CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes. I, as a Christian, almost wrote "no" on the other side, but the thing is, you can't necessarily disprove God. I can argue with you on why that's not possible. On the contrary, you may not be able to simply prove His existence. You can take lots of evidence found throughout the world that supports his existence, and you can make a conjecture on this. Personally, I have found proof that makes sense to me that ties in with scripture to say "God of the Bible Exists".
Which in no way constitutes proof of the Christian God.
You can take lots of evidence found throughout the world that supports his existence, and you can make a conjecture on this. Personally, I have found proof that makes sense to me that ties in with scripture to say "God of the Bible Exists".
LOve.. home, obedience... you.. are you obedient? do you feel at home? can you feel the love? when you can't feel 'em then you just dependent on what you here on others you know..
you what's your evidence on proving that God does not Exist?
What makes you believe these sensations cannot come about from any other source except God?
when you can't feel 'em then you just dependent on what you here on others you know..
Can you please rephrase this? I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
you what's your evidence on proving that God does not Exist?
Wrong debate. But that's not how this works any way. You are the one claiming there is a God, so you provide the evidence for that claim. Immediately jumping to the inverse makes it look like you have run out of ideas.
what's your evidence on proving that God does not Exist?
Nobody is obligated to disprove something that was never proven into existence. Just because I do well it does not proves existence of magic, gods, fairies or lepricons ....
None of that remotely proves the existence of the Christian God. Principles of obedience, belonging, and love long predate the genesis of the Christian faith. You have also presented zero evidence that these are caused by a Christian God, and that only the Christian God could cause them.
The burden of proof does not fall upon me, but upon the person staking the claim (you).
There is no need to disprove something that has never been proved into existence in a first place.
Otherwise with your (failed) logic pig farms should have should have nets over them to prevent pigs from flying away, because nobody disproved pigs ability to fly...
I have found proof that makes sense to me that ties in with scripture to say "God of the Bible Exists". So if I write a book that says that bible is a lie, you will become atheist because "my book says so" ?
But those who wrote these scriptures are illiterate but because of God they have wrote these things. We being literate we can actually create our own book to prove something and to disprove...
so if I say that: If i can also write that atheists do not exist for the reason that they only get proofs on what they here form others.
There is a difference between real proof reported by expert and a word of 2000 years dead homeless guy... Otherwise you can get brain surgery from a cook because he thinks that he knows what is he doing ...
actually... if we find God in the bottom of our heart we can find Him. Because of human intelligence, they are now finding away to prove that there is no God. But for us Christians we have already prove that God exist by the word FAITH. We can prove it by the power of the Holy one.. actually even thou you argue for this topic no one will win and will loose for there are many reasons like: our knowledge is not enough to approve or disprove something unless you know it.
That's the reason why we put our faith to God. Anyone can prove it if someone's heart is open wide to accept the reality. :)
actually we have already undergone the process of being born again. Me, also been a persecutor of the church and when the time i realized that I was wrong and that's the reason I' telling this to you to think about it. it is us if we believe, we decide for our own..
that's why we need not to talk about this topic for we only want to win and to be popular.
There have been many attempts to justify the belief in a specific God, but there's an issue here that I believe is not being addressed. Since the argument specifies a God (Yahweh), I fail to see how it can be justified at all. As with the Argument from Design, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument...they all fall short of showing a rational basis to believe that any God/Gods exist, so how do you reconcile that with your assertion that a specific one, does indeed exist?
Using the Kalam as a convenient example, the furthest you can get by using that line of argument is the Deistic position, and that in itself is a stretch. What is your justification for claiming that A: God exists, and B: He is necessarily the Judeo-Christian God?
Yes, you can prove that God exists because Creation itself mimics the Creator, and so do we as well. For example, when the leaves in the fall start to fall off from the tree's that symbolizes that Creation is mimicking the death of Christ, and in the spring when everything blooms and everything is beautiful the earth is symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ.
We mimic the death and Resurrection of Christ on a daily basis. How so you say? Well when we go to bed you lay flat on your bed, or sideways. You basically are practicing the death of Christ, and when you wake up the next morning and get up from bed you're symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ.
