Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Well, I think the contexts are a little different here. In Acts Paul was teaching the Jews, who honored scripture as the word of God. Vince on the other hand is an Atheist and does not. In order for him to come to the place where the word of God witnesses to Him as any form of "proof," he will have to believe in the word itself as being from God first. Hence, faith first, then the "proofs" of it. Btw, the NIV use of "proving" for συμβιβάζων in Acts 9:22 is a bit dubious. "Demonstrating" would avoid all ambiguity. Nobody ever really "proves" anything to unbelievers, LoL.
Hebrews 11.6 is a great reference point. :)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hidden In Him

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Well, I think the contexts are a little different here. In Acts Paul was teaching the Jews, who honored scripture as the word of God.

HIH,

I agree. However, the Gospel proclaimed by Paul to the Jews still involved his 'speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews' (Acts 9:28b-29).

You can't talk and debate about nothing. He spoke about content and not a leap of faith.

Vince on the other hand is an Atheist and does not. In order for him to come to the place where the word of God witnesses to Him as any form of "proof," he will have to believe in the word itself as being from God first. Hence, faith first, then the "proofs" of it.

I disagree. What comes first is belief in the existence of God:
  • 'And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him' (Heb 11:6 NIV).
Of course faith in Jesus Christ is needed but it is not a leap of faith into the unknown.

No human requirement for the kinds of proofs for God's existence will do. God has told us where to find the evidence:
  • '18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse' (Rom 1:18-20 NIV).
Where is the 'plain' evidence for God's existence? God's invisible qualities (i.e. his attributes) of eternal power and divine nature are 'clearly seen' in what God 'has made' (in the universe).

The fine tuning of the universe, the intricate way a human being lives, breathes and then dies, etc, are all evidence of God's existence.

God needs to provide no more proofs. All people who do not pursue God will stand before him 'without excuse' because he has provided all the evidence they need to know He exists.

Then they ask the question: 'Where do I find information about God's way of salvation?' In the Scriptures!

The Bible claims it is the unequivocal Word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17); it is God’s truth (John 17:17); and Scripture comes from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

While God used human beings to write down Scripture, its author is God Himself.

Btw, the NIV use of "proving" for συμβιβάζων in Acts 9:22 is a bit dubious. "Demonstrating" would avoid all ambiguity. Nobody ever really "proves" anything to unbelievers, LoL.

What does sumbibazwn mean in Acts 9:22? It is the present, active participle of sumbibazw which is an old verb meaning 'to make go together, to coalesce, to knit together'. In Acts 16:10 the same verb is used for the Troas vision of Paul. 'Here Saul took the various items in the life of Jesus of Nazareth and found in them the proof that he was in reality "the Messiah"' (A T Robertson 1930, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 3: Acts, p. 123).

I think thou protesteth too much regarding the translation of sumbibazwn because the BAG Greek Lexicon gives the meaning in Acts 9:22 as 'demonstrate, prove' (1957:885). So the NIV 'proving' is perfectly OK as a translation.

Delling (1971, vol 7, p. 764) in Kittel & Friedrich's word studies provides the meaning for sumbibazw as 'to hold together', 'to unite' (Col 2:2, 19; Eph 4:16). As for Acts 9:22, '"to prove conclusively" ... with reference to the scriptural proof of the Messiahship of Jesus by Paul, who throws the Jews in Damascus into complete confusion. In the Jewish mission this proof has the character of a compelling demonstration; it presupposes, of course, a belief in the authority of Scripture and in the continuity of God's saving work'.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I have and read this book. Has some good things in it about logic but the title and bias is nonsensical.

Vince,

Your logic is not so good in this clause: "but the title and bias is nonsensical".

You committed the Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) Fallacy here with your 'is nonsensical' statement. This limits the ability to have a rational discussion.

These [the 4 articles, Can You Trust the Bible?] are written by a Christian and do not show and (sic) scholarly work from experts in the field. he quotes other christian apologists. There are many claims these people make that historians do not agree with when it comes to the text. This may be a good separate thread.

Here you go again with your use of a Genetic Logical Fallacy.

I happen to be the author of those 4 articles. I have a university PhD in NT on the historical Jesus. I'm not a nincompoop regarding history, the NT, the historical Jesus and apologetics.

It's too bad you didn't read my articles carefully regarding experts in their field. I quoted them in Can you trust the Bible? Part 3 and Can you trust the Bible? Part 4,

A.N. Sherwin-White, distinguished Roman historian, says this about Luke’s writings: “For [the Book of] Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . .Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[45]

Luke is commended by classical historian, G.A. Williamson, for demonstrating “complete familiarity with the thought, expression, and habitual terminology of the speakers, and . . . what memories the people of that time possessed!–if not on written notes, which we have reason to believe were commonly made.”[46]

Thanks to the archaeological efforts of the late Sir William Ramsay, many of the critical views of the N.T. have been overthrown.Ramsay himself was converted from the critical view of liberal theology.He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor.It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”[47]

Renowned archaeologist and paleographer[48], William F. Albright, notes: “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are, therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.”[49]
Christians cannot even agree on how we are saved. Read this forum for evidence. You cannot just say read the bible and believe it because if my understanding is different from yours then yo will reject it anyway.

