How can you convince someone that the Bible is true?

Moloth · Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject:

seriously... for snakes to be so "cursed", THEY don;t seem to have that problem.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/snake1.htm

CET · Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject:

Considering the original question, "How can you convince someone that the Bible is true?" I think I would be much closer to being convinced if every "True Bible" were indestructible.
_________________
Namaste,
CET Cool

The Spiritual Atheist

"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha

"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin

Mr_C · Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject:

Eyedunno · Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject:

Nimitz · Guest Local time: 12:45 PM

I've heard that pilots in high g's have had NDE's as well. Or, if you're a Blue Angle or a Red Arrow you can have a DE!
(If there's a hell I'll go for that crack )

ApostateLois · Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject:

Yeah, to hell with this NEAR-death crap. Going all the way is where it's at!
_________________
Kryten: Don't you believe that God exists in all things? Aren't you a Pantheist?

Lister: Yeah, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a Fryingpantheist.

SvZurich · Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject:

Brainwashing them when they are very young.
_________________
Kimberly (HSBUH) aka
Baroness Sylvia von Zurich (the only Goldwater Conservative) endorses the Meadow Party's Bill and Opus for the 2012 Presidential election!

The Atheist Forums have new rules!

tonyman1989 · Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject:

What happened to highway I thought he would answer my questions. did he just leave or get banned for some reason?
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein

"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking

"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins

http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion

Highway · Intern Joined: 20 May 2007 Posts: 65 Local time: 9:45 PM

I am still here, not banned at all, at least for noe, but I think the conversation shifted on the "prove to me that God exist" thread to hockey and all this distracting subjects, so I assumed the atheists lost the battle as I was sure of it and that's it. They couldn't prove in the 20 pages thread that God doesn't exist. so I quit replying.

tonyman1989 · Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject:

Highway · Intern Joined: 20 May 2007 Posts: 65 Local time: 9:45 PM

I will quote this from www.carm.org
<An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence For God

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived, that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. if the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.

Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You cant say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Lets just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it cant be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, Id expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why cant He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes....
Dan: Why cant he act against His own universe?
Matt:He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt:Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt:Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?

tonyman1989 · Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject:

there no proof in that arguement it is hallow.

so for you to claim the title of believer of whatever your religion is what would make you not believe in god?

and still what is your evidance for god where is the fossil or the smoking gun for gods exist?
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein

"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking

"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins

http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion

Highway · Intern Joined: 20 May 2007 Posts: 65 Local time: 9:45 PM

Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God's existence.

We jump into this discussion with an atheist after a challenge to prove that God exists. But, I would like to note that sometimes in the atheist discussion rooms there are bystanders who will mock, insult, and say vile things about the Lord while the conversation between a Christian and an atheist goes on. Of course, the insults are hurled at the Christian. This was happening here. I have edited out all of the foul language by them. But, it did detract slightly from my ability to concentrate. This is one of the tactics I have seen atheists use in text based chat rooms on the Internet. So, be aware of it and be prepared. Nevertheless, here is the dialogue I had with "Bill" an atheist.

Bill: Alright, try and prove God exists..
Matt: Okay.....Are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time.
Bill: I believe so.
Matt: There are logical absolutes. Now, in an atheistic presuppositional worldview, how do you account for the existence of logical absolutes?
Matt: Do they reside in matter? Can they be quantified, tested, put in a jar?
Bill: Well, that depends. According to Quine's holism there are no absolutes and any principle can be held eternally by changing any number of other principles
Matt: But to say there are no absolutes is an absolute and is self-defeating.
Bill: Not really.
Matt: Yes. To say there are no absolutes is an absolute statement. It is either true or false. If it is true, then it is false...which is logically contradiction which proves my premise to begin with. Therefore, it can only be false and there are such things as logical absolutes.
Bill: If one rejects the principle of non-contradiction. Of course, most people wouldn't want to do that because things get messy quickly
Matt: But on what basis do you reject the principle of non-contradiction?
Bill: Because we can arbitrarily choose to accept any statement eternally if we make enough changes to other parts of our total system of knowledge.
Matt: If you do so based on logic, then you are using logic to defeat itself which is not logical. Then you have nothing but relativism.
Bill: well, according to Quine all knowledge is subjective.
Matt: Is it subjective that all knowledge is subjective? If so, how can he say that since it is subjective?
Bill: No, you just don't understand. It is perfectly acceptable to say that subjectively all knowledge is subjective. You're just dismissing the possibility because you don't like it.
Matt: Not at all. I am using logic to address it. Logic is not subjective. Subjectivity is relativism. If all things were subjective, then nothing is true....except the notion that all things are subjective... which means the statement itself is subjective and not absolute.
Bill: and the problem with that is?
Matt: The problem is that it is self defeating. I'm not saying that some forms of knowledge cannot be subjective. I am saying that there ARE logical absolutes. That is the issue. Again... do logical absolutes exist? If you say no, then you are giving me an absolute; namely, that no logical absolutes exist.
Here is the point. Logical absolutes exist. They are, by nature, conceptual absolutes. Conceptual absolutes exist in the mind. They do not reside in matter. These logical absolutes cannot be quantified or tested in a lab. Yet, they exist. In fact, scientists USE these logical absolutes as a basis for verifying their science. The problem for the atheist is accounting for their existence. Since the logical absolutes are conceptual, they transcend all people at all time and are absolute in all circumstances... since they are absolute. Conceptual Absolutes cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. But they can be accounted for in a theistic one. The Absolute God with and absolute mind, has conceived of the logical absolutes. They are a reflection of His mind. At least I can offer an explanation for their existence where the atheist cannot.
Bill: The basis of science and scientific knowledge is exactly why Quine discussed the possibility of rejecting certain aspects of knowledge and logic including the law of non-contradiction.
Matt: if the law of non-contradiction is dismissed, then it isn't a law is it? That would also mean that we could go around contradicting ourselves all the time and that'd be fine...right?
Bill: I have not yet been convinced of the necessity for logical absolutes
Matt: If there are not logical absolutes, then you have no logical basis for your statements. It would then be purely subjective and meaningless.
Bill: The criterion of meaning is not necessarily based on logic.
Matt: How do you know? Are you using logic to substantiate that or subjectivity?
Bill: Quine specifically spoke of the relation of knowledge to observation. If an observation conflicted with a statement of theory or knowledge, than that statement could be held in spit of this 'contradiction' with observation by making modification to knowledge systems elsewhere, such as modifying or even rejecting laws of knowledge if necessary.
Matt: What logic is he using to say that? (No response) You have yet to justify the necessity of logical absolutes. Without them, you cannot prove anything. (No response) You have yet to justify that statement. Unless you can refute that statement, it is true.
Bill: You can say they exist all you want, but that doesn't mean anything.
Matt: Alright.... well, I guess, I'll see you later....

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Religion General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5