This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.

Report article RSS Feed A God who is, well, you know, there.

So, just why should be believe this whole "Bible" thing, and are atheists right in their extremely common accusation that "Religion" has no proof behind it? Warning: TL;DR causing.

Posted by TLhikan on Mar 24th, 2012

Well, obviously I think that the answer to the second question is "flak no!", but you can't just say that and have a whole article, partially because there are actually two questions up in the summary, and partially because no one believe things I tell them.

Anyhow, it's a great debate of our times and a lot of other people's times' too: Does God exist, and can we prove it if he does?

Well obviously a sentient spambot highschool student isn't going to settle this debate in a singe article on a sight that ultimately is for people venting their frustration on why their favorite video games aren't like they should be in those people's heads in the most creative and resource-intensive way possible.

But no harm in trying, right?

Anyway, how do we know there is a God? Well first of, we have to start with a few presuppositions (things both sides of the debate have to agree on if they want the debate to be possible):

1. We exist, our world exists, and we are capable of making rational observations about that world.
Should be a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised.

2. The consequences of God existing or not have no bearing on the question of whether he does.
If he does, then he does, and the question "why is there so much bad stuff in the world?" or "But Christians are responsible for stuff like the Salem Witch trials or The Crusades or Joel Osteen!" doesn't really have anything to do with it. Not that it's not a good question, it's just not pertinent to this discussion. The same goes for "If there is no God, why should we act morally?".

3. Someone is right, and someone is wrong.
Our point in this is to find out which one it is, not "put our opinions foreword and agree to disagree". We already agree that we disagree and for most of us, our opinions are pretty flakking forward.

4. TLhikan likes to rant and get off topic.
It makes the article easier and more fun to read.

Now, on to the what I've been ostensibly leading up to.

Any question of "does God exist" by definition brings us the question of "which one?" Their are a lot of them, and they are not all the same by far. So for the purpose of this article, I'm going with the one in the Bible, for reasons that may or may not become clear as this article progresses.

We know that there is a God from two sources: Nature, and what God has revealed about himself, which we call "The Bible".

What does Nature tell us? Well, it tells us that their is no rational and scientific explanation for how it got there (here? blargh grammar) by itself. It tells us that life is cannot arise from non-life, nor gain new genetic information. It tells us that this universe is incredibly complex, and that it is literally impossible to have arisen by random processes, both because of probability, and because those random processes don't actually work in the first place. It tells us that someone had to have made this.

In other words, looking at nature, we see that God in some form must exist, but the classic questions that I said earlier wouldn't be an issue in this come up. Why so much suffering? Is this creator(s) angry, powerless, uncaring, dualistic? Do we have to please him/her/it/them?

This is where all religions save one (and my you are going to protest the exclusion of the one) fail, because they make assumptions. They say "well, I think God is like this (and the "this" is often "us"), and if we do this that or the other thing we can please him/her/it/them and go to a nice place after we die.

Most non-religious or nominally religions people thing that that is all all religion works: If there's a god, we make our tradition-based guesses on what he/she/it/them's like, so who can tell who's right?

Ah, but we forget something: If a supreme being or beings exist, might it be that he/she/you should get the picture by now actually care what we as humans thing of him/her/yadda yadda yadda?

That is where the Bible comes in.

Now, you may be saying to yourself "Why the Bible? Plenty of books and people claim to speak for God!".

Well first off, that's another question that really deserves it's own article, but I hope to weave a theme into this one that it has to be the God of the Bible or it just doesn't make sense.

Well first and foremost, we have this guy called Jesus. We know he existed; aside from the four biographies we have of him written by eye witnesses, people like Pliny and Josephus mention him. Not bad for a guys who never walked outside of a backwater Roman province.

And we know that he had followers, and that he was crucified for treason against the Roman Government, and that three days as reckoned by first-century Jews those followers started claiming that not only was that dead guy the Messiah of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of the tons of prophecies in that Old Tesament, he was also God and as it turns out, no longer a dead guy.

And although there was only eleven of those guys at the start, the empire that ruled the world was incapable of suppressing that message no matter how many of those eleven were beheaded or stoned or crucified or boiled in oil or all four, they and hundreds more went to their graves saying with their last breath that that guy, Jesus, had risen from the dead and that what he had done by doing that and dying in the first place answers all of those questions we have.

