7 Reasons Why God Exists!

[Nottheworld]

Do not shut your mind down to God's proof of Himself with vague rhetoric that doesn’t address specifically these points. You owe yourself at least this much to examine the data.

1) Two rocks or any elements banging together which have no consciousness or conscience produce beings with consciousness and conscience. Really?

2) The universe can’t always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience, for we would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and therefore, not still be sinning to the extent we still do.

3) Something can’t come from nothing. Since the universe can’t cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator, for no other option exists. Cosmologists call this the Transcendent Causal Agent.

4) It’s hard to imagine objective moral values exist without a moral agent. The universe knows nothing of morality, it just reacts with its constants and variables. Relativism is just another way of rationalizing one's sins, selfishness and self-righteousness.

Naturalistic changing values are not objective but sway like the wind by whatever natural survival techniques dictate. It could be advantageous to ritualistically murder people in the future under certain naturalistic scenarios. Raping women may become an important staple of society under naturalism. Who is to say Hitler was not fully justified in doing what he did in a naturalistic-only world?

As soon as your life is threatened you invoke objective moral values. When you are being selfish and getting away with unrighteousness or exalted in your good-self relativism is all the rage, but when you are in danger, objective moral values are demanded by you. This is hardly a principled life.

5) Prophecies fulfilled by Christ are mathematically impossible unless they are divinely inspired. If you think the reporting of those fulfilled prophecies were fabricated, then all you need do is ask yourself is, where do people knowingly and willingly go to their deaths for what they know is a lie?

6) Since most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.

7) Simply observe the wonderment and glory of God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34FNr_peUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh...eature=related (HD)

Give your testimony here you now believe God exists and which of these 7 proofs convinced and convicted you the most to believe in the uncreated Creator! Then copy this post and post it on at least two atheist forums and see how they react. You won't last long.

[Nottheworld]

Re: http://www.youtube.com/user/MystryBox#p/a

Do you really want my replies to the points you linked to if you think I'm dishonest?

Yes of course, so you can see my response to your response and observe how you are being dishonest with yourself when you did not think you were being so, and take a bite of humility.

1) Elements can't become conscious by "banging together."
Well we're made of elements and we're conscious. So somehow elements can become conscious (though probably not from two of them "banging together"). I don't know how we became conscious but "god" is only one possible explanation out of an infinite number of explanations known and unknown. Just because god is an explanation doesn't make it the correct one. Try finding some actual evidence for your explanation.

That is an assumption elements can come together to have consciousness. There is no reason to think that could be possible. They don't have that nature. But God does have consciousness, so He can breath conscious life into beings like us. God is the only explanation for our existence. I think it is dishonest to allege there are other explanations, and an infinite number, when you don't know of any others. What is proven is that since the universe can't produce consciousness, we are left with only one possibility, the uncreated created which is the attribute of God. That's the evidence. Try to find evidence for your belief and overturn this proof of God that only consciousness can generate consciousness and when you are still unable to, then accept reality.

2) "The universe can't have always existed."
I don't know if that's true or not, however assuming it is god is only one explanation out of an infinite number of explanations for how the universe might have started. Just because god is an explanation doesn't make it the correct one. Try finding some actual evidence for your explanation.

You keep mentioning infinite other possibilities, but that is just an assumption on your part and besides, you fail to even mention one other feasible possibility, which indicates it is your fantasy life in hostility to God that makes this false assumption. Since the universe can't always have existed due to the exponential progression of conscience (mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does) this proves the uncreated created whom we call God who reveals Himself personally to us in Christ. Since you couldn't overturn this evidence and you present no evidence of your own just assumptions, then the burden remains on.

3) "Something can't come from nothing."
We don't know that. In this universe things don't come from nothing but we don't know how things work outside the universe or before the universe existed. For all we know "nothing" is unstable and blows up into something outside this universe. However even if the universe came to be somehow, god is only one explanation out of an infinite number of explanations for how the universe might have started. Just because god is an explanation doesn't make it the correct one. Try finding some actual evidence for your explanation.