You do know your exact arguments can be used in support of almost any other religion/mythology.
We mimic the death and Resurrection of Osiris on a daily basis. How so you say? Well when we go to bed you lay flat on your bed, or sideways. You basically are practicing the death of Osiris, and when you wake up the next morning and get up from bed you're symbolizing the Resurrection of Osiris.
Yes, you can prove that Odin exists because Creation itself mimics the Creator, and so do we as well. For example, when the leaves in the fall start to fall off from the tree's that symbolizes that Creation is mimicking the death of Odin, and in the spring when everything blooms and everything is beautiful the earth is symbolizing the Resurrection of Odin.
I am not a Christian. As evidence for the existence of God in the Christian sense of the concept, I would accept the physical results of Gods biblical miracles. Pillars of salt or water walkers would work as evidence for example. With enough evidence I think there would be a substantial concesus on the matter.
The problem is that Historians have not only different goals than Scientists, but utilize different methodologies. Biblical Miracles are no more verifiable than those attributed to Thor, Wotan, Beelzebub, Odin, or Ra. The fact that a historical text makes a claim doesn't make that claim true; since we cannot directly observe the past, Historians can only offer what was recorded and try to make associations and conjecture based upon their evidence.
This puts us in the position of considering what we can observe; namely, the Physical Laws. Einstein once said, "The only Miracle is that there are no Miracles." in reference to the fact that the Laws of Nature are Constant, they do not fluctuate. People do not rise from the dead (and even if the Biblical account is correct and they did, it appears to have been commonplace in the region at the time...so not exactly "divine"). As usual, Occam's Razor can solve many-a-problem.
Biblical Miracles are no more verifiable than those attributed to Thor, Wotan, Beelzebub, Odin, or Ra
They are equally unverifiable. An historians account being reproducible does not make it true. But an historians account lacking reproduce-ability, as does much of the bible, makes it almost certainly untrue. Hence my statment that I would accept as evidence, some of the miracles from the bible (or their results). If they were to happen again, or we could find that they happened in the first place, I would consider it a point in the bibles favor.
I think what more often happens is that science provides evidence for things that people of the time would have perceived to be supernatural just because they were then unexplainable - e.g. the plagues of Egypt, death of the first born sons, the burning bush, etc. etc.
C.G. Jung said when asked if he believed in God, "I don't need to believe, I know."
If you know something then you don't have to believe in it.
You can know in your heart that God exists. Revelation can come through deep insight, from the ability to sit quietly in a room, though the use of drugs as a facilitator of religious experience, or it can come naturally. Just read the books of the great mystics to understand these facts.
You cannot prove to another person that God exists. God is defined as infinite and cannot therefore be bracketed in an intellectual pursuit, as if He were a puzzle you needed to solve.
actually you can by showing humility and love. What you do on others that is good actually at that moment you are actually allowing yourself to be a instrument by God to change others.
Just because someone says they know something does not mean they actually know it. To know something is to have substantive knowledge of that thing... not to subjectively conceive of it while tripping on drugs.
If a person is sane and without delusions by all accounts including their own, and is not using mind altering substances, they may have a vision that causes them to say they "know" God. It's not irrational for this person to hold this position though it may be irrational for others to believe them.
If a person thinks they know God, then they must think they know he exists. I'll try to be more semantically precise.
I guess the point of my statement is that a sane person can have an experience that qualifies as proof for them. Since they cannot reproduce it, it is insubstantial. No rational person should take their word as proof, but perhaps they should take their own experience as proof.
If you are the only one who saw a shooting star. You can't prove it or reproduce it, but you can say you know that it was real. No one need believe you.
Believing that one has proof is not the same as actually having proof. The differences between myself seeing a shooting star that I could not prove existed and someone having an experience that led them to believe in God: (1) we actually know that shooting stars exist whereas we do not have any objective basis from which to conclude that God exists, rendering my perception at least marginally more reasonable; and (2) I would not claim that my perception of that shooting star alone was proof that shooting stars exist (nor would I need to on account of #1), whereas the theist would claim that their subjective perception of the proof of God alone is proof that God exists.
