Prove that God doesn't exist.

[top gun]

That is not "mainstream Christian opinion." That is a fundamentalist view of the Bible as literal, historical truth. " Very conservative Protestant theologians is the way it was phrased in the link I provided.

The Catholics don't believe that, and they're pretty mainstream, aren't they?

Hey I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the different versions. No doubt you are correct that others have other times set. I can only say that every time I've ever personally heard a time presented in a religious type statement the earth was said to be 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Just for curiosity how old do the others say it is. Science says it's like 4.5 billion years old... anything close to that?

When I looked it up I came up with this as the debate...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

The question of the age of the earth has produced heated discussions on debate boards, classrooms, TV, radio, and in many churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. The primary sides are:

■Young earth proponents (biblical age of the earth and universe of about 6,000 years)1
■Old earth proponents (secular age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years and a universe about 14 billion years old)2

The difference is immense! Let’s give a little history of where these two basic calculations came from and which worldview is more reasonable.

Where did a young-earth worldview come from?
Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “the earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using my personal birth certificate, I can calculate how old I am at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin calculations of the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years
At this point, the first 5 days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and, with careful attention to the biblical details, have arrived at the same time-frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4,000 B.C. Two of the most popular, and perhaps the best in my opinion, are a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones and a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656):

 

[PLC1]

Hey I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the different versions. No doubt you are correct that others have other times set. I can only say that every time I've ever personally heard a time presented in a religious type statement the earth was said to be 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Just for curiosity how old do the others say it is. Science says it's like 4.5 billion years old... anything close to that?

It's hard to see how anyone who has been exposed to modern science can possibly subscribe to the young earth idea, but there are a few who do.

The only religious version of the age of the Earth is promoted by the Biblical literalists, most of whom, probably all of whom, are Protestant Christian fundamentalists. The rest of the churches, as far as I know, leave the age of the Earth up to science.

The Catholics have no problem with evolution, which postulates a world far older than 6,000 years.

The Mormons talk of six periods of time (undetermined), not six days.

The Episcopalians are with the Catholics on issue of evolution.

The rest, I'm not sure.

 

[samsara15]

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are very numerous, and they have their own brand of logic and their own intpretations of what are facts and what are not facts. When you deal with them, you have to use their brand of logic and stick to what they believe are demonstrable facts. Their arguments in support of their position can be quite formidable within the framework of their logic, and within the limitations of what they consider to be facts.

They do reject major portions of several branches of science - physics, geology, archaeology, anthropology, history, and biology, just to list a few.

They are a numerous faction, and they are not going away.

 

[PLC1]

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are very numerous, and they have their own brand of logic and their own intpretations of what are facts and what are not facts. When you deal with them, you have to use their brand of logic and stick to what they believe are demonstrable facts. Their arguments in support of their position can be quite formidable within the framework of their logic, and within the limitations of what they consider to be facts.

They do reject major portions of several branches of science - physics, geology, archaeology, anthropology, history, and biology, just to list a few.

They are a numerous faction, and they are not going away.

I'm not sure what you mean by "numerous" as a percentage of the total population, but you're right that they're not going away.

Never underestimate the human capacity for ignoring plain facts that contradict beliefs and opinions, even if it involves rejecting major portions of several branches of science.

 

[Dr.Who]

I was thinking of Very Conservative Protestant Theologians:

I was making an assumption about Huckabee, which might not have been correct. Is he, or is he not a fundamentalist who espouses this belief?

I am wondering if that site might also be mistaken. I now doubt if even the southern Baptist really believe what that site says.

After all, Paul is pretty clear that those who have never heard are not accountable. Furthermore, Paul is clear that all have an opportunity to know God and to respond.

I am really thinking that your site exaggerates the number of christians who hold that view.

I have known hundreds of Christians pretty will and I would vouch that most of them do not hold that view. The concept of the person who has never heard is pretty well known.

I can't find it just now, but I have had discussions with fundies who agreed that Mahatma Ghandi (the most extreme case I could think of) would go to Hell for not being a Christian, but Charles Manson (again the most extreme case I could come up with) could go to Heaven if he developed a belief in Christ before he died.

I would say that your analysis is incomplete.

Based on how good a person is (comparisons between Ghandi and Manson I would agree completely with them.

But the question of what happens to unbelievers is not exactly the same question.

 

[Dr.Who]

And hence the rub... all the different choices!

The mainstream Christian opinion is that the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. I've personally heard it proselytized by to numerous to mention prominent Evangelists (biblical scholars are the ones that developed this time-line) and I've personally watched multiple religious documentaries that push that as the fact.

And again... why the riddle? Why wouldn't God just be crystal clear... I mean he's God. Explaining an exact date so everybody knew for sure when this whole thing started would only help to confirm & strengthen the people's faith... just seems very likely this would happen.