Nothing is nothing; it doesn't exist. We know this and have preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of trillions of causes and effects in nature. Nothing is shown to be without a cause happening all by itself or coming from nothing. You are dead wrong. It's like you are playing a lottery against yourself with odds of more than a trillion to 1. If you roll a 1 you will eventually cease to exist as an atheist. If you roll any other number, you go to Hell, consciously aware of your selfishly wrong choice. Again, assuming infinite possibilities is just an assumption on your part, besides, you can't even think of one other possibility. Things require a cause. Whatever begins to exist has an explanation. No other option exists than the uncreated which is the nature of God. He has uncreated life. Accepting this fact is the beginning of humility.

The first 3 points are all basically the same thing. They're saying because we can't explain X and some religions claim to explain X by saying there is a god, then we should believe that religion. It's a ridiculous argument. Just because someone explains something doesn't excuse them from proving their explanation. Until someone find even a shred of evidence for gods I don't believe in them. See my video "Is God Real?" for more on this.

Your thinking is not right. Rather, because 1-3 prove that the uncreated must exist we find ought to find out where the uncreated reveals Himself, and by comparison none can compare to Christ. God personally enters His creation in Christ and Jesus said He is God, proving it by His resurrection. No other religion does this. In other belief systems you just have to assume it is true, because it provides no proof. Atheism is essentially a religion in the idol worship of something coming from nothing which is absurdity. You have to just assume it is true, because it has no evidence and can't overturn the evidence in 1-3.

I watched your video Is God Real? You said you are willing to be convinced. The Holy Spirit told me you are not willing to be convinced. At least not at this present time, but with my help you may change if you are willing. We have always known. Why did God choose Israel to bring in the Messiah to atone for the sins of the world? It is because no other nation in the history of earth was enslaved for 430 years. Therefore, they had a heart to listen. What is revealed to them is by common grace revealed to us all that by observing nature you know God exists (see 1-3). Atheism is a myth.

4) See my video "Source of Morality" for my response to this one.

You agreed there are objective moral values, but you say they come from us and then at the same time said they come from outside of us. But the Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Since our morals are changing, how can we be the source of the objective? God is immutable (unchanging) so He can be the source of the objective.

The fact remains objective moral values can't exist without a moral agent that is above us. In previous societies they thought human sacrifices were right. Today, we believe they are wrong. Who is to say who is right? The truth is by what we deem today, they were wrong then, so objective moral values transcend us.

You have a doublestandard when you accuse God for the flood. The flood happens anyway in a natural-only world. But you say it is evil. Why isn't your naturalism evil then? Whereas God explains why the flood was necessary because evil was so pervasive. The absurdity of naturalism is it is ok when nature does it, but not ok when God does it. You claim everyone objectively agrees on the same thing. That's is blatantly false. Otherwise we would all agree Islam and Atheism are wrong. Rather, objective moral values do exist as observed when you are being threatened by those things you think are acceptable to do but then come upon you, you change your tune. You witness to objective moral values being a reality when your back is up against the wall and you demand fair treatment, e.g. not be murdered, raped, stolen against, abused and mistreated, etc.

I really don't think your video addressed the argument put forward...

It’s hard to imagine objective moral values exist without a moral agent. The universe knows nothing of morality, it just reacts with its constants and variables. Relativism is just another way of rationalizing one's sins, selfishness and self-righteousness.

Naturalistic changing values are not objective but sway like the wind by whatever natural survival techniques dictate. It could be advantageous to ritualistically murder people in the future under certain naturalistic scenarios. Raping women may become an important staple of society under naturalism. Who is to say Hitler was not fully justified in doing what he did in a naturalistic-only world?

As soon as your life is threatened you invoke objective moral values. When you are being selfish and getting away with unrighteousness or exalted in your good-self relativism is all the rage, but when you are in danger, objective moral values are demanded by you. This is hardly a principled life.

5) See my video "Does Prophecy Prove Christianity?" for my response to this one.

You're plagued with assumptions that destroy your argument. Matthew was written 70 years later!? By all accounts it was written within a generation, within 30 years of the cross before 65 AD and no later. Matthew was not alive at the time when you said it was written.

As to Herod, there is no reason for you to think 20 babies in a small town would catch the attention of any writers outside the Bible,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3309

You've got lots of prophecies to go through,
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2523

Mathematically, it's impossible for them all to come true. Take for example the piercing of Jesus. He really died on the cross.