So it should come to no surprise that a few of those guys wrote down what they had seen, because it was kind of a big deal and it didn't take long for people to start getting it wrong and adding all sorts of weird stuff for Dan Brown to write books about millennia (shut up Google Chrome that's how it's spelled) later.

So, we have two of those eleven I mentioned, one doctor who interviewed a lot of people, and Jesus's right-hand man's apprentice who only shows up like twice in the actual story writing detailed accounts of his life that are simultaneously not contradictory and possessive of unique literary styles and themes that the four authors did not collaborate much on their "Gospels".

Interesting fact, the most likely dates for the writing of the Gospels based on manuscripts and people quoting them and such are as follows: Matthew: Between A.D. 50 and 70, Mark: A.D. 55 to 70, Luke: Before A.D. 62, John: Between A.D. 70 and A.D. 90something.

Anyhow, looking into those gospels, we see that Jesus actually claimed to be the God of the Jewish Old Testament. He claimed the authority to forgive people's sins, to speak on his own authority, to be greater than Moses and Abraham, and his enemies, the self-righteous and legalistic Pharisees understood this. That's why they wanted him killed; he was a blasphemer, and could try to lead the people in a revolution against Rome.

When asked "What sign do you give us that you have the authority to do and stay stuff like this?"(I'm paraphrasing), Jesus told them "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again". We know that he's actually taking about his own body. Jesus is saying that if you want to test him, do see if these claims of deity have any merit to them, then kill him and he'll come back in three days.

And they did.

Jesus died, very, very painfully, and for a lot of movements, that would have been the end. It certainly looked like it for a while.

Then Jesus rose from the dead.

His tomb was empty. He showed up to people. Not just one and not just once, but to hundreds, several times. He ate with people, he talked to people, and then he went up to heaven.

If it's not clear yet, then this whole debate rests on that question. Jesus rising from the head. Both sides can and should explore all the other arguments both ways, but Jesus Christ's rising from the dead is the last hill the Christian dies on.

There are of course many objections and arguments people bring to the table as to what could have happened that Easter Morning.

Did the disciples bribe the guards? No, these where professional Roman Soldiers backed by the very wealth Jewish elite; what did a bunch of fishermen who hadn't even been fishing for three years and had had a thief in charge of their treasury for that time have to offer.

Maybe Jesus just fainted? Mate, if I explained to you the physical damage being beaten, scourged, crucified, stabbed, and embalmed entailed, then you might puke. Anyone who went through that would be dead, not in the position to roll a several-ton stone away, fight off a squad of professional soldiers, and appear later passing himself off as having rose from the dead.

Was it all a hallucination? Hallucination's don't work that way, among large groups of undrugged people. And even drugged people don't have coherent and recurring hallucinations for no reason (other than the drug thing).

Did the women go to the wrong tomb, then the Disciples went to that same wrong tomb, then again to the same wrong tomb, and the Pharisees also go to the same wrong tomb when trying to disprove them? Do I even have to answer that one?

So, Jesus rose from the dead. That could have meant a lot of things, but it's a good idea to assume that it meant what he said it meant: Jesus was the God of the Old Testament.

So the God of the Old Testament had to exist.

That is why I believe in Christianity. No matter what any atheist says their is proof of God's existence and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Christianity is true, and I could go on for flakking paragraphs exploring more and more proof, but that one is the one you have to deal with my atheist friend.

But why should we care? Why should I try to convince you that God exists? Why should you try to convince me he doesn't?

I'd be quite interested in hearing the answer to the second question, but the first is simple.

Jesus rose from the dead. But first he had to die.

Why? Why die? He was and is God after all, what does he have to die for?

Well, it's all my fault.

Yours too, but I hate to seem like I'm pointing fingers.

You see, God created our first parents like him: Good. Perfect. Sinless. Holy.

The whole world was that way, and for the only time in human existence, we had a real choice: God, or an apple/mango/purple grenade (ok, we don't know what it was). But it was bad, and it was the only commandment they had: Don't eat it.

They ate it.

They chose to disobey God, and in doing so, they chose that every single one of their ancestors, you, me, Mother Teresa, the Pope, George Washington, Gandhi, everybody would disobey God, would be born as rebels, would give God the middle finger before we even had fingers, would deserve to be punished forever.

That is what I deserve. I deserve to go to hell. Me. TLhikan (which isn't my real name). God is (or was, as you'll see) mad as flak at me and I earned every bit of it.