I take your point that accepting your own perception of a shooting star is more reasonable than accepting your own perception of a spiritual experience. This is why I think it would be reasonable for the sane person to conclude they had a delusional episode. It's this same sanity that would make a "god" conclusion reasonable as well, though only to that person. Both conclusions would have merit to the person who experienced it.
the theist would claim that their subjective perception of the proof of God alone is proof that God exists.
My example was of a very specific perceptual experience where the conclusion of the existence of God is reasonable only to the person with the perception. This isn't meant to imply that their perception is valid evidence to anyone else; it isn't.
I have argued before that faith based debates cannot be argued on rational grounds unless the two debaters have identical faith. Here I am saying that a rational person can have faith, they just can't rationally defend it.
The crucial difference between the reasonableness of relying upon the perception of a shooting star and doing so for a perception of god is that we have externally verified the objective existence of shooting stars which has not been done for god. Ultimately, neither specific perception can be externally verified but the validity of similar perceptions exists for the former whereas it does not for perceptions of god.
To return to my original point, even were the personal perception of god reasonable it would still not constitute knowledge and is consequentially an invalid argument in the context of proof of God (which is what I was originally responding to).
1. The Universe The universe can't have made from nothing! Just a speck? That's not gonna happen. A creator, God, is the only possible answer for the universe.
2. The Earth Look at the Earth's position in our solar system! Perfect for containing life! If anything was out of place we couldn't exist! We are God's people!
3. Humans God created humans! Look at your own face! Look how perfect it is situated on your face. A divine creator had to have done this.
You cant prove that God made humans either, and there is actual proof that we have monkey genes.. (As cheesy as that sounds) The rhesus monkey. We have a common gene with them, which is also related to our blood type, being either rh negative or positive, which most people are positive and there is about 20% that is negative.
You cant prove that God made humans either, and there is actual proof that we have monkey genes.. (As cheesy as that sounds) The rhesus monkey. We have a common gene with them, which is also related to our blood type, being either rh negative or positive, which most people are positive and there is about 20% that is negative.
A speck of energy containing all the energy that the universe will ever have. Energy cannot be destroyed nor produced.
Look at the Earth's position in our solar system! Perfect for containing life! If anything was out of place we couldn't exist!
The universe is infinite. We are on Earth because life is on Earth. I am sure there is a life-sustaining planet out there.
Look how perfect it is situated on your face.
How do you know it is perfect. Evolution; Natural selection created this. People who had features like us survived because they had good features and could survive more easily. The existence of God cannot be proven.
yes you are right but if you know not these things you do not actually say these things for you will believe in what will others tell you to believe...
82 scientist got together with mathmatical equations and developed a list of minimal required expectations, and scientific properties that would have to exist or have occurred in order to have any reasonable expectations of the existence of alien life.
You cant prove that God made humans either, and there is actual proof that we have monkey genes.. (As cheesy as that sounds) The rhesus monkey. We have a common gene with them, which is also related to our blood type, being either rh negative or positive, which most people are positive and there is about 20% that is negative.
We have monkey genes? God made all land animals and man from the dust. Cells picked up in His hand as He created.
So that's not an indication evolution is factual.
And Satan creates also. So while we were in our garden playpen before the fall, Satan who is a mutating shape-shifter was likely making failed experiments outside the garden.
The entirety of your rebuttal can be dismissed with a hearty pointing out of the glaring Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. This is precisely the issue Religion causes: Once you think you have the answer, you stop looking for it. If there ever was a clearer example of how Religion retards progress, I haven't seen it.
See also: God of the gaps / argument from ignorance.
Re: chance:
Think of every decision you have ever made and every possibility available for each chance - now multiply the probability of all of those happening exactly in the order they happened and within a single lifetime - is the number so large that it proves you don't exist?
Jesus said it will be "just like the days of Noah!
We have entered the Ark, trying to heard you beasts in with us!
We will be hidden from the horror that will take place when the middle east let's loose it's final acts. You can be hidden in Jesus, or not! But the destruction is coming regardless.
Now He painstakingly filed them into the Ark Male and Female.
Not three-somes or bi-sexuals, or same-sex couples, only male and female entered!
Why did God start this story discussing the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men?
