Does God Exist?

[flamingjimmy]

Absolute rubbish!

How so John?

How so John?

He explained how so, you just ignored it. Maybe you really did think it was irrelevant, in which case allow me to explain why it wasn't.

 

You said "Our sense of morality today, of what is 'good' and 'evil' is shaped entirely by religious teachings."

 

Notice the word 'entirely'. In order to disprove your assertion John would only have to find one example of something that is considered 'good' or 'evil' that is not mentioned by the major religions. He chose the example of rape, which is not condemned by any of the holy books of the abrahamic religions.

 

Thus the question "When did we realise that rape was wrong because god never forbade it?" was entirely relevant.

 

Also, on the flip side, things that used to be considered evil (and are condemned as such by the abrahamic holy books) are not considered evil anymore. John chose examples like "divine instructions on how you should view your neighbour's donkey"

and "god's laws on how to treat [slaves]" and working on a sunday.

 

Our sense of whther these things are good or evil clearly did not come from religion, in fact we have pretty much explicitly decided that much of the morality in your holy books are wrong, and we ignore stupid rules about working on sundays and looking at donkeys. Also, we don't keep slaves anymore. The Bible/Quran/Torah never condemns slavery, yet we consider it to be evil. Therefore the idea that slavery is evil did NOT come from religion.

 

He would only have needed one of these examples to prove you wrong because you said "Our sense of morality today, of what is 'good' and 'evil' is shaped entirely by religious teachings". As such he succesfully proved you wrong about 5 times in one post.

 

Atheism embraces the belief in evil without acknowledging or even bothering to investigate its origins which is a basic requirement in a debate of this nature.

What on earth do you mean by that? 'Atheism embraces the belief in Evil'?

 

I might as well say 'Islam embraces the belief in evil without investigating its origins but instead just making up stupid stuff'

Edited June 30, 2010 by flamingjimmy

[sandie]

The reason for my post was simple, not to offend those that beleive in the Bible as a book of fact nor to insult their faith. My question was simple where is the proof that the events in this book ever took place, and as of yet I see no evidence to support it's claims.

 

I remember watching an episode of Star Trek where they visited a planet and the locals had a copy of the Declaration of Independance and took it as the truth and all life was controlled by this book, until the content was explained.

 

We can not live or run our lives by what is in print and we are allowed to question the proof of the content.

[Baz1]

He explained how so, you just ignored it.

 

No. I just did not see the need to elaborate. I mean, what person in their right mind will assume that if something is not mentioned in Book X, it makes it permissable/acceptable.

 

Rape/molestation/abuse etc are all wrong and we know that from our biological make up.

 

You said "Our sense of morality today, of what is 'good' and 'evil' is shaped entirely by religious teachings.".

 

I may have over used the word 'entirely' but I don't think its far from the truth. My first post above answers that.

 

Notice the word 'entirely'. In order to disprove your assertion John would only have to find one example of something that is considered 'good' or 'evil' that is not mentioned by the major religions. He chose the example of rape, which is not condemned by any of the holy books of the abrahamic religions.

 

As above. Again, something 'good' has to exist to make us also feel that the mentioned acts are wrong and immoral.

 

Also, on the flip side, things that used to be considered evil (and are condemned as such by the abrahamic holy books) are not considered evil anymore. John chose examples like "divine instructions on how you should view your neighbour's donkey"

and "god's laws on how to treat [slaves]" and working on a sunday.

 

Who decides what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? What you believe may be different to mine and so on. But moral truths exist- you know they do otherwise you will have to accept all evil committed is okay.

 

Our sense of whther these things are good or evil clearly did not come from religion, in fact we have pretty much explicitly decided that much of the morality in your holy books are wrong, and we ignore stupid rules about working on sundays and looking at donkeys. Also, we don't keep slaves anymore. The Bible/Quran/Torah never condemns slavery, yet we consider it to be evil. Therefore the idea that slavery is evil did NOT come from religion.

 

Well, for starters, don't use the Bible for my point of reference- and you don't even have the basic skills or knowledge to debate with me regards to the Quran.