God is perfectly just, and cannot let wrong go unpunished (and really, do we want him to?). So someone had to pay. Someone had to bear his wrath, and it was supposed to be me and you.

But God is inexplicably kind and merciful and gracious, so he chose a different option. He chose, rather than punish everybody, he would save some of them.

He chose to die instead.

Because only God could make the sacrifice. Only God could achieve his own standard (perfection). So God made it.

When Jesus died, he had all the "sin" on my account transferred to him and all of his righteousness put in it's place.

That is why being a Christian matters, why believing in God matters, why I bother to spend an evening on a website dedicated to messing with our favorite video games to type several thousand words only about seven people will read.

So is their proof that their is a God? Yes. Do you believe it? Maybe. Is it important?

Nothing is more important.

Post comment Comments
TLhikan Author
TLhikan Mar 24 2012, 8:48pm says:

This long took a article time to write.

+4 votes   reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 25 2012, 9:49am replied:

Clearly lol.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Ten10dix Mar 25 2012, 6:25am says:

Lol, good article and well written, but now its my job to argue with it as every Atheist should :P Agreeing with the 4 thingies you set up btw.

Right, lets begin:

1) The Universe could of easily been an accident. Or a series of coincidences. We don't know what was before the Universe, but maybe it was something even more inprobable and unlikely then the Universe we live in? Maybe the entirety of creation is simply a series of impossible coincidences and improbabilities? Yes, I'm saying "maybe" as I have no real proof of this. Then again, you have no real proof of God, so it evens it out xD. No solid proof=Cannot be proven.

2) Jesus rising from the grave? Right, couldn't this is just been a "magic trick"? I do agree that Jesus could of sacrificed himself for something, but I doubt it was to clear us of our "sins". Maybe he wanted to lift peoples suffering and to give them hope, so he showed them a miracle, more or less. What if either: Someone else died in his place, or he died and someone pretended to be him? That would lead to people believing he rose from the dead and therefore make them believe in God, and therefore hope. Doesn't actually mean he does exsist, mind you, but would explain how Jesus managed ressurect himself. Improbable? So is him coming back from the dead xD.

And on a final note: I've already explained why the Bible can be very unreliable. I have no proof of this, mind, but again it is very probable that the Bible is a man made invention to gain power over us stupid humans. We'd believe anything if the guy who sells it is good at his job xD.

And yes, my three arguements have no solid proof to back them up. Then again, you don't either. And since I don't need proof to prove God doesn't exsist, it doesn't matter. You, however, need proof to prove he does.

Again, well written article ^^.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Yuribeard7 Mar 25 2012, 8:09am replied:

Experience is all the proof believers need. We have mountains of that.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TLhikan Author
TLhikan Mar 25 2012, 9:08pm replied:

Actually Yuribeat, we as Christians are not to rely on our own experiences, but on what is written in the Word of God.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Yuribeard7 Mar 25 2012, 9:25pm replied:

Thats not what I meant. He is asking what proof we have. We have faith in God's Word and our experiences with God have simply confirmed them.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 25 2012, 9:47am replied:


My recent comments in the article also do away with your coincidence theories. Your coincidence theories require as much blind faith as religious people often give their faiths.

2) As TLhikan said; being beaten, tortured, crucified and stabbed is likely to lead to death. No human can survive these things. How could someone die in his place? His mother and disciples clearly saw it was him. Jesus was real because we have the gospels (all dating back to the first century) mentioning him. Then there are the books outside of The Bible which are about Jesus. Are you saying that some random Jew created this Jesus and his story and made 70 books (now called gospels) and scattered them about Israel for people to find? Seems a bit too far fetched to me. Early records of Christians from 60AD also exist. 60 AD is only 30 years after Jesus. It's obvious that Jesus was a real person. There would be many people in 60AD who saw Jesus or heard of him back in 30AD. They wouldn't follow a lie to the death.

Is The Bible unreliable?

This blog proves otherwise:

+1 vote     reply to comment
TLhikan Author
TLhikan Mar 25 2012, 9:20pm replied:

I'm going to limit my responses to you Ten because these other guys have their own problems (love you guys :D).

1. You can say "maybe this that or the other thing", but you have to show me rational way that the universe could of self-generated. Right now you seem to be saying "well, I don't know what happened, but it wasn't God, so I don't have to argue with you".

1b. I reject the claim that their is no proof of God, and I would appreciate if you stop making it until you prove it to be true. It's what the whole flakking article is about.

