Does God Really Exist???

You might be able to approximate the age of the sun, but it would have very little relevance to the estimation of the age of the universe.[This message has been edited by ::, 02-18-2004]

Yes, but then.. we would know approximately how long a living material is here on earth.. because without sun, there will be no living material at all, right?

I suppose you would have an upper limit on the age of life on the planet, but it wouldn't be useful at all at attaining any meaningful precision. I'm no paleontologist, but I think there are more accurate methods for determining how long life has been on the planet.

If we know the upper limit, wouldn't it also could determine whether the Genesis is right or wrong?
Ah.. yes, some people also believe the day in the genesis is not a real 24 hours, because on day one.. there was no sun, how could we determine is that really 1 day like us.
I quess you are right, we got nothing from it.
Thanks ::.

No scholar from a certain group of scholars who are of the other spirit. All scholars of the Holy Spirit have come to a rather different conclusion. This verdict is still with the jury, crashfrog.

Based on what evidence? Just because you have the Holy Spirit, that doesn't mean you can abandon scholarly reliance on evidence for just making things up.

Scholars of an atheistic or a strict intellectual position, whom I would argue believe that the source of all knowledge originates with the human mind, quench the inspiration which has verified the evidence for the Biblical Scholars of an intellectual yet Church centered position. These Scholars believe that God is the source of all wisdom, knowledge, and life. Be they literalist Creationists or be they Theistic Evolutionists, they recognize a source of inspiration when they see it. The others have no such faith and are searching for their own intellectual deification. They see no evidence of God inspired writings because they see no God.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-19-2004]

Well, now, wait a minute. That's not what we're talking about. Whether or not the Bible was inspired (or even dictated) by God is not a question you can address with physical evidence. Moreover it's not the question we were talking about.What we were talking about, and what you gave an opinion on, was the question of who the authors of the Gospel were. There's no evidence that they were apostles, or even eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about. There's every reason to believe that the gospels weren't written until almost a century after the events in question were supposed to occur.Divine inspiration isn't what we were talking about. What we were talking about was the identity of the Bible authors. That's a question that can be substantiated with evidence that is irrelevant to the belief of the scholar. For instance if the question is "who wrote the book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them?" then the validity of evidence pointing to Al Franken has nothing to do with whether you or I voted for Bush.Don't try to change the subject. What evidence do you have that the gospels are eyewitness accounts by apostles?

I really cannot believe that people who profess to be Christians, and profess to have studied the Bible, think that Mark and Luke were eyewitnesses. 'Mark' and 'Luke' never even knew Jesus, in fact, Jesus was decomposing in his grave long before Luke had even heard of him. This is using information from the Gospels according to Mark and Luke, I wonder why the word 'according' is used?Brian.

Quite honestly, I have read books by professed believers whom I trusted in which they themselves dug up the research necessary for the validity of the argument. For example, I have read Lees book and I have listened to him talk. His integrity seems fairly sound to me. Of course I would be inclined to not question his sources, while you would. So where did your sources come from? Justin Martyr?

Hi Chris No problem!From: Bible Study – Christian Education Resource : and See also Stoning in the bible and Nave's Topical Bible (scroll down to ‘stoning’).Reasons to be put to death (don’t know if by stoning, but I suspect it would have been -- except Lev 20:14 which stipulates burning alive) include:Cursing your parents:
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)Adultery: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)Shagging your step-mother, or daughter-in-law:
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:11-12)Homosexuality:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)Shagging your mother-in-law:
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)Bestiality -- note that the ‘beast’ has to be killed too:
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:15-16)Having a familiar spirit, or being a wizard (I presume you believe in ‘familiar spirits too?):
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:27)And of course, just to show where God’s coming from in all this, note that one can be ‘cut off from’ your people for merely having sex with your wife if she is menstruating at the time. The Bible doesn’t seem to record whether ‘just starting’ and ‘just finishing’ counts.And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 20:18)There’s plenty more, but it gets boring after a while.And here’s Jesus’s take on the matter:Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matthew 5:17-18)Enough to be going on with? So which bits of the Bible do you follow, and which do you reject, and why?TTFN, DT[This message has been edited by Darwin's Terrier, 02-19-2004]

If you don't reference Hovind material then why did you repeat Hovind's claim that conservation of angular momentum was a problem for the Big Bang ?And if it is irrelevant to this thread to discuss what your claim about macroevolution actually means then the claim itself is irrelevant to this thread and should never have been made here.

Hai DT,Well, this what I think:First.. you have to see the condition on that time, if the God on that time was a loving God.. who would really obey Him? While you can see humans did crazy and cruel things at that time.
And some researchers believe, at that time people in the middle east are the most wild or barbaric people. You also know how many times the Hebrew people fell in sin, repent, fell to sin, repent.. etc. even with that kind of law.
If God sent Jesus (loving, gentle & humble) at that time.. I don't know what would happend!! Quess..
(You also know God did send Jesus when the civilization is more advanced, but still..)Second.. I suggest, look at what Jesus had to say about it:
Matt 22:36-40 -> 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.""Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.."
Jesus said that to fulfill the prophecy, about the "Saviour".DT: "So which bits of the Bible do you follow, and which do you reject, and why?"
---
I follow Jesus' words. And it's clear enough.. Jesus' words are for all of us. While Jesus didn't say that Torah or OT should be said into the world.. but Gospel, (Mark 16:15) And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.Take care.Chris

quote:

---

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

---

In which case, I can just as easily say "the natural laws which allowed the universe to happen are outisde of time. (Time having been established by you as a dimension of our universe.)"So, back to the simplest explanation... the universe came about because of the natural laws of whatever is outside it, like salt dissolving in water. (To rehash a metaphor.)As always, I'm open to the idea of an outside variable having a hand in the origin of our universe. But if you'd like to include one, please tell me:1) What that variable is. (Not what it is named.)2) Specifically, what effect that variable had on the origin of the universe.Otherwise, all you're doing is using a synonym for "I don't know."Don't get me wrong... I'm comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer. I don't know either, so who am I to judge? What I glance cockeyed at is "Oh, I know, all right. It's called [synonym for I don't know]."[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-19-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Hi,My sources are the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. Both inform the reader that they personally didn't know Jesus. Mark wrote down Peter's memories, Luke wrote down alleged testimonies of eyewitnesses, none of this pair were actual eyewitnesses.I am not just saying this to be argumentative, but I found Strobels' Case for Christ to be utter nonsense. He was a court reporter yet in his book he never interviewed one person that belonged to the opposition, some trial when you have no prosecution witnesses.Brian.