"Unnatural" and then also equate the final destruction calling attention to "marrying and given in marriage" unnatural against His design, 1 male with his 1 female!?
Do you think same sex marriage was a blessing? Think again!
It will be just like the days of Noah, then He adds Sodom and Gomorrah just to cover His basis in CLARITY!
All the others, we'll they were marrying and given in marriage to whomever they pleased!
Weird Jesus would mention this dynamic, when God was displeased by their marital choices and their seed of offspring.
Yet Jesus mentions that too!
"Like birth pangs" "like a woman in labor" " woe to them that nurse babes and give sucks in those days" woe to us who raised and nursed these babes of Millennials, woe!
Jesus unites these two stories!
And without the Holy Spirit you can't understand a thing!
So good luck, or get into the Ark!
Romans
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; *(for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Luke 17
32 Remember Lot’s wife.
33 Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. (Unnatural and immorality, and fornication)
35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. (False doctrines and false teachers)
36 [Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”] (working serving masters, one serving themselves and god of this world, one serving Jesus)
37 And answering they said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.” devoured by beasts in a dog eat dog world! Demons devouring them as they devour each other!
Guess what happens 1st? Taken by their own lusts comes 1st!
Dead bodies of sin devoured by vultures, birds of the air, Principalities of the air!
the unnatural marrying of fallen angels with daughters of men?
This supernatural union supposedly made mighty men of renown:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."
Does that sound like they are saying it is a bad thing?
Why would divorce be illegal? Everyone has the right to enter or dissolve a contractual relationship with whatever laws of fair separation go according to state or prenupts.
The gay can enter that contract with the state, and that is between them and the state. But that isn't what LGBT was militant about, they would have won that pretty uneventfully.
It's closer to the Lot being saved from Sodom story. The force of it in every part of everyone's lives. You don't think this story is a showing of when society forces their way into the homes of their neighbors is a clear revelation of the western societies.
Jesus draws attention to instruct us to review two prior episodes of judgement, like "the days of Noah" and "like the days of Lot" So if there are any questions above times and Bible Prophesies regarding last days, you'd have to be a complete moron to not connect the dots.
So we have two destructions at the end, so the West can expect that portion of this scripture. When there is no goodness and only violence, and then society is behind the violence the ignorance toward all. It's not bettering them or any.
Damaging and decline, it is entropy of man, of character, of society, of finance, of resources, throughout all things.
Shitting in everyone's yard. No character. Depravity of internal qualities that make us divine! The man in us that lift our countenances and who straighten our spines and who raise hands to exalt the Most High God.
Mankind has been on a downward spiral in their humanity, but now it's more rapid like a free fall of man. Like they are falling into the depths of the earth.
No boundaries or respect for others rights. There is no self awareness of courtesy. Rights and freedoms should be courteous. That's why they are now easily taken away.
Abuse of our purpose, and a total misunderstanding of what America was, as you all plummet head long like wild savages without thought or courtesy. Like beasts not mankind.
Like animals uncivilized without reason or understanding.
If you don't nurture the environment you eat in, then on top of it you shit and smear your environment, and millions of you combine to do the same, we can have a pretty shitty existence! And it's root is self exaltation, oh pride of Babylon! Like Sodom who pushed their way onto their neighbors, as seen in the Lot example.
Welcome to Sodom, your destruction is scheduled and queued, it will take place at His appointed time whether ready or not.
Look at the signs Jesus went over them, they are there for all to see if you have eyes.
What do "others rights" have to do with gay marriage? Do you think you should have the right to keep it illegal because you think it is icky?
a total misunderstanding of what America
America was a place were marriage was were man and wife become one and that that one is the man. A married woman could not earn or spend money, sue in court, own property, sign contracts, hold copyrights, etc. etc.
Still think we should go back to "traditional marriage"?
a pretty shitty existence
Actually, it was shitty for gay people to be treated disparagingly by their own government - and it makes life no shittier for you to allow it.
You obviously don't understand the issue. They forced the law, not to be exclusively beneficial to themselves. That wasn't their intent. They wanted to force their lifestyle into everyone's home. And are still pushing down others spaces.