2. Maybe Jesus died to stick it to that Ceasar man and his imperial metanarrative, or maybe he died to save us from the flying flakking spaghetti monster, except none of those things happened because Jesus actually gets to decide why he died and the people who knew him personally and saw it happen get to explain it, and they said he died for the sins of Christians.

2b.Really? Someone dying in his place or someone pretending to be him? Was everyone in first century Palestine an idiot? They didn't recognize him on the cross, and thought some other guy was him after it? Please explain to me how that would have worked for a second.

3. Enlighten me on how the Bible is unreliable.

+2 votes   reply to comment
Ten10dix Mar 25 2012, 10:36am says:

His mother and disciples cleary saw him die? Who told you that? The Bible? Some priest? Like I said, human beings can and do lie, and so can books.

Not saying Jesus wasn't real. Just that he may not be what you think he is.

Then again, as I said, neither of us have proof so nothing can be proven.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Yuribeard7 Mar 25 2012, 12:05pm replied:

Lying is a sin so why would they lie about it? The evidence was established that they were believers, and if they believed and kept the commandments why would they lie?

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 25 2012, 5:33pm replied:

Forget The Bible. Before the gospels were established, they were ordinary books and records which were later called the gospels when The Church put The Bible together. Before that, they were real records by many different people.

Books lie? Then maybe all history books are lying then. The Crusades? Nah. That's a lie. They never really happened. Pope Urban II didn't exist. After all, we only have a few records of him. There's no way he's real.

+1 vote     reply to comment
pjdman44 Mar 26 2012, 12:58am replied:

I am just correcting your mistake buddy but those ordinary books are the Old testament which were written before Jesus Christ was born into this world and the New Testament is after He died and the gospels are :Matthew,Mark,Luke and John not all of those!
Again i am just correcting you buddy...

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 26 2012, 10:20am replied:

I was actually referring to the gospels which were records which were then made part of The Bible. Only four made it in whereas the others were abandoned, left out or simply destroyed. There were more than four gospels. I believe there were around 70 originally. Hell, there were probably more. Sadly, The Church destroyed them.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 25 2012, 11:33pm says:

Let's see, let's see...I could always forward this to a public forum I frequent if you'd like, there's plenty of athiests and agnostics alike there who could argure your points without the limitaton of characters. an agnostic, these are the areas I'll point to and my responses. Warning: TL;DR ahead.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 25 2012, 11:35pm replied:

1. "Well, it tells us that their is no rational and scientific explanation for how it got there (here? blargh grammar) by itself. It tells us that life is cannot arise from non-life, nor gain new genetic information. It tells us that this universe is incredibly complex, and that it is literally impossible to have arisen by random processes, both because of probability, and because those random processes don't actually work in the first place. It tells us that someone had to have made this."

2. "This is where all religions save one (and my you are going to protest the exclusion of the one) fail, because they make assumptions. They say "well, I think God is like this (and the "this" is often "us"), and if we do this that or the other thing we can please him/her/it/them and go to a nice place after we die."

3. “That is why I believe in Christianity. No matter what any atheist says their is proof of God's existence and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Christianity is true, and I could go on for flakking paragraphs exploring more and more proof, but that one is the one you have to deal with my atheist friend”

+2 votes     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 25 2012, 11:38pm replied:

1. It tells us nothing at all. There is no way to prove that there is a god or isn't a god, because we have no ability to tell the state of existence before the universe came into existence. We must stick with the universe as the point of reference. Going on, there are actually several different theorums and any number of less proposals on the study of abiogenesis, most notably the most famous two being the arrival of nucleic acids first theory and the arrival of biochemical reactions first theory, among others such as the RNA world proposal. It is not statistically impossible, only extremely statistically improbable with our level of knowledge, given what we know about planetary conditions within our local hamlet of the galaxy. Also, you cannot say that those random processes don't actually work in the first place because there has never been an attempt to replicate the conditions under which life was theorized to form under abiogenisis and then watch to see the result – as such, it is indeed impossible to determine whether or not the theories are 'true', but as scientific theories they are generally accepted as true because of our current level of understanding and evidence collected via various methods and other theories.

2. And that would be an invalid argument and thus cannot be taken as evidence of anything, for this assumes a monotheistic religion with a deity-centered proclamation of morals. Funnily enough, there are many religions out there are that not monotheistic, accepting numerous gods and other various deities, and a good many religions in which morals are not dictated by a deity but formed on another basis of ethics. As such, you cannot make the claim for all religions except one failing, for your explanation for it is not based on valid premises in the first place.