What's the topic of this thread? 'Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence'. Therefore for you to want to spin off into salvation is a red herring.

The universe exists and the properties exist. How the universe began I don't know. But there is not sufficient evidence to believe it was created by a god.

According to some scientists, the universe had a beginning. Not sufficient evidence for you, but God says He has provided all the evidence you need to know of His existence (Romans 1:18-20). He has told us that He created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). That's the truth!

Since you say you were once a Christian, have you given thought to the fact that you may never be able to make your way back to salvation because of your apostasy and that you will be sent to eternal damnation? This is what the Scriptures state:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb 6:4-6 NIV).​

In all of the evidence you have presented to us in this thread, your resistance seems to demonstrate that following your apostasy (falling away from the Christian faith), you cannot be brought back to salvation.

I'm not the one who determines this. However, you are very resistant to any of the evidence put before you. You try to squirm out of it by your human engineering of the data.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The universe exists and the properties exist. How the universe began I don't know. But there is not sufficient evidence to believe it was created by a god.

God disagrees with you according to Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16.

God not only began the universe but sustains it with His power (Colossians 1:15-17).
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
All of those things listed I can easily verify that they did have a creator except for water. How can I verify the universe had creator? I can't and neither can you.

Vince
False again.

I know the universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and science confirms it.

To discover who started the universe, I go to the reliable OT (demonstrated by researchers) and the trustworthy NT (demonstrated by specialists in the field).

In the truthful OT and NT, I discover that God (Gen 1:1) and Jesus (Col 1:15-16) created the universe and keep it going.

These are facts.

Oz
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince,

Your logic is not so good in this clause: "but the title and bias is nonsensical".

You committed the Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) Fallacy here with your 'is nonsensical' statement. This limits the ability to have a rational discussion.
Rereading what I wrote does not make a lot of sense. What I was trying to say is that atheists are not making any claims, we don't need to have any faith in anything as defined by the bible. I wasn't trying to say the material inside was false because of the title I was trying to say that the title makes no logical sense. I did say that there are some good logical points made in the book. I have never met a Christian that was convinced of the truth of Christianity because of arguments like those. There are also things in that book that are not logically sound.

Here you go again with your use of a Genetic Logical Fallacy.

I happen to be the author of those 4 articles. I have a university PhD in NT on the historical Jesus. I'm not a nincompoop regarding history, the NT, the historical Jesus and apologetics.
Notice that I did not say the claims in your articles were invalid becasue of your faith. Here is what I actually said:
  1. "These are written by a Christian and do not show and scholarly work from experts in the field. he quotes other christian apologists. There are many claims these people make that historians do not agree with when it comes to the text. This may be a good separate thread."
I still do think that this would make a good separate thread. There are much more about the texts that were not brought up in your articles. You are not telling the entire story in my opinion.

It's too bad you didn't read my articles carefully regarding experts in their field. I quoted them in Can you trust the Bible? Part 3 and Can you trust the Bible? Part 4,
I have some issues with these quotes see below.

A.N. Sherwin-White
, distinguished Roman historian, says this about Luke’s writings: “For [the Book of] Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . .Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[45]
Here is the entire quote without the ellipsis.

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the gospels, liable to similar distortions. But Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

Seems A.N. Sherwin-White agreed that the author had a close connection to the first century events, probably lived during that time. He in no way is saying that the supernatural parts of Acts are accurate.

Luke is commended by classical historian, G.A. Williamson, for demonstrating “complete familiarity with the thought, expression, and habitual terminology of the speakers, and . . . what memories the people of that time possessed!–if not on written notes, which we have reason to believe were commonly made.”[46]
I wonder what is between these ellipsis? Notice this quote never addresses the supernatural aspects of Acts.

Thanks to the archaeological efforts of the late Sir William Ramsay, many of the critical views of the N.T. have been overthrown.Ramsay himself was converted from the critical view of liberal theology.He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor.It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”[47]
Again, he never addresses the supernatural aspects of Acts. He is confirming that the topography, antiquities and society.

Renowned archaeologist and paleographer[48], William F. Albright, notes: “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are, therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.”[49]
No mention of the historicity of the supernatural events,

All these quotes do is confirm that there are true historical facts in the book of Acts. You want to then say because there are true facts in the book of Acts or in the entire bible that we can trust all the claims. This is a fallacy. The things that are true in the book of Acts are believable because they have evidence that they are true. We do not have sufficient evidence in my opinion to believe that Jesus reappearing is true, Pentecost is true Saul's conversion is true etc.
What's the topic of this thread? 'Atheist objections to evidence for God's existence'. Therefore for you to want to spin off into salvation is a red herring.
You brought salvation into the discussion, not me.

