gospel of Matthew was composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, you've attempted to refute [Marilyn Adamson's] statements regarding her empirical and rational observations.

I have successfully refuted some of [Marilyn Adamson's] statements. Do you deny this? If you do, would you like to discuss the points in detail?
I don't really care whether it was Marilyn Adamson or you that made the claims, it was you that posted them, so I expect you to show some responsibility for what you post. If someone shows that what you posted was false, you should admit it rather than simply ignoring the responses posting 10 more false things.
It is sufficient for you to say you disagree with Marilyn Adamson and you agree with me that she got it wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have successfully refuted some of [Marilyn Adamson's] statements. Do you deny this? If you do, would you like to discuss the points in detail?
I don't really care whether it was Marilyn Adamson or you that made the claims, it was you that posted them, so I expect you to show some responsibility for what you post. If someone shows that what you posted w ...[text shortened]... nt for you to say you disagree with Marilyn Adamson and you agree with me that she got it wrong.

Adamson's conclusions appear diametrically opposed to your own. I've no right to interfere with your volition. We're good.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Adamson's conclusions appear diametrically opposed to your own. I've no right to interfere with your volition. We're good.

This has nothing to do with her conclusions or my volition, it has to do with some of the assertions she used when making the conclusions were obviously false. Why is it so hard for you to admit that they are false?
Why do you post quotes from people who have clearly based their arguments on false claims?

If you could find a quote from someone saying 2+2=5 therefore God exists, you would post it then pretend my objection is because I don't like the conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have shown conclusively that Grampy has made some false statements with regards to science. I have done the same with many other theists over the years.
He does not deny it.

If you deny it, then please feel free to discuss the points I have made in this thread and explain where I got it wrong.

[b]What if I had just said, "When will we ever see a ...[text shortened]... I am right, were both wrong, or you don't know which of us is right. Are you willing to do that?

GF is probably right, in that I extrapolated your remark as only concerning theists' belief in God. I am not privy to all that has occurred in this thread, so I am not aware (doesn't mean they didn't happen) of the mistakes you say GB made regarding science.

Therefore, since I am not aware of the claims made in this thread (on both sides), I cannot draw a conclusion as to the correctness of either of your arguments. And, I realize that yes, I could go back and peruse the entire thread, I'm not sure (but I do not think so) that my interest level is even that high. My reply was based solely on the one question you asked which was designed to draw attention and that was "When will we ever see an honest theist on this forum who can admit when they are wrong?" I admit I was wrong when I assumed you were talking about the age-old point of contention between theists and atheists (belief in God) and my answer was based on that. It has absolutely nothing to do with what either of you posted already in this thread, and so, with that, I will take my leave. I'm sorry for interrupting.

Originally posted by Suzianne
GF is probably right, in that I extrapolated your remark as only concerning theists' belief in God.

I was referring specifically to claim relating to science which can be verified and should be easily agreed upon by all parties - and not claims such as the existence of God which might remain in dispute.
For example, in another thread, a poster stated that the rotation of the earth is 'fine tuned' in order to allow day and night. I pointed out to him that almost any possible rotation of the earth would cause days and nights. But did he ever admit that his claim was wrong? No, he just kept on making more false statements.

I admit I was wrong when I assumed you were talking about the age-old point of contention between theists and atheists (belief in God) and my answer was based on that.
Thank you. Such honesty is rare in this forum.

If you look at what GF has done above, he first reposted lengthy amounts without explanation as to why he was reposting it all in the hope I would just give up and go away.
Then he tried to pretend that my objection is purely because I don't like the conclusions and he will not discuss it because he doesn't want to interfere with my volition.
The fact is that GF is being grossly dishonest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was referring specifically to claim relating to science which can be verified and should be easily agreed upon by all parties - and not claims such as the existence of God which might remain in dispute.
For example, in another thread, a poster stated that the rotation of the earth is 'fine tuned' in order to allow day and night. I pointed out to him th ...[text shortened]... he doesn't want to interfere with my volition.
The fact is that GF is being grossly dishonest.

Hello.

What am I being grossly dishonest about?

EDIT: Do you mean GB? I don't appear to have posted great long posts in this thread.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hello.

What am I being grossly dishonest about?

EDIT: Do you mean GB? I don't appear to have posted great long posts in this thread.

My apologies, I did mean GB

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies, I did mean GB

that's quite all-right.

It's a very small typo to make.