 

Just for starters- Islam was the first of the religions which paved the way of abolishing slavery.

 

 

 

What on earth do you mean by that? 'Atheism embraces the belief in Evil'?.

 

I mean it[atheism] fails to link the whole issue of good and evil- you accept moral truths exist and yet don't look at the whole matter to understand its reality.

[Grahame]

The reason for my post was simple, not to offend those that beleive in the Bible as a book of fact nor to insult their faith. My question was simple where is the proof that the events in this book ever took place, and as of yet I see no evidence to support it's claims.

 

I remember watching an episode of Star Trek where they visited a planet and the locals had a copy of the Declaration of Independance and took it as the truth and all life was controlled by this book, until the content was explained.

 

We can not live or run our lives by what is in print and we are allowed to question the proof of the content.

 

I hope this helps.

 

"Is there any evidence outside the Bible that verify its claims? In the past one hundred years in particular archaeology and historical documents from other cultures outside of the Bible have time and again vindicated the accuracy of the Bible. Let me mention only a few of the many examples of this.

 

For instance, for many years the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded by many as being mythological. However, recent excavations in Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated and mention the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. So they really did exist.

 

Here is another example. Until recently, scholars found no other ancient writings, outside of the Bible, which referred to the Hittites as being a real civilisation. In fact it appeared that the Bible was contradicting secular history which seemed to indicate that the existence of the Hittites was ‘extremely doubtful’ to say the least. It wasn’t until recent excavations uncovered clay tablets from Assyria and Egypt, which spoke of the Hittites and recorded ‘a fierce battle between Rameses II and the Hittites at Kadesh on the Orontes River in 1287 BC’ that the secular historians conceded that the Bible was correct. Further discoveries have shown that the Hittites were a substantial power at one time. (Josh McDowell, Evidence that demands a verdict (Vol 2, Alpha 1994) p. 339).

 

In another example, the Biblical records testified to the Israelites being exiled in Babylon. Yet for years scholars disputed this as a fact. But recent archaeological evidence has confirmed that the Jews were indeed exiled to Babylon in the 6th Century BC just as the Bible says.

 

Let’s consider one final example from the New Testament this time. In his eyewitness gospel account of Jesus life, the apostle John makes note that at the pool of Bethesda where Jesus healed the lame man, there were five covered colonnades (see John 5:1-15). This observation was disputed by sceptics as being inaccurate because archaeology had only uncovered two. However, if you were to visit the pool of Bethesda today you will find that further excavations of the whole site has revealed five covered colonnades that were present during the first century AD at the time of Jesus, just as John recorded in his gospel.

 

The above-mentioned examples have been chosen because scholars implied that the Bible writers had either made these stories up, or simply been unreliable eyewitnesses. But the archaeological evidence has time and again verified the Biblical accounts as being accurate.

 

Donald Wiseman, Professor Emeritus of Assyriology at London University wrote the following regarding the accuracy of the Bible records: “No fact of archaeology so far discovered contradicts the Biblical records” (D Wiseman, Digging for Truth, Viewpoint no:31; ISCF). Indeed if anything, archaeology has confirmed the Biblical records to be accurate.

 

Dr Jo Kinnaman once said; “Of the hundreds and thousands of artefacts found by the archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause or sentence of the Bible.”

 

There are many more Biblical people, places and events that are not disputed by any serious scholar and you might be interested in considering some of the artefacts that substantiate the Biblical accounts by reading the following books:.

 

• Josh McDowell, Evidence that demand a verdict, (Alpha publications 1994).
  
• Alan Millard, Treasures from Bible Times (Lion).
  
• T. C. Mitchell, The Bible in the British Museum (British Museum Press).
  

 

The British Museum website also has a few items of interest. You might like to visit their site and see the following: The siege and capture of the city of Lachish in 701 BC by the Assyrian King Sennacherib, as recorded in the Bible. You can read the account for yourself by turning to 2Kings 18:13 and 2 Chronicles 32:9 in the Old Testament. Sennacharibs victory over Lachish was turned into a relief to adorn his palace. This actual relief can be seen in the British Museum (found in room 36) or by visiting the British museum internet site on http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ and then using the search facility and type in Lachish one can view the relief on line.

