Tradesecret

It could be about plausible deniability.  God will miraculously heal someone but leaves room for doubt.  Faith is asked for by God and a person only has faith if there's room for doubt.

don't you mean the hardest question ever 

It's ok to say I don't know

This is the dumbest question I've ever seen in my entire life. Until I read the second question.

Why doesn't God show us any pictures from Heaven?

They'll be healed when they die. In heaven it will be as if they still have legs. Why the fuck would God heal a paraplegic?

Why hasn't a "god" ever healed an amputee?

"Is evil real? Is good real?"

If you do not know what evil and good are, can I take it that you do not fight evil?

I think that good and evil are real, and that you and I would likely agree on which side a given situation is good or evil.

About 90 % start our morality with a reciprocity rule and that is why there is so much more good in the world than evil.

Did I mention that I was appointed as an Assistant Prosecutor with the Bangladesh Court?

 No you didn't. And I find that particularly interesting considering that you ARE also a defence lawyer in the English speaking country of Australia.  And you would have had to ALSO have been also able to speak the Bengali language,  the national language of Bangladesh. This is  not to mention the fact that you would ALSO have had to have studied  Bangladeshi law.

So please you just keep em coming Reverend Munchausen.

Do you  accept the King James Version Dictionary definition which defines the word _ perfect _ when used in the Bible as ;

PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]

1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.

As full, as perfect in a hair as heart.

2. Fully informed; completely skilled; as men perfect in the use of arms; perfect in discipline.

3. Complete in moral excellencies.

Do you agree or not on that 

jesus true father would have been known if they had DNA tests back then ?

instead of this garbage about god's son .

Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

It’s not a direct quote from scripture, that is blatantly obvious, but you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything  written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on.

The document itself is demonstratable that the methodology of interpreting scripture by scripture is a valid and indeed proper one despite your denigration of it.

Using scripture to validate scripture is called circular reasoning, a violation of the most basic principal of logic. If you insist on sticking to that then you are by definition irrational and therefore incapable of having a logical conversation.

 I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia (or more likely herehttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3.i.i.html)- the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims.  I just love those double standards. 

Nor did you recognize it which reveals a lack of ignorance on your part.

Nope. I read your post  #162 _ concerning the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith ( which is only a statement of belief ) drawn up by the Westminster Assembly made up of -  "learned, godly and judicious Divines to doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England"  -  that would be Anglican to you, Reverend.  A church I am sure that you once told us that you do not recognise being a Presbyterian yourself.   "I am a Presbyterian". #116  Wasn't one of these "notable academic "Divines" Philip Nye the vehement anti Presbyterian?

 Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous  Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand.  Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".

 And didn't the WCF lose its official status with the restoration of English Monarchy?  And was  WCF only retained, although reformed and tinkered with, by the Presbyterians of Scotland?   

Never mind it goes nowhere in showing "Evidence for God" as is the topic of the OP, does it?

just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.

What you posted were 57 quotes directly from scripture regardless of who may have been discussing them at the time.

Tell me Reverend, when these so called " Divine learned and intelligent people of the day" were forming this Stuart period document, were they referencing scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English? And did these "Divines", unlike you, take the bible literally?

It was debated by politicians and other notable academics in the English Parliament.  

"Notable" you say, lets have their names then?

Westminster Assembly, (1643–52), assembly called by the English Long Parliament to reform the Church of England. It wrote the Larger and Shorter Westminster catechisms, the Westminster Confession, and the Directory of Public Worship. The assembly was made up of 30 laymen (20 from the House of Commons and 10 from the House of Lords), 121 English clergymen, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians. Although all were Calvinists in doctrine, the assembly represented four different opinions on church government: Episcopalian, Erastian, Independent, and Presbyterian. From July 1, 1643, until Feb. 22, 1649, it held 1,163 sessions in Westminster Abbey, and it continued to meet occasionally until 1652. The works produced were generally accepted by Presbyterians throughout the world, although Presbyterianism in England was suppressed when episcopacy was re-established in 1660.

Right mixed bag there Reverend, and so many "notables" from nearly 400 years ago to choose from. I wonder was Matthew Hopkins one of those 30 laymen?