If the writer was lying about what animal Jesus rode on into Jerusalem then why complicate it? After all you said it was written 70 years later. It shows an authenticity that the writers weren't trying to make things up to fit prophecies, but just reported as they recalled the events themselves for they were present as eyewitnesses to many of these events.

What's more likely, adding complications to the story, or reporting as is irrespective of the complicated telling? The latter seems, therefore, perfectly reasonable, considering it is said to be the word of God as God intended before the world began.

6) I don't believe most non-believing scholars agree with your claims. I certainly don't. But regardless see my video "Is the Resurrection Believable?" for my response to this one.

I watched your video. Your perspective is not fair and reasonable. Most skeptical scholars even though they don't accept Jesus was resurrected do in fact concede these points. We have counted them.

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by a large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts. This is called the Minimal Facts Approach.

Therefore, observe the data most atheist scholars concede a) Jesus was a real person, b) he really died on the cross and c) the disciples truly believed they had seen him resurrected on more than one occasion in various group settings, the burden of the proof falls on the atheist to come up with a naturalistic explanation for these facts or give His life to Christ if he were to be intellectually honest with himself.

If you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data realize Jesus was resurrected supernaturally.

Even though skeptical scholars may not accept all 13 books written by Paul they most certainly accept 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Scholars really believe Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 in which he said he saw Jesus resurrected and met with the disciples a few years after the cross who said the same in their various group occurrences.

This is not some late reporting but Luke writes a biography of Paul in Acts and doesn't mention his death. Paul is reported by earliest church fathers as having died in the Neronian persecutions, so that places acts before 65 AD, perhaps around 55 AD. Luke said Acts is part two of his former work, Luke, which places Luke in about 45 AD. Luke took from Mark, placing Mark at about 35 AD just 3 years after the cross. And Mark was good friends with Peter (1 & 2 Peter) whom Mark received much information from. Peter said he saw Jesus resurrected with John and James and other Apostles.

Peter writes in his books he saw Jesus resurrected. John writes in his books he saw Jesus resurrected. Mark and Luke report resurrection eyewitness accounts of those who they personally spent time with, the eyewitness apostles. Mark identifies himself in Mark. Luke identifies himself in Luke and Acts as the author of these books. James the brother of Jesus didn't believe his brother was resurrected until He appeared to Him.

The disciples all knew each other, traveling and setting up the churches together.

In antiquity the Bible documents are the earliest to their events and most well attested so again, you are being disingenuous, because I know you do accept some things about history. The Dead Sea Scrolls date Mark before 50 AD and has portions of 27 of the 29 books of the NT dated to the first century, showing the originals is as we have today.

There are no major discrepancies on major doctrinal points. In general the authors of each book of the Bible are identified by their writers. We know who wrote them. There were no added names. Right in the text itself, the authors identify themselves. There is no reason to think they were written decades later. Unless shown otherwise, consider them having been written right when the events happened. Though Mary didn't write any book she was close to the disciples. For example, when Jesus was dying on the cross, He said to his mother treat John as your son. She would have imparted the birth of Jesus to the disciples.

You allege there are contradictions in the gospels, but I have looked at thousands of alleged contradictions and unless you disprove the scholarly response, then they are no contradictions. When you misread the Bible as an argument that is no argument. You'll be quickly shown how you misread the Word of God.

Bottom line: though you claim there is a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data, you don't present any. The burden of the proof remains on you then. I recommend focusing just on the resurrection because Jesus said it is the most important proof He is God.

7) See my video "Rain-Elves Kick Your Proof--Re: Evidence inside" for my response to this one.

Saw the video. Ya, I don't think these things happened all by themselves. That's silly. You have to be pretty obnoxious to think they happen all by themselves from nothing.

On your video, Are Atheists Blind or Stupid? it is not that you are stupid, but you prefer to remain eternally separated from God. God is proven here yet you still deny Him. Your flesh can rationalize anything away. God gives you that right.

All I can do is give you these proofs again and again. You are assuming that because there are atheists, God would not exist, but you are not taking into account free will. A world where everyone believes in God allows people to sin and reject God but still be saved. That's unrighteous.