 

You can also view online Jehu king of Israel (841-814BC) paying tribute to Shalmaneser III as depicted in the famous Black Obelisk. Shalmaneser III, was king of Assyria from 858-824 BC. The obelisk depicts the military achievements of the king, among which he is seen receiving tribute from Jehu the King of Israel who bows down at the Assyrian kings feet. The story of king Jehu can be found in the Bible at 2Kings 19ff. The black Obelisk can be seen in the British Museum in room 8 under Nimrud Palace relief or online by visiting the British Museum website and use the search facility by typing in ‘Black Obelisk’ to view it for yourself.

 

So from an archaeological point of view the Bible is dealing with real human history, not fantasy.

 

What about miraculous events in the Bible? I appreciate that there may be some people reading this who would accept that people, places and battles in the Bible existed and happened, but they struggle with the miraculous events that the Bible equally holds as being real events.

 

Unfortunately most people dismiss the Bible on the grounds that it does indeed contain miraculous events such as the feeding of the five thousand, rising people from the dead, Moses and the Israelites crossing of the red sea etc. I dare say that if these miracles were removed from the Bible (as some have tried to do) then the Bible would be held up as an accurate historical and reliable document. Why? Because you would be left with a straight-forward history book on the Israelite people. Yet every attempt to remove or explain away the miraculous events found in the Bible makes it incomplete and incoherent. The miraculous is so woven into the fabric of every event in Israel’s history that it simply does not make sense without these events being included. One will never be able to accept the Bible unless one accepts that there really is a God who is not limited to human limitations (for that would be a God created in the image of man).

 

I put to you this question to ponder upon. If the Israelites accurately recorded their history, then on what grounds do we think that they invented the miraculous events that God worked within that history? What right do we in the 21st Century have to say that what they claimed to have seen and heard as eyewitnesses to these events did not really happen? After all people back then knew that feeding five thousand people with only a few fish and bread and raising people from the dead was just as impossible to believe in then as it would be for us today. These are not natural events; they are supernatural - beyond what is normally possible. But just because we cannot come out with a neat natural explanation for everything this should not make us dismiss the clear evidence set before us in the Bible.

 

I appreciate that at the end of the day it boils down to faith that what is recorded is true. But do you have any real reason to believe that what these people wrote was not true? I don’t. I believe that the Israelites have faithfully recorded their history correctly and God cannot be removed from it, indeed he is the vital part of their story…and I trust one day your story too!

 

I leave you with the words of the Apostle Peter as recorded in the New Testament.

“ We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. :For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:16-21 (NIV)"

 

 

http://cornerstoneuk.org.uk/investigate/questions/historical/

Edited June 30, 2010 by Grahame

[flamingjimmy]

No. I just did not see the need to elaborate. I mean, what person in their right mind will assume that if something is not mentioned in Book X, it makes it permissable/acceptable.

Because these books are supposed to be complete guides for living. It's not little things we're talking about here, slavery is a really big deal, and any set of rules for society that doesn't include something along the lines of 'no slavery' and 'no rape' is a pretty crap set of rules in my opinion.

 

Rape/molestation/abuse etc are all wrong and we know that from our biological make up.

If that is the case then it didn't come from religion did it?

 

As above. Again, something 'good' has to exist to make us also feel that the mentioned acts are wrong and immoral.

No it doesn't, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is subjective, all that has to exist for us to feel that the mentioned acts are wrong and immoral is our ability to think of them as wrong an immoral.

 

 

Who decides what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? What you believe may be different to mine and so on. But moral truths exist- you know they do otherwise you will have to accept all evil committed is okay.

No I don't. Why on earth would I have to accept that? There are no 'moral truths' there are only ideas.

 

 

 

Well, for starters, don't use the Bible for my point of reference- and you don't even have the basic skills or knowledge to debate with me regards to the Quran.

how humble of you. Did I get something wrong?

 

Can you point to a Quranic verse which forbids (or even condemns) rape or slavery?

 

Just for starters- Islam was the first of the religions which paved the way of abolishing slavery.