Why doesn't your generation understand where the place of honor is? Its not in exalting self importance which is critically unique to your generation. You are the generation that will usher in the Day of the Lord. This is the what Jesus said regarding spreading out into others seats, and demanding priority seating:
Luke 14
7 And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them,
8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him,
9 and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this man,’ and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place.
10 But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.
11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
They forced the law, not to be exclusively beneficial to themselves.
Um, what?
They wanted to force their lifestyle into everyone's home.
Was the interracial couple in Loving v Virginia just trying to force their lifestyle into everyone's home?
I am not very sympathetic to the complaint that you have to deal with the fact that gay people exist.
Why doesn't your generation understand
I'm only a few years older than you, so I'm not sure how this is a generational thing.
--------------
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Gay people always existed and they were not quite so obnoxious. So no there isn't a dislike for gays in me. Wacko. Why is it always a whine of offense with your generation. Your a bunch of pansies!
So, we should be more like Lot - whom God favored - and instead of allowing people to have homosexual sex with the two new strangers in town (who are actually angles) - we should let the town gang-rape our virgin daughters instead, right?
The lesson regarding Lot was being between a rock and a hard place. It also shows the lack of boundaries for their neighbors values. They were forcing their lifestyle into the households of all their neighbors. And there was no moral allowance tolerated by the immoral society. Kind of like today!
It's the old philosophical question, if your son were on the track, and 20 people on the other, which do you choose? The greater good or the honorable good? Bible shows the nobility of putting others ahead. There was obviously no reconciling bring in the middle of this. Also Lot lived there, maybe he knew they wouldn't be interested in his daughters anyway.
It was just an ugly scene.
But it's the same today. No boundaries. Everyone's militant lifestyle has to be in everyone's lives or somehow they are slighted.
The word minority is the stupidest word ever. It is a way to over accentuate the presence of some at the health of none!
It's opposite of a solution, it's self annihilation, and it is assaulting everyone and pulling everyone down with them.
All these militant me me I exalt me me mentality. Like Lucifer!
Science that contradicts the flood by Greg Moore, a Christian that believes in an old earth:
---------------------
"[T]he global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data. Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires. There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply could not support that many organisms."
"In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities."
"The opossum, for example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of 70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood deposits-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and after the Flood."
"They assume the aquatic creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers of fresh and saltwater. However, if the Flood was a global event, the floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is adapted to live within a particular salinity range. Organisms on the ocean floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water pressure. It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say accompanied the Flood."
"Most plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence in water, particularly salt water, for many months. Those that did survive would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood model."
"[W]e would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm."
"Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?"
"[N]owhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim."
"[T]he Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest."
"If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?"
NOTICE: CODE AND PRECISION! GOD is purposeful and clear.
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
10 It came about after the seven days, that the water of the flood came upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
13 On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark,
14 they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.
15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.
16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the Lord closed it behind him.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
Luke 17
32 Remember Lot’s wife.
33 Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left.
35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
36 [Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”]
37 And answering they *said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.”
Galatians 2:13
The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 13:9
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
James 1:14
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Peter 3:17
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
Evidence for the existence of God cannot be base on Scripture; to do so would be to engage in presuppositional apologetics, which gets us nowhere. The premise cannot contain the conclusion. In effect, it doesn't matter what verses you cite, as none of them actually serve to as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being.
That doesn't make any sense, because I'm not talking about disproving anything. I'm talking about God being faith based, and not an evidence based god.
yup that's true.. but actually you can because God gives power to those who are in Him and is faithful to Him.. believe in you because you are made in the DNA of a winner.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. God isn't an evidence based god. God is a faith based god. Do you have an argument to counter what I have said?
I cannot prove it, but neither can I disprove it. This is a futile argument that has been repeated for the umpteenth time. Thank you for contributing to the stupidity of mankind.
I find it humorous and also very telling that this debate is over a year old.
And thus, all the delusional believers here have had all the time in the world, as well as a free, open forum with which to give us all even a speck or a hint of proof, or even a mildly compelling reason why god their sky god exists. Or even why they believe in him.
Yet...they have ALL failed to do so. All they can do, all they EVER do, is retort with tired old bible tracts and more of their own groundless and delusional claims.