You are under the misconception those who believe in God don't understand you, but we do, for many of us were atheists before we became theist, but you don't understand us because you still are unwilling to give up your flesh to believe in these proofs for God.

[DD2014]

1 reason God can't exist

Can a God make a rock bigger than he can lift? If so, then he would be unable to lift it. If not, he wouldnt be able to create one bigger than he could not lift." A being which is omnipotent must be illogical.

[Nottheworld]

God can lift the whole universe. How can God create something bigger than Himself? He is infinite. He is uncaused and all-knowing and all-powerful. Logically, this is a God you can trust. For God to be able to create something bigger than Him means He would not be God. You're arguing against some god, not God of the Bible, because God of the Bible can't create something bigger than Himself, for that would not be all powerful, but illogical, for nothing can create something bigger than itself. How can that which is infinite be usurpoed by more infinite? Nothing is bigger than infinite.

You're not too bright are you DD2014?

[DD2014]

God of the Bible can't create something bigger than Himself, for that would not be all powerful, but illogical, for nothing can create something bigger than itself.

If God can't do it, he is not God. Because God is able to do anything (or so he claims).

You're not too bright are you Nottheworld?

[Nottheworld]

Mathematically that is a impossible, because you can't make something more infinite than infinite. That's funny. You're contradicting yourself. I don't know what god you are speaking about, sounds like a fantasy god, but the One True God can't do anything. Can He make a square circle? Can he make a married bachelor? Nor can God go against His reality and the law of infinity of His uncreated life and His righteousness and holiness, for it is not in His nature to do so.

Still think you are bright eh? Think how dumb you are. You think God can't be God because He can't make a square circle. Atheists get dumber every day.:D

[MystryBox]

This is MystryBox who was quoted in the above post. I still stand by my previous short replies... whatever explanations theists might propose they have no actual evidence for their claims.

Also I'll expand a bit in #3: "Something can’t come from nothing" as that seems to be an often repeated notion on this sub-forum...

I don't think the non-theist position is something came from nothing. Obviously the universe has some explanation, however the honest answer is nobody knows, not the caricature "something came from nothing." If you want to get into speculation (which obviously you do as you're proposing a speculation called "God"), let's speculate... I'm no expert but the law of conservation of energy tells us energy is not created nor destroyed but merely changes forms. So from that we surmise the initial formation of the universe (The Big Bang or whatever) was a changing of form of energy that already existed. It wasn't something from nothing, it was the changing of form of what had already existed (and what had always existed).

[Nottheworld]

You'd be surprised to find out how many atheists actually do believe something come from nothing in order to reject their Creator. That's why they allege in quantum mechanics things happen from nothing all the time. Not true of course. Atheists can't agree on anything. They keep changing their stories.

We do know the cause of the universe because of the combination of three facts which are beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) something can't come from nothing, 2) universe can't always have existed, 3) Jesus and the Apostles proved His resurrection. Since you have no naturalistic explanation for these well evidenced facts, realize God exists (that is, the uncreated Creator) and Jesus is God, salvation is through Him and there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. Unless you confess the Lord Jesus as your Savior before others, He said He will deny you before His Father in Heaven. Your choice.

Ergo, God created the universe out of Himself. All He does is perfect. He couldn't create a more perfect universe than this one. Realize you are going to Hell, because you want to be eternally separated from God. You have decided already, so now you want to understand why you are going to spend eternity in Hell for Jesus said you are "condemned already" (John 3.18). Who is a liar, you are or Jesus?

[KikoSanchez]

You'd be surprised to find out how many atheists actually do believe something come from nothing in order to reject their Creator. That's why they allege in quantum mechanics things happen from nothing all the time. Not true of course. Atheists can't agree on anything. They keep changing their stories.

And yet you believe god came from nothing. Or as you say, it created itself lol. As if that fixes your problem of infinite regress.

[Nottheworld]

No I don't believe God came from nothing, but rather, that God always existed. I never said God created Himself. I don't have a problem with infinite regress since it doesn't exist. Why do you sin bearing false witness to make your arguments? Is that constructive or obstinate?