+2 votes     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 25 2012, 11:42pm replied:

3. 'That is why I believe in athiesm. No matter what any Christian says there is no proof of God's existence and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. The abolute non-existence of deities is true, and I could go on for shiiving paragraphs exploring more and more counter- proof,but that one is the one you have to deal with my Christian friend'

A bit crude, but it should hopefully get the point across. While your entire argument actually made some good points, it all fell apart here. No one has any proof of anything – atheists cannot prove that deities do not exist, Christians cannot prove that their and only their God exists, and the ancient Egytians could not prove that your heart would weigh lighter than a feather when it was free of sin in the afterlife. With our current level of understanding, and our current entire human bank of knowledge, we still cannot say one way or another that scientifically and factually speaking, any one religion is wrong.

+2 votes     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 25 2012, 11:48pm replied:

And that's why it's called faith. You have faith that something is true, that a deity or deities does or does not exist. You have faith in the absense of proof, not because of it. You do not have proof, because no one has proof. Science is not on your side nor on the athiest side, because science is about what we can test and predict about the universe, and the reality or unreality of God can not be tested, predicted, or verified within the constraints of the universe. We will only have total proof when we have exhausted and revised all possible opposing theories and proposals. As one of those proposals (note it is not a theory, as it lacks a sufficient body of evidence to support its claim) is that a deity (or, if you wish, no deities) exists outside of the universe, we will only be able to fully prove that god or a lack of god exists when multiple sources can move outside of the universe, come back, and verify the existence or non-existence to the wider scientific community and receive confirmation by others conducting their own, independent tests. Science, in this instance, backs no one but the agnostic.

TL;DR: There is no proof you are right and there is no proof you are wrong. All you can do is have faith that you are right, accept that there is no way to be sure until after death, and go about your life trusting your feelings. Have faith, and don't try to 'prove' your side to anyone, Christian, Athiest, Muslim, what have you.

And to answer the intro premise, both sides are wrong and the mysterious third party in the white mask and top hat is right until humanity can move in and out of the universe freely to examine what's there.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 26 2012, 10:26am replied:

You should probably read my article called Certain Knowledge. Yeah, we may not see God running and jumping from planet to planet, star to star and galaxy to galaxy but we see what he has left. DNA is found in all living creatures and said DNA has the same structure and formula in all creatures and yet all DNA is unique. That can't be by coincidence. Coincidences on such a scale do not happen. It's not complete proof of God but believing DNA was made by a intelligent mind is the more logical conclusion if you actually study it.

"DNA's code is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Your cells read the DNA sequence to make chemicals that your body needs to survive."

It's more plausible that a creator was responsible for DNA considering the design, order and complexity of it. Random chaotic accidents and mutations only ever cause destruction.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Yuribeard7 Mar 26 2012, 10:49am replied:

Don't forget that recently it was discovered by scientists that every living and non living thing in the universe has sequences of binary code embedded even deeper. By their own admittance, randomness cannot produce that or it is extremely unlikely.

I suggest everybody watch a show called "The Universe" if you have access to and look for an episode called "God and the Universe". Its still pretty secular but they do get a couple things right and are at least big enough to admit that the possibility that God exists is there (except for Steven Hawking and his insane unrealistic theories of course).

+2 votes     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 27 2012, 8:56pm replied:

As for the possibility that God exists, that's my point: There is the possibility that the Christian God exists. There is the possibility that no gods exist. There is the possibility that your heart will be weighed against a feather and Ammit will eat if if you were not faithful and moral. There is the possibility that Jesus was merely a prophet and the Jewish God is in fact running things.

These can all possibly be true, but you cannot claim to have proof that your side is the true side at this point in time and space. No matter how plausible one side may seem, you do. not. have. proof.

And the sooner everyone realizes that fact, the sooner everyone can stop bickering and trying to prosthelytize people who really aren't interested or circlejerking with fellow believers/unbelievers, because ultimately it all comes down to faith, and that's something too personal for you to interfere with.

In other words: Believe whatever you want, because there's nothing saying you're wrong. On the other hand, there's also nothing saying you're right, so don't try and claim the higher ground no matter what you believe in.

+2 votes     reply to comment
ProudAmerikan Mar 27 2012, 8:39pm replied:

No, it cannot be by coincidence that every living thing has the same structure and formula of DNA, yet has uniqueness to it, because the theories of abiogenesis do not explain it as coincidence. According to that area of study, life itself as we know it (DNA and RNA and carbon-based) is suggested to have emerged by a factor of the right conditions, chemical reactions, and developments taking place over millions of years, with any number of possibilities for false starts, earlier life-form die-offs, and other developments that were so far back and left so little evidence that we could not hope to see if they were right. But that does not preclude the existence or nonexistence of god.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are claiming knowledge or proof of the existence of God being correct when there is no sufficient evidence to actually back that claim up, and there can be none with our level of understanding at this time. "It's more plausible" is not sufficient evidence - it was more plausible for the Greeks and Romans to believe the sun revolved around the Earth based on what they knew, but it was not until better technology and a way to actually view what lay in the heavens that that belief could be confirmed or denied.

+2 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei Mar 28 2012, 10:40am replied:

Abiogenesis explains all life as originating from chemicals which formed into bacteria and microscopic organisms. DNA is too complex to just have formed the way it is for no apparent reason as Abiogenesis describes.

You do realize that without a creator, the universe and life as we know it WOULD be a coincidence? With no mind behind the design of the universe and DNA, their nature would be coincidence just as it would be coincidence that DNA has the same structure and formula in all creatures and yet has uniqueness in every single individual (be it a worm or an elephant).

It wasn't plausible for the Greeks and Romans to believe the sun revolved around the Earth because they had no evidence to back their claims up, they just assumed that they were right. I on the other hand am claiming that DNA provides a case for a creator.

I'd really like to hear your explanation as to how DNA can be so complex, ordered and structured without a designer being behind it. Suitcases don't pack themselves.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Yuribeard7 Mar 28 2012, 7:08pm replied:

I like the part where you (ProudAmerikan) totally ignored the binary code part and the fact that it CANNOT occur naturally.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TLhikan Author
TLhikan Mar 29 2012, 9:51pm says:

Flak it all I used the wrong "there"!

But anyway PA, you haven't addressed the main thrust of my argument, Jesus' resurrection. Even if you could show that the universe could have somehow came apart by chance, that wouldn't matter to me unless you could provide a more rational explanation for what happened other than Jesus rising from the dead.

On Faith and Science:

In my other article, I touch on (but do not explore as well as I'd like) the fact that "Faith" is not being sure of something you can't prove. I say it like this: I know for a fact that Jesus died for sins and rose from the dead. I have faith that that sacrifice was actually for me personally.

Asserting that I do not have proof is just plain wrong. However, you could say that I do not have absolute proof, but Christianity has the weight of the evidence; in other words, nothing else is as plausible.

Hope I addressed all your arguments PA, tell me if I missed some.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Ambient_Malice Apr 4 2012, 1:48am says:

What is faith, after all? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ... These all died in faith, not having recieved the promises, but having them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Hebrews 11.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TheTriangulum Apr 11 2012, 10:05am says:

I see how you all talk of "possibilities". It is not my belief it is FACT that God exists, but Satan controls this world. HE controls the banks, the governments, the modern world has been shaped in his doing. So that he can set up his scheme and it is taking place right now.

this only heralds one thing.

The end of time itself

+1 vote     reply to comment
DDguy Apr 26 2012, 12:14pm replied:

Wait, if the modern world has been shaped by Satan..

..That means he is the good guy? Right?? xD

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei May 16 2012, 9:44am replied:

What you mean the modern world of chaos, war, death, disease, suffering, abominations and nuclear weapons? Sounds about right that Satan would have shaped such considering he's the bad guy.

+1 vote     reply to comment
ordoabchao Apr 12 2012, 10:49pm says:

Something tells me that even if someone presented proof of God's existence, atheists would still not accept that God is there. My reasoning behind this is that even though some people have given perfectly logical explanations of God, atheists try to disprove it or just ignore what was said and counter with something that was already unproven.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TLhikan Author
TLhikan Jan 5 2013, 10:22pm replied:

Well, we're all sinners by nature, hostile to God, but my hope is that God will use this article to work in someone's heart. If he does, praise be to Him. If he doesn't, praise be to Him.

+1 vote   reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Feb 6, 2011
Must apply to join
Send Message
Members Only
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Christians of Moddb
Christians of Moddb Hobbies & Interests group with 227 members