Tell me, did Mohhammed ever comdemn slavery?

 

Surely he didn't buy and sell slaves himself, right?

 

I mean it[atheism] fails to link the whole issue of good and evil- you accept moral truths exist and yet don't look at the whole matter to understand its reality.

Atheism has nothing to do with moral truths or good and evil, it is merely the lack of belief in god. Some athiests may reject the idea that any absolute morals exist (like me), some may not.

 

And also, like I said in a jocular way in my previous post. I may not be able to tell you the origins of good and evil but at least I didn't just make it up like whoever wrote your Quran.

Edited June 30, 2010 by flamingjimmy

[Baz1]

Because these books are supposed to be complete guides for living. It's not little things we're talking about here, slavery is a really big deal, and any set of rules for society that doesn't include something along the lines of 'no slavery' and 'no rape' is a pretty crap set of rules in my opinion.

 

Slavery has just been added and does in fact digress greatly from the topic which this OP has now got to. But to briefly state, slavery was something which pre-dated Islam, but it was under Islam (specifically during Muhammads period) that it became less and less and the Quranic injunctions of setting slaves free was better.

 

If that is the case then it didn't come from religion did it?.

 

The fact is that objective morals exist- you will acknowledge that but don't know why. So basically I see it as there has to be something 'good' in the first place that has given us this innate belief of what is observed as good and evil- Therefore without God there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity.

 

No it doesn't, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is subjective, all that has to exist for us to feel that the mentioned acts are wrong and immoral is our ability to think of them as wrong an immoral.

 

That was my point-God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective.

 

 

No I don't. Why on earth would I have to accept that? There are no 'moral truths' there are only ideas.

 

I disagree with that point.

 

 

 

how humble of you. Did I get something wrong?

Can you point to a Quranic verse which forbids (or even condemns) rape or slavery?.

 

As I stated above, jumping in to this area requires alot more thinking and observation and analysis- a big mistake non muslims make is that they think they can give an exegesis of the Quran- when it is a task where even skilled people in classical arabic spend a lifetime trying to get it right.

 

 

:Tell me, did Mohhammed ever comdemn slavery?

 

Surely he didn't buy and sell slaves himself, right?

 

Again, something that I was alluding to but stated briefly above- under Muhammad and Islam, where you had slavery being custom pre Islamic period (amongst the pagan arabs) this was totally changed and the guidance was to free slaves should they seek freedom- to treat slaves well- not to beat them or abuse them. This is evident in a number of historical narrations and collaborations- one being the 2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab who rode in to Jerusalem with his slave on the horse and he (Umar) walking along it. When the leaders of Jerusalem saw this they were amazed at it- this was part of the teachings Umar inherited from Muhammad- that slaves were to be kindly treated.

 

The whole subject of slavery is too long to go into and would require a complete thread- its not as simple as it looks from the naked eye.

 

 

 

And also, like I said in a jocular way in my previous post. I may not be able to tell you the origins of good and evil but at least I didn't just make it up like whoever wrote your Quran?

 

That is the whole point of that sentence I gave to reply to John's post- it needs to be looked in to rather than jump in and start throwing around a few words.

 

That is where theists can relate good and evil and yet, you admit it is there (but don't know why or how).

 

And as for your last line, you are free to hold your view of the Quran and its 'authorship'. But it has not met any challenges and anyone who wishes to claim it is written work of man, has to offer proof and argument for that assertion.

 

Again, a huge subject which even a forum cannot do justice to. Now of course, if you have studied the Quran, its eloqence, linguistics and all that and wish to make observation on that part- please do. It will be a start.

 

However, I have debated with atheist 'philosophers' on bigger stages than simple forums and none so far has been able to offer a gnats worth of a challenge.

[USUK]

Hi Graham,

 

I have good news for you.

 

It seems we went to school together :-) I left at Cristmas 1959.

 

You must have found religion since then :-)

[flamingjimmy]

Slavery has just been added and does in fact digress greatly from the topic which this OP has now got to. But to briefly state, slavery was something which pre-dated Islam, but it was under Islam (specifically during Muhammads period) that it became less and less and the Quranic injunctions of setting slaves free was better.

