Evidence that God exists - Page 11

hmkpoker · #**101** 11-17-2005, 10:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming this, is it correct to assert that God made the good news as apparent to the native americans a thousand years ago as he does to Americans today? And if so, should not the European explorers have found that the good news had been heard there already?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says God makes Himself known to everyone - it doesn't say the gospel has been preached to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good. If that message was made known to everyone after the resurrection, then the native americans from years past (or as an even better example, the australian aborigines who were completely isolated from the whole european world) all had an understanding of Jesus, but didn't bother to discuss this fantastic revelation amongst themselves to develop the idea.

Seems like it would make for worthwhile conversation.

NotReady · #**102** 11-17-2005, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to tell God who He can and can't save.

djj6835 · #**103** 11-17-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the evidence that God exists is nature, order, design. That God is the God of the Bible is partly proved by the Bible itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you make a statement like this you are just going to get into the same circular logic you get into everytime you try to prove something regarding Christianity.

You can't say that the text that is at the base of Christianity is proof that the Christian God exists. How can something that isn't known to be rooted in facts be used as any sort of proof?

NotReady · #**104** 11-17-2005, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Once you make a statement like this you are just going to get into the same circular logic you get into everytime you try to prove something regarding Christianity.

You can't say that the text that is at the base of Christianity is proof that the Christian God exists. How can something that isn't known to be rooted in facts be used as any sort of proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always agreed that my reasoning about this is circular. All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular. You can't prove that human reason is the ultimate standard of truth without assuming the validity of human reason, so all non-theistic reasoning is also circular. The reason for this is the finitude of man - we don't know all things so we have to start with unproved assumptions. My fundamental presupposition is that the Bible is God's Word. This is not an arbitrary assumption - there are good reasons for doing so, but I can't prove with absolute certainty that it's true. And if it is God's Word, it would obviously be self-proving, because God's Word is a higher authority than human reason.

And why do you think the Bible isn't rooted in facts? There is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, and many have been shown to be true, some of which were believed false for a long period of time (the Hittite civilization, for instance) and then shown true.

hmkpoker · #**105** 11-17-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to tell God who He can and can't save.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is, obviously. That's not the point. What I'm asking is, if God indeed makes himself known to everyone, and, as necessary according to almost all Christians, the news about Jesus Christ and our hope for salvation, than an isolated group of people, with no social connections to Europe, Christianity, or the bible, should have all recieved some form of revelation with regard to same.

I assume that this revelation would be worthwhile talk, and that the belief in Christ (though not necessarily all the intricacies of the scripture) would be likely to be widespread among the isolated people.

Would you agree with this?

Lestat · #**106** 11-17-2005, 02:07 PM

<font color="blue">here is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, </font>

Doesn't this depend on how loosely you want to use the word "shown"? It's pretty much been "shown" that human beings are incapable of 900 year life spans.

Now I'm sure you'll say this doesn't prove that it never happened. But I'm gonna say that it's physically impossible based on every possible piece of evidence we have to date. Therefore, this is a false biblical claim.

NotReady · #**107** 11-17-2005, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Would you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Romans 1 says that God makes Himself known to all people and that people generally suppress that truth. Other texts say that God is evident from the creation, from nature. The Bible also says not to ask who is saved and who is lost. So I don't know. I'm not going to limit God in who He will and won't save. I'm not going to draw a (humanly) logical conclusion and say God has to comply with my orders. He owes salvation to no one. He saves many. He is gracious and just. I see no need to violate His expicit command not to inquire.

NotReady · #**108** 11-17-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much been "shown" that human beings are incapable of 900 year life spans.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume the past is exactly like the present you may have a case. A very large assumption.

You also have to assume that God can't preserve human life for 900 years. Another very large assumption.

Science is not above God.

jthegreat · #**109** 11-17-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've always agreed that my reasoning about this is circular. All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular. You can't prove that human reason is the ultimate standard of truth without assuming the validity of human reason, so all non-theistic reasoning is also circular. The reason for this is the finitude of man - we don't know all things so we have to start with unproved assumptions. My fundamental presupposition is that the Bible is God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as I quite clearly showed in the Paradox thread, all presuppositions are not created equal. Yours is immensely weak compared to the presupposition that there is order in nature (and thus that human reasoning is valid). You keep saying there are good reasons to make your presupposition, but you also keep *not* explaining any of them.

NotReady · #**110** 11-17-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying there are good reasons to make your presupposition, but you also keep *not* explaining any of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've gone into great detail in other threads over the course of a year. How about, if God doesn't exist morality is an illusion and the universe has no purpose?

The arguments for the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, the historicity of Christ and the reality of the resurrection can't be made in one simplistic formula - it's a far greater subject than "order in nature".