According to some scientists, the universe had a beginning. Not sufficient evidence for you, but God says He has provided all the evidence you need to know of His existence (Romans 1:18-20). He has told us that He created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). That's the truth!
I agree with scientists that the universe had a beginning. You need to give evidence that the god of the bible was the creator. Your reliability claims of the bible are insufficient as I explained before. Just because there are true facts in the bible does not make any unsubstantiated claims believable.

Since you say you were once a Christian, have you given thought to the fact that you may never be able to make your way back to salvation because of your apostasy and that you will be sent to eternal damnation? This is what the Scriptures state:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb 6:4-6 NIV).​

In all of the evidence you have presented to us in this thread, your resistance seems to demonstrate that following your apostasy (falling away from the Christian faith), you cannot be brought back to salvation.
There is always a threat with your god. If this is your gods morals and you are OK with that then OK.

I'm not the one who determines this. However, you are very resistant to any of the evidence put before you. You try to squirm out of it by your human engineering of the data.
Nope, now who is committing a logical fallacy? I am questioning the evidence that's all. I am not resistant to evidence I am skeptical and not convinced of the evidence. Address my points and not assume my motives, even if I was resistant to the evidence presented it does not change the validity of my points.
 
Last edited:

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Because he has the consequences of Hebrews 6:4-6 in mind for apostates.
So he will send me to hell because he never gave me sufficient evidence to believe even though he could? Great god you have there. I bet you would never act like this toward another.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
God disagrees with you according to Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16.

God not only began the universe but sustains it with His power (Colossians 1:15-17).
Demonstrate these claims the I will believe them. Your articles on the reliability of the bible are unconvincing.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince
False again.

I know the universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) and science confirms it.
I agree that the consensus of scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. But you want to then say that confirms a god created it, that must be demonstrated.

To discover who started the universe, I go to the reliable OT (demonstrated by researchers) and the trustworthy NT (demonstrated by specialists in the field).
Nope, see posts above.

In the truthful OT and NT, I discover that God (Gen 1:1) and Jesus (Col 1:15-16) created the universe and keep it going.

These are facts.
They are unsubstantiated claims.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Rereading what I wrote does not make a lot of sense. What I was trying to say is that atheists are not making any claims, we don't need to have any faith in anything as defined by the bible. I wasn't trying to say the material inside was false because of the title I was trying to say that the title makes no logical sense. I did say that there are some good logical points made in the book. I have never met a Christian that was convinced of the truth of Christianity because of arguments like those. There are also things in that book that are not logically sound.

Notice that I did not say the claims in your articles were invalid becasue of your faith. Here is what I actually said:
  1. "These are written by a Christian and do not show and scholarly work from experts in the field. he quotes other christian apologists. There are many claims these people make that historians do not agree with when it comes to the text. This may be a good separate thread."
I still do think that this would make a good separate thread. There are much more about the texts that were not brought up in your articles. You are not telling the entire story in my opinion.

I have some issues with these quotes see below.

Here is the entire quote without the ellipsis.

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the gospels, liable to similar distortions. But Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

Seems A.N. Sherwin-White agreed that the author had a close connection to the first century events, probably lived during that time. He in no way is saying that the supernatural parts of Acts are accurate.

I wonder what is between these ellipsis? Notice this quote never addresses the supernatural aspects of Acts.

Again, he never addresses the supernatural aspects of Acts. He is confirming that the topography, antiquities and society.

No mention of the historicity of the supernatural events,

All these quotes do is confirm that there are true historical facts in the book of Acts. You want to then say because there are true facts in the book of Acts or in the entire bible that we can trust all the claims. This is a fallacy. The things that are true in the book of Acts are believable because they have evidence that they are true. We do not have sufficient evidence in my opinion to believe that Jesus reappearing is true, Pentecost is true Saul's conversion is true etc.
You brought salvation into the discussion, not me.

I agree with scientists that the universe had a beginning. You need to give evidence that the god of the bible was the creator. Your reliability claims of the bible are insufficient as I explained before. Just because there are true facts in the bible does not make any unsubstantiated claims believable.

There is always a threat with your god. If this is your gods morals and you are OK with that then OK.

Nope, now who is committing a logical fallacy? I am questioning the evidence that's all. I am not resistant to evidence I am skeptical and not convinced of the evidence. Address my points and not assume my motives, even if I was resistant to the evidence presented it does not change the validity of my points.

Vince,

When I examined the beliefs of atheism, I found that it did have a belief system - a creed.

