Kham

"Something always existed and created us" is rather vague. There is no reason to believe that this is a god. The components of the universe may have always existed, we need not imagine intelligent designers.

You have simply redefined "always existed." This is a tautology and does not prove anything.

I doubt that, please warrant the claim. Causes seem to break down at the atomic level.
Causes make a regress possible. If one thing causes something else by necessity, then there is no first cause (a being without a cause) to be the prime causer.

That simply does not follow at all.

There is no reason, still, to believe that this creator is eternal while the universe is not.
If there is a prime cause, it is more likely that it is simple than complex. We know that complex things stem from simple things, not vice versa.
__________________________________

There is no way to determine what is and what is not a creation. It is not quite as simple as distinguishing a painting of a tree from a tree.

__________________________________

[quote]Proof #3

The Bible is unique from all literature in known history; it predicts the future with 100% accuracy. Since God exists beyond time, He sees the entire timeline and is able to tell us what will happen before it happens. Let's look at some prophecy in Jewish scripture that predates Christ by many hundreds of years;[/quotes]
Patently false, lets look at some of the many prophecies that were incorrect first.

1. Gen. 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Yet, Adam ate the fruit and did not die that day. In fact, he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 5:5). If a spiritual, as opposed to a physical, death was intended, as apologists allege, then why wouldn't this be true of what Nathan told David in 2 Samual 12:14. David had sinned against God and Nathan said:

2 Samual 12:14 "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." Verse 18 clearly shows that the child died physically, not spiritually, shortly thereafter. [Which also goes against Deut. 24:16.]

2. Another inaccurate prophecy is found in Genesis 28:13:Gen. 28:13 "...I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed." Jacob never received the promise land and it is questionable whether the spot on which he lay ever came into the possession of his decendants.

3.Deut. 23:3 "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever."

Ruth a Moabitess, not only entered the congregation of the Lord as Ruth 1:4, 1:22, 4:13, 4:17 show but gave birth to the ancestors of David and Jesus.

4.Isaiah says: "...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." Yet, the uncircumcised have never stopped traveling through Jerusalem.

5.In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.

That list is not nearly exhaustive.

Daniel 9:24 says no such thing.
24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

And it is definitely worthy of note that the Jews do not find your interpretation of the scripture to be at all valid. This is hardly undeniable.

________________________________

The bible does not mention electricity. It speaks of using "lightning" as a messenger, clearly a superstitious belief.

"The heavens" is a reference to the sky, not space.

The earth is not floating in space, nor is it "suspending," it is constantly in a set motion.

Are you joking? The hydrological cycle? It merely states that water falls from the clouds. This is no "recent" discovery.

It does not say at all that they are uncountable, simply that there too many to count. Nor is that recent knowledge.

It says "valleys of the sea" not "valleys in the sea." It is not recent knowledge that the ocean is like a basin (lest the water pour onto the land).

What a horrendous set of arguments, "proof" indeed.

Og

Followed by:

This represents the central problem with his argument. It's not an infinite regression. Its the notion that a creator created time and that the laws of causality must apply to that.

He says that the universe exists so it must have been created. But that doesn't make any sense if time is created as the universe is created. There can be no "before time existed." Before is a TIME word. It is gibberish when applied to a sentence talking about the concept of no time.

It's something you can't easily wrap your head around and it renders his argument gibberish as well.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Tomasz

Now make your decision !

__________________
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts - Sherlock Holmes

shmeffer

Ah, yes, did god create man or did man create god?

OP, you started your post with a huge strawman which others have already pointed out. Your logic is incredibly flawed and you're blinding yourself to this fact. I know this because I used to think like you until I opened my eyes and let myself question my flawed logic.

Also agreeing that the god of the Bible is incredibly cruel. I won't give you any actual proof that I exist, besides this book that says I exist (which isn't really proof, now, is it?) but if you don't believe in me and love me you're going to be punished for all eternity. Nice.

Paul

I'm not sure you can "prove" the existence of God, but I think you also cannot say for sure that there is no God either. The fact is that no one can know with absolute certainty.

duck

And that, my friend, is the reason for agnosticism.

Might I also say, that is a bold statement coming from a believer.

Paul

Just because I believe in God does not prove that I am right. I believe with all my heart. I think that the evidence points to the existence of God wheather our perception of him is right or wrong. In the end, either God exists or he does not, no matter what I choose to belive at this present moment. But those that say "There is no God" as fact are makeing a completely illogical statement. You can believe whatever you want, but there is always the possibility that you are wrong.

Paul

Agnosticism is too easy....All you have to do is prove that you don't know.
I have no problem with agnosticism so long as it is honest and open to evidence. I do have a problem with hard agnosticism.
A Christian apologeticist told this story in a message of his.

A man woke up one morning, turned to his wife, and said, "Honey, I believe I'm dead." The wife just laughed and let it go, believing that he was just joking and being foolish. All throughout the next few weeks, he contiued to exclaim to his wife, "I think I am dead." At this point his wife decided that he needed to get some help, or else she was going to need to get some help. So she took him to a psychologist. The psychologist tried to reason with him, giving him all kinds of philosophical reasons as to why he could not be dead, but the man would not listen. His wife decided to take him to a doctor. The doctor gave him all kinds of medical reasons as to why he could not be dead. He came up with the idea of proving to the man that dead people don't bleed. The doctor spent weeks proving to this man that dead people don't bleed and the man finally gave in and said, "Ok I believe you. Dead people don't bleed." As soon as he said it, the doctor reached over and knicked him with a scalpal on the arm, and the man started bleeding. At that moment, the man jumped up and said, "Ohh my goodness. I guess dead people bleed too."

I said all that to say this. I can respect someone's view that is open to evidence, because if they are, then it is my own inability to explain my beliefs adequately that I have to deal with as well as the fact that the God I believe in simply may not be moving in that person's life, but hopefully I can plant a seed. I cannot respect a person's view that says there is no God no matter what kind of evidence you show me.

duck

I made that comment in the spirit of you being rather flexible with your beliefs in regards to others. Not insult was intended in any way whatsoever.

Most of those who believe as much as you do, don't say "I'm more than certain that I am right." They KNOW. They believe and cannot begin to understand those that have the temerity to question.

Once again, of all the believers that post here, I actually have a great deal of respect for you. More than most.

duck

There is a reason for that. It is all that we can actually know.