Is there someplace else that say something different or is it something completely unknown. OF COURSE IT IS! It's all made up! It's all a bunch of self serving fables to bolster a particular religious sect.

I could go to the Hindu religion who believe that you are reincarnated back to earth according to how well you led your past life and say they have the truth. It's all made up by where you were thousands of years ago.

Bad... come back as a rat

Good... come back as an eagle

This is just as believable if you don't have a preconceived mindset.

I call bull.

That is hardly the mainstream view of Christians.

I saw two websites that were extremely slanted toward the fundie view and both of them indicated that among their readership about 35% of them think the earth is young.

Among Christians in general the percent would clearly be much lower.

 

[PLC1]

I am wondering if that site might also be mistaken. I now doubt if even the southern Baptist really believe what that site says.

After all, Paul is pretty clear that those who have never heard are not accountable. Furthermore, Paul is clear that all have an opportunity to know God and to respond.

I am really thinking that your site exaggerates the number of christians who hold that view.

I have known hundreds of Christians pretty will and I would vouch that most of them do not hold that view. The concept of the person who has never heard is pretty well known.

I hope you're right. I have no idea how many people espouse the view that all non Christians are destined for eternal damnation. I know some do, because of on line discussions on other forums with people calling themselves fundamentalists. Of course, that's not too scientific, but it does indicate that there are some who do believe that way.

I would say that your analysis is incomplete.

Based on how good a person is (comparisons between Ghandi and Manson I would agree completely with them.

But the question of what happens to unbelievers is not exactly the same question.

Your response indicates that you don't think that Ghandi was such a good guy, is that correct?

The question of the evildoer (pick one of your choice) who has a deathbed conversion and confesses a belief in Christ, vs. a doer of good deeds (again, your choice) who follows another religion is a pretty good analogy it seems to me.

The question is, if you believe in an afterlife and an accounting of this one, are we judged on our belief system, or on our deeds?

And the answer, according to at least some of the fundies, is the former.

 

[top gun]

I call bull.

That is hardly the mainstream view of Christians.

I saw two websites that were extremely slanted toward the fundie view and both of them indicated that among their readership about 35% of them think the earth is young.

Among Christians in general the percent would clearly be much lower.

You call bull?

OK maybe I'm only hearing from the 35% that believe in new earth... I have no idea. 35% is still a lot of very confused people but that's their problem not mine.

At least you know I'm not just making this stuff up off the top of my head. That's what I've been told by at least 2 or 3 super well known TV Evangelists... and I've heard it other places as well. Hell we have a CREATION MUSEUM right here in in Ohio. Little caveman kids playing with dinosaurs it's adorable. Dinosaurs walking two by two up the ramp getting on the Ark it's awe inspiring. Can't blame me for listening.

But that's fine let's go the other way then. Why do you suppose the jigsaw puzzel... just so we all get to guess and not know?

To me it just doesn't add up logically. If it does to others then good for them. I tend to look at the big picture. Look at all the religions of the world, where they sprang up and how & where they spread from there. Try to get a feel for their importance to their followers.

And look at the good teachings as good teachings not as divine instructions... but that's just me.

 

[Dr.Who]

I hope you're right. I have no idea how many people espouse the view that all non Christians are destined for eternal damnation. I know some do, because of on line discussions on other forums with people calling themselves fundamentalists. Of course, that's not too scientific, but it does indicate that there are some who do believe that way.

Those destined for an afterlife in which they are not in communion with God (hell) are those who rejected a relationship with God. Doesn't that make sense? If you want nothing to do with God then you have nothing to do with God. The reason it gets complicated is that the set of people who want a relationship with the God who created the universe and the set of people who claim to be Christians overlaps. In theory those sets could overlap perfectly. In practice none of us knows how well they overlap. The bible says the overlap (without using those words) is like a remnant left over from the larger cloth - a much smaller piece (while using those words).

Your response indicates that you don't think that Ghandi was such a good guy, is that correct?

Compared to God all of us are pretty bad.

Have you ever seen one of those time-lines of the universe? With the big bang on the far left and today on the far right? It turns out that the creation of the human race is so recent that it is practically right next to today. If the time line were 100 feet long our creation would be at about foot 99 plus.

We may think in terms of how long we have been around but in relative terms we have barely existed.

If one made a continuum of sin with God at one end and all of us humans on the line virtually all of us would be clumped together on the farthest end from God.

Clearly none of us are good enough to be justified by our own actions.

The question of the evildoer (pick one of your choice) who has a deathbed conversion and confesses a belief in Christ, vs. a doer of good deeds (again, your choice) who follows another religion is a pretty good analogy it seems to me.