And you may have missed this too;

Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?

we as a human beings have a limited life span , since it's pretty obvious we can't do an in depth study of all the religions out there , or in order to do that we will need multiple life times , however we can place multiple parameters to judge religion , and here I would like to mention few :

1.moral parameters :

parameter A

when we are judging the moral values mentioned by that religion and this is just half of that , like we will not accept any religion that's ok with eating living humans , allows the marriage of little children , or discriminate with homosexuals ,

**ignore the part of discriminating with homosexuals since in ancient time s the number of people living on earth was very small and they needed every one to contribute to the community and continuing and helping the survival of the human race along with the abysmal chance of survival of babys  

but that is not accepted today .

parameter B

the moral values of the person carrying the message of god ,in other words the chosen person by that god to send his message :

let us say this a child rapist enter your house and tells you I'm chosen by god to deliver his message would you :

a.call the police.

b.call the police

c. call the f***ing police

and don't tell me that back then it was OK since the person chosen by god should know that this is wrong for one of two reasons :

1. he/she take their moral values from their god

2. god is omnipotent being and should have known that in the future people will see this as wrong .

--this is where the prophet of islam fails in his marriage from 6 years old child where he consummated his marriage with her at 9 -Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 ,  Book 67, Hadith 70 ,Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 65-

add to that that muhammad had no children with aisha , he had children with other wives but most of them died but only two he didn't have children with

1. was too old to have children

2.was too young (9 years old or less) to have any children

--this is also where many hindu gods fail , the list is too tall to be mentioned at once --

I'm Australian and very likely a third of your than you - I understand slang. 

Yes, there is causal link - between Wally Grout and shout.

Exactly so your point is null and void. If you concede the same thing between man and God, then your point fails. 

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Ok. You made an assertion. 

Wrong, as usual. You made an assertion, I asked for evidence, you said find it yourself. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

I don't think God is a supernatural being. 

Use a descriptive word to describe God. 

I think birds are birds and animals are animals.  

Yes birds can be birds, but there are other ways to refer to them - they are natural, they are mortal, they aren't omnipotent etc. Try and expand your vocab. 

Be technical. This is your baby - not mine.  

So no to the debating? Thought so. I did share the burden just to make it easy on you. 

First and second cause is not the apropriate distinction here. We blame the responsible person for murder, even though it was the bullet who killed the victim and the gun which sent the bullet flying. When we asign guilt for tragic events we trace the causal chain back to the first moral creature that would be aware of what they're doing. We blame Hitler for Holocaust as a whole even though SS officers clearly made a choice that wasn't controlled solely by Hitler. If, however, Hitler was a robot programmed to what he did by someone who knew the eventual outcome; then we would obviously place the guilt of Holocaust on the creator of Hitler, and view Hitler as the tool.

Similarly, the world being "evil" is caused by a lot of unfortunate events, but only God is responsible. He chose to create a world that would be evil. He specifically put a tree in the garden of eden when he knew that Adam and Eve would eat of it. God bears the ultimate responsibility for how the world turned out.

And no, this doesn't mean Hitler wasn't evil --- just that God already decided that he would be.

I don't think you know what an idiom is. Idioms such as "once in a blue-moon" still bear a resemblance to the words in the phrase - that is, a blue-moon is rare. What you are attempting to assert is that the phrase "man (X) was made in the image of God (Y)" has no bearing, I repeat, no bearing to X and Y having similarities. Utter ignorance. 

Idioms may or may not relate to the words within their phrases.  In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers. 

Do you even understand how the Wally grout saying arose? In sports, prominent athletes often receive nicknames that  become widely used once they meet with popular approval.Wally's personality added his last name as a rhyming slang for a "Shout", thereby allowing this poetic colloquialism arises in the context of drinking in a drinking establishments such as a pub. 

There is a causal link between Wally Grout and "shouting" at the pug - that is:

1. It is reflective of Wally's personality. 
   
2. Grout rhymes with shout. 
   

What you are asserting is that when speaking on the term "resemble", that there is no causal relation between the two entities which are supposed to resemble each other. This is completely nonsensical. 

So man has no resemblance to God?

My intention was to ask - how is resemblance to be understood?  

To have a similar appearance to or qualities in common with (someone or something); look or seem like.

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

LOL! this is your baby. I am not going to do your homework for you. 

So you're telling me that you get to make claims and I have to fact check for you? Come on now. 

Would you take the assertive position - or the defensive one?  In other words, would you attempt to put the burden of proof on me or would you concede that the burden ought to be shared

If I were to be technical, the burden regarding the topic of God lies solely on that who asserts there is a supernatural being. But as I am nice and I am not technical, I am willing to share the burden - I will argue that atheism is more likely whilst you will argue that theism is more likely. How does this sound?

 In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.

That is not an idiom.

"Wally Grout" = Shout.

That is rhyming Slang  for -  "its your shout (round)"  rhyming with - Grout.  As is  Tom - foolery  rhyming with - Jewellery. Frog `n` toad rhyming with - Road.  Skin and blister rhyming with - Sister.  There is no rhyming slang in the scriptures I can assure you of that! Stop taking everyone for the dunce that you yourself are.

 Idioms do not have to relate directly to the words contained in the phrase.

But they do , its just that you do not understand what an idiom is. I have myself have pointed out AND explained some the idioms in the New Testament  many times since the day I joined here.

 Yet God is invisible[ ..........................]  For God has no visible face.

Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name?  Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because

I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30.. 

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.  (Genesis 18:1). And they went on to eat and drink. With no visible mouth , I take it!

 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).

 What about The Adam and Eve? And what about the 1 Chronicles 16:11, does it not tell them to "seek his face"? OR Ezekiel 39:29 "I will not hide My face from them any longer"? 

Why does this verse always  leapt to my mind when YOU - of all people -  make theses silly claims;

“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures". Matthew 22:29

  Could it be that "god" was  just a highly intelligent  man at the end of the day? And we in his likeness and image? 

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

There are lots of sources -

It is generally accepted by secular scholars that the dating of the gospels were written at least 35/50 – 100 years after the crucifixion. 

 go and read Dr Kenneth Gentry

Have you?

You see for the best part of his work Gentry mainly focusses on the NT Revelation End Times i.e. John's "visions", dreams and nightmares.  He doesn't even date the NT to the time that the Christ was alive (unless as I  believe, that Jesus actually did survive the cross). And I could be wrong here but  isn't he the same person in agreement with those that have in the past called for the imposition of Old Testament laws upon modern society!? And you have the nerve to call me a "dill".

"Made in the image and likeness of God."  That is the idiom.  What is the Hebrew idiom.  

Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.

  The point is most were written by people with eye witness testimony.

Well Paul, the self confessed liar  that some believe to be the founder of Christianity wasn't an eyewitness to the life and times of Christ, was he?

    Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter. 

Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples? 

  Luke travelled with Paul-  but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.

So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that  had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm  that it was  Luke that  actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?

And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300. There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however, almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.

 Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document. 

Do you mean docu- MENTED?

Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?

I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.

Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?

  People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.

 That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.

I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position

Such as?  It is astounding that you  say -  "I don't need to" #72-  when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!? 

So man has no resemblance to God?

Coming from the person who does not understand that the term "you" is understood from the perspective of the narrator, I don't think it'll go down well for you. Also, stop hiding behind "idiom", change the m for a t and you'll see my perspective on you. 

I say use peer reviews

I don't see you peer reviewing your claims. 

I don't need to.

Special pleading fallacy. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

See? You start with a conclusion and work backwards - in the scientific method, you are supposed to conduct your experiments then make a conclusion. 

Nonsense.    You obviously have no idea how the scientific methodology works within the field of language and semantics.  

Big words don't prove a point. 

Do you even know what historical narrative is?  By the structure of your argument - you don't see to. 

Still yet to see you address that one. 

Genesis is historical narrative. That includes poetry and symbolism. 

Find me a historical paper which delivers its thesis in idioms and riddles. 

God owns the cattle on a 1000 hills.  What does that mean to you?  It could mean God only owns cattle on 1000 hills.   But is that the intent of the author or is he saying something more profound?   Could we go and find the bill of sale for each cattle?  Where would we look?  How would we know which are God's and which are not?  Is the author telling us that God's wealth is limited? Or is he saying that God only owns cows - and not sheep or birds.  Is the author telling us that God believes in private property? 

Dunno it's up for interpretation, which makes it an absolutely source.  

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus' alleged death. This would be akin to writing a report on the JFK assassination without the use of security footage,  journalists, Walter Cronkite and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom were actually documenting these events as they happened.  

Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70. 

Source. 

This back and forth is clearly getting us no where. Let's debate. I propose: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist. I doubt you'll accept - I know you only operate within the safety of the forums, but you seem convicted of your belief. 

Did you ever read my words?  I say Scripture interprets Scripture.

This is a completely incoherent statement. Scripture is, by definition, words on a piece of paper. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t act. It just is. Interpretation is done by a thinking agent. That would be you.

On the contrary. I am using the tried and trusted methods of literature experts.  We need to understand what the author meant…

Yes, and coming to that understanding requires you to use your own judgement and your own reasoning. And this is after you have already used your own judgement and reasoning to conclude for yourself that the literature is where you will find the truth about the universe. There is no way around this, you are your ultimate source. You are no different in that regard from any atheist.

I never said it was a problem. I just want Atheists to be honest with themselves.

I’ve never met an atheist who didn’t acknowledge and ultimately champion this fact.

And to add to my post above at #12

Some sources describes Jesus as “a bastard son of an adulteress” describing Jesus as “ben Pantera” (son of-Pantera) a corruption of the Greek word/name parthenos. Pantera was said to be a Roman archer from Sidon in Phoenicia but had served in Syria.

One has to wonder and ask why the silence from Mark and John concerning the "virgin birth"?

who was jesus father ?

"the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, -  that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son,  for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.

More over, if the Son is the Father what of  Mary getting pregnant?  Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"... 

I never said your words were controversial. I said that they were a wrong usage of language. 

Which word. 

You want to use a literal word according to the dictionary.

Ok, if you want to be smart, then tell me what your definition of "resemblance" is. 

I'm not saying you have made a good point.  I am saying you have missed the point altogether. Your argument is not only weak it is irrelevant.

Weak? Yet you cannot address a single premise. Do you want to debate? You won't go far, I promise. 

I say use peer reviews

I don't see you peer reviewing your claims. 

I admit I am biased with the bible - but having said that - preserving the bible - means implicitly preserving the integrity and TRUTH of the bible including its usage of idioms. 

See? You start with a conclusion and work backwards - in the scientific method, you are supposed to conduct your experiments then make a conclusion. 

 I have demonstrated that by drawing your attention to the distinction between literalism and metaphor and language idioms. 

I recall that you have once stated 

 Genesis’ genre is not symbolic, even though it contains some symbolism. It is historical narrative, and this is clearly the intention of the author. 

I would think that something as major as the creation of human beings would count as a historical narrative? Or are you going to use the "but you are misinterpreting" card?

This is the point though.  You want to be able to interpret the bible in the way you want. You don't care about the original author's intentions.

The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus' alleged death. This would be akin to writing a report on the JFK assassination without the use of security footage,  journalists, Walter Cronkite and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom were actually documenting these events as they happened.  

People nowadays cannot even agree on the nature of 9/11, despite the security footage, instantaneous journalism, eye witnesses,  presidential testimony, the thousands of dead people and the fact that possibly the world's most capable secret agents were testifying that this event was not an inside job - and this was merely 20 years ago (without adding that the conspiracy took substantially less than 20 years to formulate). We cannot even agree on the nature of an event which occured 20 year ago, even with our level of technology. Do you think the peasants of the bible era could have done better? 

No, it’s not a trick question. It’s about as straight forward as it gets.

No, I don’t believe you did answer that question.

I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7080/post-links/303628

No, there is nothing about it that is circular.

Again, you claimed that the atheist’s primary source is themself, which is supposed to be some kind of problem.

However, setting aside what exactly is wrong with this, you ignore the fact that the only way you can interpret your professed ultimate source is through yourself.

So how are you any different? Are you not deciding for yourself based on your own reasoning what to accept is true?