Yes I am well aware that Mohammed encouraged better treatment of slaves but the key thing here is he still kept them. He still took the women and children of his enemies from their homes and sold them, as possessions.

 

You are arguing that absolute morals exist, in which case Mohammed was not a very moral person (unless of course you are saying slavery is A-OK, but I don't think you are).

 

If, however, you agree with me that morals are subjective then you can use the 'it was a different time' excuse.

 

The fact is that objective morals exist- you will acknowledge that

No I won't. I explicitly said in my last post that I think morals are subjective. You seem to have an extraordinary capacity for self delusion.

 

but don't know why. So basically I see it as there has to be something 'good' in the first place that has given us this innate belief of what is observed as good and evil- Therefore without God there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity.

Your original premise is flawed. No matter how many times you try to tell me that I do, I do not agree with you that there is an objective basis for morality.

 

That was my point-God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective.

See above.

 

I disagree with that point.

Fantastic, and so well argued as well.

 

 

My question: "Can you point to a Quranic verse which forbids (or even condemns) rape or slavery?"

 

The response:

As I stated above, jumping in to this area requires alot more thinking and observation and analysis- a big mistake non muslims make is that they think they can give an exegesis of the Quran- when it is a task where even skilled people in classical arabic spend a lifetime trying to get it right.

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

 

Also, I find it interesting to note that while you tell me I'm a fool who can't even read arabic and couldn't possibly begin to understand the badassness of the Quran, yet you won't actually tell me what mistake I'm making in this case. Have I got it wrong? Are there verses that condemn slavery and rape?

 

Again, something that I was alluding to but stated briefly above- under Muhammad and Islam, where you had slavery being custom pre Islamic period (amongst the pagan arabs) this was totally changed and the guidance was to free slaves should they seek freedom- to treat slaves well- not to beat them or abuse them. This is evident in a number of historical narrations and collaborations- one being the 2nd Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab who rode in to Jerusalem with his slave on the horse and he (Umar) walking along it. When the leaders of Jerusalem saw this they were amazed at it- this was part of the teachings Umar inherited from Muhammad- that slaves were to be kindly treated.

See the beginning of my post. That's like saying 'murder's not so bad as long as it's quick and painless'. So what if Mohammed treated his slaves better than some of his contemporaries, the fact remains that he took the women and children of his enemies from their homes and sold them, as possessions. Is that morally wrong or right?

 

That is where theists can relate good and evil and yet, you admit it is there (but don't know why or how).

No I do not admit such a thing, 'good' and 'evil' are just words. We give them meaning, not some external source. How did you possibly misunderstand me?

 

Here are some quotes from the post you were responding to:

 

"what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is subjective"

 

"There are no 'moral truths' there are only ideas."

 

How on earth did you not get that? I think my self-delusion theory looks likely, it explains this next bit you come up with as well...

 

And as for your last line, you are free to hold your view of the Quran and its 'authorship'. But it has not met any challenges and anyone who wishes to claim it is written work of man, has to offer proof and argument for that assertion.

 

Again, a huge subject which even a forum cannot do justice to. Now of course, if you have studied the Quran, its eloqence, linguistics and all that and wish to make observation on that part- please do. It will be a start.

 

However, I have debated with atheist 'philosophers' on bigger stages than simple forums and none so far has been able to offer a gnats worth of a challenge.

Once again, how very humble of you, and hilarious! You really do believe what you're typing don't you? Edited June 30, 2010 by flamingjimmy

[John1954]

How so John?

 

Atheism embraces the belief in evil without acknowledging or even bothering to investigate its origins which is a basic requirement in a debate of this nature.

The rest of your post does not tackle the debate- its your own view.

 

I've read this sentence about six times and have come to the same conclusion - it's absolute rubbish!

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.

[Grahame]

Hi Graham,

 

I have good news for you.

 

It seems we went to school together :-) I left at Cristmas 1959.

 

You must have found religion since then :-)

 

That sounds about right although I don't know how you discovered that? Would you like to PM me?