See my article: Does atheism have a creed or a system of beliefs?

Don't you understand the seriousness of committing apostasy?

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
So he will send me to hell because he never gave me sufficient evidence to believe even though he could? Great god you have there. I bet you would never act like this toward another.

No mate!

Scripture teaches:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb 6:4-6 NIV).​

The reason why those who commit apostasy will NOT be able to repent again is because:
  • They were once enlightened;
  • They have tasted the heavenly gift;
  • They have shared in the Holy Spirit;
  • They have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and
  • They have tasted the powers of the coming age,
And then they have committed apostasy (which you seem to have done, judging by what you've told us). It will be impossible for them to be brought back to repentance because ... because,

  • They are crucifying the Son of God all over again, and
  • Are subjecting him to public disgrace.
He is the Great, Loving God of Justice. Before God, there are consequences when people commit apostasy. As any loving parent knows, the love of a parent towards a child is not repudiated when the child needs to be severely disciplined because of gross misbehaviour.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Demonstrate these claims the I will believe them. Your articles on the reliability of the bible are unconvincing.

Vince,

I've demonstrated those claims from the ...

I will not pursue this topic any further with you.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I agree that the consensus of scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. But you want to then say that confirms a god created it, that must be demonstrated.

Nope, see posts above.

They are unsubstantiated claims.

Vince,

I pray that the Lord will penetrate your resistance for the evidence of God in creation, the reliability of the Old and New Testaments, and bring you to salvation through Christ alone - which is affirmed in these reliable documents.

God bless you in your pursuit of God's truth.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince,

When I examined the beliefs of atheism, I found that it did have a belief system - a creed.

See my article: Does atheism have a creed or a system of beliefs?

Don't you understand the seriousness of committing apostasy?

Oz
Atheist have different beliefs. You have tried to lump them all together in one article you wrote. I don't have the same views as the views you pit forth in the article that you claim are beliefs. You also have seem to misunderstood what they're saying. Why not address what I actually believe instead of directing me to long articles you wrote? I have no creed or belief. I have a lack of belief in gods. That is why I am an atheist, no other reason.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
No mate!

Scripture teaches:

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (Heb 6:4-6 NIV).​

The reason why those who commit apostasy will NOT be able to repent again is because:
  • They were once enlightened;
  • They have tasted the heavenly gift;
  • They have shared in the Holy Spirit;
  • They have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and
  • They have tasted the powers of the coming age,
And then they have committed apostasy (which you seem to have done, judging by what you've told us). It will be impossible for them to be brought back to repentance because ... because,

  • They are crucifying the Son of God all over again, and
  • Are subjecting him to public disgrace.
He is the Great, Loving God of Justice. Before God, there are consequences when people commit apostasy. As any loving parent knows, the love of a parent towards a child is not repudiated when the child needs to be severely disciplined because of gross misbehaviour.

Oz
Show me evidence to conclude god possibly exists then I will maybe be duly frightened of your god.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince,

I've demonstrated those claims from the ...

I will not pursue this topic any further with you.

Oz
You showed evidence that I commented on with some objections. Instead of engaging those objections you inundate me with information that I cannot possibly respond to. Then you say I will not pursue this any more with you. Sorry but that is chickens**t. I am tired of christians giving evidence then when that evidence is challenged they just say I gave you evidence and I am done with you. You don't get to decide if the evidence you provide is sufficient, the other person does. Why avoid the discussion?

I also showed you that one of your quotes was deceptive because you removed a part of the quote and put elipsis in and made the quote support your premises when the actual quote does not. Doesn't god frown on lying? I thought you would at least acknowledge your mistake, now I think it was on purpose. All your writing did was show that some of the history in the bible is true. You then falsely want to apply that evidence to the supernatural claims which is a fallacy and the quote you modified denied.

Instead of addressing my objections and revising your quote you tell me no more debate and you are going to keep your deceptive quote. What a hypocrite. If it sounds like I am pissed it is because I am. I am tired of christians giving demonstratabley false evidence then blaming the atheist for not believing it. If god exists it should be pretty easy to confirm but you have to keep giving false evidence, why?
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince,

I pray that the Lord will penetrate your resistance for the evidence of God in creation, the reliability of the Old and New Testaments, and bring you to salvation through Christ alone - which is affirmed in these reliable documents.
Instead of praying for me which has been demonstrated to not work update your false quote and false evidence.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Show me evidence to conclude god possibly exists then I will maybe be duly frightened of your god.

Vince,

You won't accept the evidence God has provided for His existence (Rom 1:18-20; Psalm 19:1-6).

At death, you will stand before God with 'no excuse'. Your claim, 'Show me evidence God exists', falls flat before the Lord God who has given you all the evidence you need to acknowledge the one true God.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy