Very Simple Questions for Atheists

[Itinerant Lurker]

There is no indication that the writings of the NT were decades later. For example, Luke wrote Acts, a biography of Paul, which he said was part two of his former work of the gospel of Luke. Paul died in the Neronian persecutions, along with most of the first Apostles, around 65 AD so Acts had to be written around 55 AD because it makes no mention of Paul's death. That places the gospel of Luke as late as 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark that places the gospel of Mark even earlier around 35 AD just two years after the cross. Since this is all very reasonable, it should not be an issue.

Are you altogether sure this is all very reasonable? It doesn't seem at all clear that Luke the Evangelist was actually the author, with the only evidence I've seen in support of this claim being tradition of the early church fathers. In addition, most biblical scholars seem to think Mark was the first gospel (as the others seem to borrow from it), and was written around AD 70. You've thrown out a series of very charitable assumptions which, if true, would make an interesting case. . .but I don't think these assumptions are reasonable, and it seems as though most biblical scholars agree.

The burden remains on you to show otherwise.That's actually what the law says too with regard to this ancient document.

I simply don't see any convincing evidence to support your claim about the authorship of the gospels being first-hand accounts. Moreover, your position seems to represent a minority among biblical scholars. Nor am I aware of a law that says anything about this ancient document. . .though on that account perhaps you could enlighten me.

Scientists have no idea how something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

Sure, according to our human intuition. . .but then our intuition has been shown to be wrong before. In fact on the quantum level things really do seem to be able to just pop into existence out of nothing, though how this can be applied to the origins of the universe is still quite speculative.

. . .scientifically we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. When we believe in God we are believing in the uncreated Creator as proven herein.

Now that you know God exists if you care about the evidence, find out where He reveals Himself through nature such as the resurrection proof of Jesus to show only Christianity is true. Praise the Lord! Amen.

You seem to, once again, made some quite charitable, but tragically unwarranted, assumptions here. We don't actually know if the universe requires an outside cause, but lets say we did. Who's to say this outside cause was a god, much less your specific god? Who's to say this outside cause wasn't something entirely temporary or completely trivial?




Lurker

[Faithful]

Are you altogether sure this is all very reasonable? It doesn't seem at all clear that Luke the Evangelist was actually the author, with the only evidence I've seen in support of this claim being tradition of the early church fathers. In addition, most biblical scholars seem to think Mark was the first gospel (as the others seem to borrow from it), and was written around AD 70. You've thrown out a series of very charitable assumptions which, if true, would make an interesting case. . .but I don't think these assumptions are reasonable, and it seems as though most biblical scholars agree.

Luke is one of Paul's travelling companions that Paul talks about in his epistles which coincide with writer of Acts who makes himself one of Paul's companions. The former treaty to Acts (Acts 1.1) was Luke addressed to the same person Theophilus. Nobody was in a position to write these things other than Luke in the full Acts account before Paul was martyred. The gospels were written around 35 AD soon after Jesus died and before the Apostles were martyred, of course. Your assumptions about late dating have no basis. Most biblical scholars would disagree with you.

I simply don't see any convincing evidence to support your claim about the authorship of the gospels being first-hand accounts. Moreover, your position seems to represent a minority among biblical scholars. Nor am I aware of a law that says anything about this ancient document. . .though on that account perhaps you could enlighten me.

I really see no other person qualified to write these gospels than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Traditionally and those closest to the Apostles testified in their own writings these books. They were in the best position to know. I don't know any biblical scholars who hold your view. There are no other candidates in the running. I was referring to the most famous lawyer of the 19th century who said the burden would be on you. And it is. You present no challenge.

Sure, according to our human intuition. . .but then our intuition has been shown to be wrong before. In fact on the quantum level things really do seem to be able to just pop into existence out of nothing, though how this can be applied to the origins of the universe is still quite speculative.

Why assume something pops into existence from nothing when you are not smart enough to figure out the cause? After all the precedence has already been set of trillions and trillions of cause and effects, an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems a bit arrogant. Since nothing in nature can come from nothing, therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space being uncreated. No speculating. You're just shutting your mind down which is Satan's aim for you.

You seem to, once again, made some quite charitable, but tragically unwarranted, assumptions here. We don't actually know if the universe requires an outside cause, but lets say we did. Who's to say this outside cause was a god, much less your specific god? Who's to say this outside cause wasn't something entirely temporary or completely trivial?

The proof was just given we know the universe requires a cause outside of itself, because it can't come from nothing nor can it always have existed. Since you didn't challenge this proof why shut your mind down? It is tragic that you shut your mind down because you become a pawn for Satan.

By God we mean a being with a mind, the sole uncreated Creator. Since a mind is needed to create a mind, thus, God has a mind.

You're confused. We have proven that time and space need a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, so it would be illogical to ask if it could be temporal. Creating this universe is trivial? Such vast complexity is derived from being greater that its creation.

[Evangelist G]

Lets clarify things, and make clear distinctions to the term "Nothing". One major aspect of philosophy has to do with making distinctions with words inorder to fully grasp the context in which an individual uses it. We can say emptiness, universally negative, non-existence, and therefore not existent. Inorder to say the univer BEGAN to exist. One must realize that a beginning therefore requires a cause. Even the most famous skeptic David Hume said "i dont have enough faith to not believe in God". Now it should be obvious as to how we reach God as a cause since its intuitive, or common sense as to why the universe must have a cause. because Non- existence cannot be existence. its one of the two. So when scientists refer to nothing creating something they are not referring to nothingness,rather something. Because as i mentioned non-existence CANNOT be existence. Its quite important i emphasize on the meaning of nothingness inorder to make sure people do not bypass the truth for what they want it to mean. Since we know through our eyes that existence exists, there must therefore of had been existence eternally somewhere. Think about it non-believers. Why is there something rather then nothing. And if the universe somehow magically came by chance although its clearly incoherent, why are we living? why does food, which we need to survive grow from the ground? Do you ever see the simple? or always rely on reasoning? even through rational assertions a logical minded person can see the complex design of the universe, how orderly formed it is. It is like a watch,thus requiring a designer. unless you can tell me why the earth floats, has water, it located perfectly in the solar system, has life, has plant-producing oxygen, a continuous water cycle, why we have color, emotions, DNA, unresolved questions that mortal men struggle with and find controversial, i find no reason for holding true what scientists believe. Do not let them rule your mind with Godless ideas.

Sometimes we get caught up in prideful wisdom. From a humble state of mind one can see the obvious truth that scientists, a.k.a mere men with knowledge, not superior wisdom to you or me or him, lack a understanding of God. Either they are not comfortable with him emotionally, or simply rely on experiments/naturalistic explanations to prove everything. sometimes rationality cannot explain everything, and the most rational answer may not always be rational,but through Faith & authority, through promises & our innate feelings which can grasp an infinite being,namely God.

[Faithful]

So when scientists refer to nothing creating something they are not referring to nothingness, rather something.

A person shouldn't say the universe is created from nothing because it is misleading for nothing is non-existence. Instead, say God created from out of Himself.

i find no reason for holding true what scientists believe. Do not let them rule your mind with Godless ideas.

The Bible favors science, just "Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).

In keeping with Rom. 1.20, very simply we know God exists because nature can't come from nothing, nor can it always have existed, because if it did, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. And we know who God is, since Jesus is proven to be God by the resurrection proof.

It really is that simple. So this is not a logic or rational problem that needs to be solved, but it is a person's heart that is the problem. God created Hell for those who refuse God the Father's only begotten Son so the Holy Spirit does not enter their spirit and they do not receive eternal life.