The God of the Bible is the One true God

August 6, 2019, 8:00 pm

Agree27 Disagree16

63%
37%

The debate "The God of the Bible is the One true God" was started by jrardin12 on August 6, 2019, 8:00 pm. 27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

jrardin12 posted 30 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, Allirix posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

jrardin12, vaibhav_Verma, Jane, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, itzmeboi, akankshajha, YEET and 20 visitors agree.
Allirix, JDAWG9693, historybuff, Atratuscythe and 12 visitors disagree.

Then I am not understanding the theory you are presenting.

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I'm not familiar with Steven hawking talking about an eternity of time. if anything Steven hawking spoke of a very limited time that started at the big bang and a lack of time before that. I completely reject that model and formed the idea I am currently presenting in opposition to Steven hawking's explanation of the big bang.

3 months, 1 week ago

Nemiroff, are using the eternity of time that Stephen Hawking talked about?

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the universe, meaning everything that resulted from the big bang? yes.

the universe meaning all of existence in general? not necessarily. I think there are aspects of space time that may be eternal. and based what we've learned about empty space, I think a recurring big bang model is very possible.

3 months, 1 week ago

So, Nemiroff, Do you agree with premise 2, that the universe had a beginning?

3 months, 1 week ago

God did not need time because He is eternal. In Eternity there is no time.

3 months, 1 week ago

If the universe did not have a beginning, then no cause is needed, but if it does have a beginning then it must have a cause. We know that a beginning and an ending are demanded by one of the most validated laws in all nature, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

3 months, 1 week ago
Allirix
replied to...

The universe *as we know it* began after the big bang, but we do not know what existed before it. To say the big bang needs a cause is as valid as saying God needs a cause. There's no evidence for either.

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I think there are 2 natural candidates for ever existence.

1. even before the big bang there must have been time. without time events cannot unfold, so even if the big bang could happen, it never would as everything would be in stasis.

2. space. matter may need an explanation, but existence just is. the space that everything inhabits may not need an explanation.

even God would need the passage of time in order to do things in. if God created time, what did he do before he created time? is there even a "before" before time as "before" is a concept within the concept of time. and although God has no fixed location, we say God is everywhere. without space, god is nowhere as there is no where. where is a concept of location in space. without space, the there is nowhere for God to exist in.

thus space and time must be eternal in theism, and are logical candidates for eternity naturally.

empty space has been an interesting field of science as it turns out to be quite active. empty space seems unstable. instability releases energy in order to gain stability. energy = mass. thus empty vacuum might create mass. this is my best guess, not necessarily the most popular scientific speculation

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

we dont know how the big bang came around. we have yet to explore what came before the bang. I do have some guessed but the objective answer is: we dont know.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Who's to say that isn't the case? And, you still are simply making claims with no supporting evidence. Your claim is that to be considered God, one of the attributes that being must be eternal existence both forward and backward. That's a nice claim, but you still have no evidence that it is possible or exists.

3 months, 1 week ago

If he didn't have a beginning He could not be God. So it is illogical to believe He had a beginning because then there would have to be many gods before Him.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Prove that God had no beginning.

3 months, 1 week ago

Perhaps you did not read the Cosmological argument correctly.
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

This premise makes it clear we are talking about things that had a beginning. God does not have a beginning so He does not need a cause.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Did God have a beginning? If not, you just admitted that your "law of causality" is not universal; if so, what is it? If you do not know, then it is equally acceptable that we do not yet know.

3 months, 1 week ago

Ok. How did the Big Bang come about?

3 months, 1 week ago

he is not the one true God and worthy of worship, how can he be if he orders the killing of innocent people? how can he be if we inherit the sin of adam and eve?

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

with the big bang

3 months, 1 week ago

So now we move to premise 2. The universe had a beginning.

How would you say the universe began?

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

yes

3 months, 1 week ago

So are you agreeing with the 1st premise that everything that had a beginning had a cause?

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

your earlier claim that science believes the big bang came from nothing was also false. science makes no such statement. science doesnt guess.

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the law of causality can remain true even while the cause remain a mysterious. religion gives you an answer. science gives you the truth. and the truth is we do not know.

3 months, 1 week ago

A Law is something that cannot be changed. If the Law of Causality is not true, then why do science?

3 months, 1 week ago

Also, it is accepted that there is an is/ought distinction where one cannot get an ought from an is, yes? Well, the same principle applies for an is/will be. Just because something is does not neccesarily mean that it will be

3 months, 1 week ago

Things as we understand them now follow that rule. But we don't understand the origin of the universe. It is entirely possible that we will discover new information in the decades and centuries to come that will show that causality is not universally true. For example it only works if time as we understand it is working as we understand it.

Here is a link to an article describing a theory by Stephen Hawking. It is very complicated and I don't pretend to be an expert. But one of the basics of the theory is that time as we understand it has no meaning if you go back that far. So relativity would simply not apply because time isn't working the way you think of it.

https://www.universetoday.com/139167/heres-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/

So no, you are wrong in saying that "Everything that had a cause had a beginning". we simply don't know enough to explain it. It is entirely possible that there is no need for a god to start the universe. Your argument is based on the fact that we don't understand it yet. That is not proof of god, it is simply information we don't have yet. It is no different that the Greeks saying the sun is being pulled by Apollo's chariot.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

I actually don't agree with that premise, but I'm willing to grant it.

3 months, 1 week ago

Actually the Bible is a good proof of God's existence, but I will stick to the Cosmological argument.

Let us look at the premises then to determine whether The Cosmological argument is true.

1. Everything that had a cause had a beginning.

The Law of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. We know that things in the universe don't come about without a cause. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationaliy.

Agreed?

3 months, 1 week ago

Well, the whole religion is "only tradition". However, I feel that we're getting off course because I really don't care what some dude said, I wanna see evidence of God and the Bible is not evidence.

3 months, 1 week ago

I did not see that he was born in AD 5. The story about himself running away naked from the soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane does not sound like what a 22 year old would do.

3 months, 1 week ago

Well I guess that means he wrote his gospel before AD 68. Although it is only tradition that he died in that year. It is interesting that Paul died a year earlier and Mark was with him. It is highly unlikely that Mark made it to Egypt that soon after Paul died (but that is only my opinion).

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Just a quick google search says that Mark lived from 5-68 AD, so I'm not sure where your 90 AD came from?? And, 63 years old is already pushing their normal life expectancy

3 months, 1 week ago

Well we know that Mark was a young man because of Mark says about himself in the Garden of Gethsemane.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

I have read the bible and that's why I'm confused because you're throwing out ages and numbers that are not in the bible.

3 months, 1 week ago

I also get my info from the Bible. Maybe you should read it before you comment on it.

3 months, 1 week ago

From Christian tradition. I don't know if you knew, but Mark was not one of the apostles.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Where are you getting these numbers?

3 months, 1 week ago

Let us say Mark died at 75 in the year AD 90. That is less than 100 years from the first recorded mention that Mark is the author. That means this source likely got his information from someone who could have met Mark.

3 months, 1 week ago

ok. no one lived to be 100 in that period. it would be double the life expectancy. It would be like someone living to 160 years old today.

but i mean the rest of it. the 1st source that says John Mark was the author of the book of mark was in the year 180, long, long after John Mark was dead and long after the source he was citing was dead. The source he was citing also wrote after John Mark was dead. There is no credible evidence that the origin story chosen by the Catholic church is true. Therefore, there are no books of the bible that were written by anyone who had met jesus or had even met anyone who had met jesus.

3 months, 1 week ago

Just because that was the life expectancy doesn't mean there were exceptions. The Bible gives the relationships.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Also, where is your evidence of these people's ages and relations? I've never heard of these before

3 months, 1 week ago

Did you read the large response I wrote just below about why it is unlikely John Mark wrote the book of mark? Also if he was 15 years old in 30 AD and the average life expectancy was 50 or 60, he would likely have died around 60 or 70 AD. He would be very unlikely to live past 80 AD, and there is no chance at all he would live to 110 AD as that would make him almost 100 years old.

3 months, 1 week ago

I am sorry, but John Mark could have died at about A.D. 110 since he was a teenager of about 15 when Jesus died.

3 months, 1 week ago

Encyclopedia Britannica says it is attributed to John Mark and that is true. Traditionally the church says that is the author. But there is very little evidence that this is true. It was quite common in antiquity to claim that something you were writing was written by someone else. if you wanted your ideas to be accepted it was a lot easier if people believed it came from a saint or an apostle.

The origin of the story that John Mark was the author comes from 2 sources.

1) Around AD 110-120, Papias wrote that John Mark was writing "what he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of the Christ, but not in chronological order, for he did not hear the Lord nor did he accompany him."
- This sounds like he was just writing down notes other people were giving him. This does not sound like the narrative story of the Book of Mark.

2) Around AD 180 Irenaeus references Papias saying that John Mark was the author of the Gospel of Mark. He explicitly says John Mark is the author of the Gospel.

The problem is that Irenaeus is writing 70 years after Papias using his writing to try to assign the authorship to John Mark. But what Papias was describing John Mark writing doesn't sound like the book of mark and Irenaeus is writing over 100 years after the gospel was written. He is the 1st person to say that john Mark wrote the gospel. He is writing too far away from the event to be considered a reliable source and he is referencing writings that don't seem to agree with what he is saying. He had no way of knowing the actual author. But since the gospel was now accepted as cannon, it sounds much better if the author is someone who was writing down the thoughts of an Apostle than to say that they have no idea who wrote it.

So the bottom line is that there is very little evidence John Mark is the author. And what evidence there is, was written more than a century later which means that they had no way of knowing if what they were saying was true. And given the time Irenaeus was writing, it was in the best interest of Christian scholars to give the book of mark as much authenticity as possible (since it was the basis of several of the other books of the bible) so assigning the author as someone with 2nd hand knowledge of the events would lend it more legitimacy than if it came from some unknown writer. They had a motive to lie about the author.

We will never know who wrote the book of Mark.

3 months, 1 week ago

Let us look at the premises then to determine whether The Cosmological argument is true.

1. Everything that had a cause had a beginning.

The Law of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. We know that things in the universe don't come about without a cause. To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationaliy.

Agreed?

3 months, 1 week ago

John wrote his gospel around AD 70.

3 months, 1 week ago

The Gospel of Luke was written in A.D. 60s.

3 months, 1 week ago

According to Bible scholars and the Encyclopedia Britannica the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark around A.D. 70, 40 years after Jesus died.

3 months, 1 week ago

Have a look at the section of this page about the gospel of mark. It was not written by John Mark. That version of the authorship of the book of mark was invented several hundred years after it was written. The truth is no one knows who actually wrote it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_Mark

I'm not sure where you got the date 150 AD. Maybe thats the oldest surviving copy of a section of the bible? But you say john died in 100AD. Jesus died about 30 AD. That is 70 years later. There is no chance that someone alive in 100 AD met Jesus. Your info doesn't even make sense.

I'm not sure if it's true that the book says he interviewed people, but since it was written long after the witnesses would be dead we can be pretty sure the author didn't. The book of luke was likely written between 80-110 AD. Jesus died around 30 AD. He had been dead for 50 years or more by the time that book was written. You would be very hard pressed to find a witness 50 years later in a time where the average life expectancy might be something like 50 or 60. A baby born on the day Jesus died might have died of old age before the book of Luke was written. How exactly did the author interview any witnesses?

The cosmological argument is basically saying that you don't know the answer so I must be right. It is just childish. Science doesn't know how or when the universe began. The fact that we don't know the answer doesn't mean wizards did it. And even if it did mean that, there is just as much chance it was the work of the flying spaghetti monster as the work of the christian God. It doesn't help your argument at all.

3 months, 1 week ago

"Let there be Light" and the Big Bang theory are very similar. Except one says it came from nothing (which is a very unscientific statement) and another that it was created by an intelligent Being.

3 months, 1 week ago

Actually, Mark, was a teenager at the time of Jesus' death. His mother was Mary who owned the Upper Room where Jesus had the Last Supper. His uncle was Barnabas. Barnabas, Mark and Paul traveled together. John Mark then worked with Peter of which the Book of Mark is said to be Peter's account written by Mark.

Also the oldest portion of the Gospel in existance is dated at 150 A.D. This portion is the Book of John. Now John died at cerca A.D. 100. So the oldest portion of his book that we have is only 50 years after his death.

Also Luke, in his gospel, says that he interviewed people who saw Jesus' miracles.

The Cosmological Argument has been used for centuries and still cannot be refuted.

3 months, 1 week ago

There is no part of the bible written by anyone who had met Jesus. The oldest book of the new testament (Mark) is generally thought to have been written around 70 AD. Scholars usually put jesus' death between 30 and 36 AD. So the oldest part of the bible was written 35-40 years after the death of Jesus. It had to have been written by a 2nd generation christian. There is no chance that the author of the book of Mark had met Jesus.

The other books of the bible were then written later that the book of mark. Several of which use the book of mark as a source. So there is is even less of a chance that any other book of the bible was written by someone who had met jesus and it is also highly unlikely they had met anyone who had met Jesus.

The fact that the source material for your beliefs was written decades after the events it describes and was then edited and modified by other men certainly should cause you to doubt it's accuracy.

Your "general relativity" post doesn't seem to be an argument for god's existence at all.

A) there could very easily be a cause of the universe that has nothing to do with a deity.
B) even if there was a deity involved, there is no evidence that deity has anything to do with the religion you follow
C) You assume the universe had a beginning. There are theories that suggest it did not. You are using our limited understanding of something as evidence that it must be god. People used to make the same arguments about the sun rising in the sky. They couldn't explain it so it must be evidence that Apollo was riding in his chariot. You are using the same "logic". We learned what makes the sun come up and some day we will learn how the universe began (or why it didn't). And then religious people will move onto some other thing we don't know yet as "evidence" of god.

3 months, 1 week ago

General Relativity gives us the Cosmological Argument for God's existance.

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

3 months, 1 week ago

Actually, the gospels were written by men who had met Jesus and walked with Him. But, anyway that has nothing to do with God's existance.

I can use logic to prove He exists.

3 months, 1 week ago

The only "source" for Christianity is the bible which was written decades after the death of Jesus by people who had never met him. It was then edited and designed by men to tell a specific narrative. Anything that didn't fit the narrative they wanted was left out and declared heresy.

So the only "evidence" you have is a book of stories written long after the supposed events happen written by people who weren't there and didn't talk to anyone who was there. You would have more luck finding real evidence in The Da Vinci Code.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Then what is the point of being here? We have had several "too long and too deep" conversations on this forum (including about the Judeo-Christian god) because that's what debating is about.

3 months, 1 week ago

The argument is too long and deep. Formulated by the greatest minds in history. But there are plenty of sources out there throughout the centries.

3 months, 1 week ago
JDAWG9693
replied to...

Whelp, you've made a claim. Now, where's the evidence to support such a claim?

3 months, 1 week ago

The Heavens declare His glory.

If He does exist and you don't believe on Him, then you are in trouble.

3 months, 1 week ago

Proof?

And, even if he is real, I would definitely not worship Him.

3 months, 1 week ago
Discuss "The God of the Bible is the One true God" philosophy
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.