Would a good God give second chances? Yes.

So all of us who are all clustered together on the one end of the continuum all can have a second chance to make up for the wrongs we have done. When we did wrong we rejected God and his hopes that we would be good. When we admit we have done wrong and want to accept God and his hopes for us we get a second chance.

The question is, if you believe in an afterlife and an accounting of this one, are we judged on our belief system, or on our deeds?

So I agree with most Christians that we are judged first by our actions and judged to be bad. Then if we want a second chance by rejecting what is bad and accepting God then we get it.

So the question becomes who has embraced whatever they know about God? If the person lived alone on an island and only knew about God what he could deduce from what he saw in nature then he is judged based on what he knew to be wrong but did anyway and forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

The person raised in Islam also knows something of God. He may have been taught things that were specifically wrong but at least some of it is true and has been revealed to him by God Himself. He too is judged by what he knew to be bad but did anyway and forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

The Jew also knows something of God, has been taught somethings wrongly, and knows some things that are true. he too is judged by what he knew to be wrong (and he thinks the Law of Moses defines that so he must obey the law) and is forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

Christians and pagans and all of us alike know something of God and know it imperfectly.

It is my thought that the bible is so helpful in knowing God that those who have the chance to accept the bible but reject the bible know God so imperfectly that it becomes very difficult for them to be forgiven based on acceptance of God. The other side of the coin is that while the person stranded on the island is judged only by what he knew (which was hardly anything) the Christian is judged based on a much fuller expectation. The castaway may not know that it is wrong to kill but the Christian is expected to understand the value of love completely and not because there is a Jewish law against killing but because it is Christs law to love.

Everyone is only held accountable to the extent that they know wrong. That is completely fair. Aside from the unborn or most mentally deficient all of us fail that test.

And everyone is forgiven to the extent that they want to trust God's plan for their life however well they know it. That is fair too.

 

[samsara15]

Once again, it all comes down to God must know whether we would fail or succeed, so it is all God's choice, what happens to us, if Christianity is true.

The idea of having nothing to do with God sounds Ok to me.

 

[samsara15]

Dr Who, I will concede that your view of God is a benign being, but it smacks of almost negligence for you to appear to be unaware of the malignant and vengeful God that many fundamental Christians worship.

 

[PLC1]

Those destined for an afterlife in which they are not in communion with God (hell) are those who rejected a relationship with God. Doesn't that make sense? If you want nothing to do with God then you have nothing to do with God. The reason it gets complicated is that the set of people who want a relationship with the God who created the universe and the set of people who claim to be Christians overlaps. In theory those sets could overlap perfectly. In practice none of us knows how well they overlap. The bible says the overlap (without using those words) is like a remnant left over from the larger cloth - a much smaller piece (while using those words).


Compared to God all of us are pretty bad.

Have you ever seen one of those time-lines of the universe? With the big bang on the far left and today on the far right? It turns out that the creation of the human race is so recent that it is practically right next to today. If the time line were 100 feet long our creation would be at about foot 99 plus.

We may think in terms of how long we have been around but in relative terms we have barely existed.

If one made a continuum of sin with God at one end and all of us humans on the line virtually all of us would be clumped together on the farthest end from God.

Clearly none of us are good enough to be justified by our own actions.


Would a good God give second chances? Yes.

So all of us who are all clustered together on the one end of the continuum all can have a second chance to make up for the wrongs we have done. When we did wrong we rejected God and his hopes that we would be good. When we admit we have done wrong and want to accept God and his hopes for us we get a second chance.


So I agree with most Christians that we are judged first by our actions and judged to be bad. Then if we want a second chance by rejecting what is bad and accepting God then we get it.

So the question becomes who has embraced whatever they know about God? If the person lived alone on an island and only knew about God what he could deduce from what he saw in nature then he is judged based on what he knew to be wrong but did anyway and forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

The person raised in Islam also knows something of God. He may have been taught things that were specifically wrong but at least some of it is true and has been revealed to him by God Himself. He too is judged by what he knew to be bad but did anyway and forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

The Jew also knows something of God, has been taught somethings wrongly, and knows some things that are true. he too is judged by what he knew to be wrong (and he thinks the Law of Moses defines that so he must obey the law) and is forgiven based on his acceptance of the God he knew however imperfectly.

Christians and pagans and all of us alike know something of God and know it imperfectly.

It is my thought that the bible is so helpful in knowing God that those who have the chance to accept the bible but reject the bible know God so imperfectly that it becomes very difficult for them to be forgiven based on acceptance of God. The other side of the coin is that while the person stranded on the island is judged only by what he knew (which was hardly anything) the Christian is judged based on a much fuller expectation. The castaway may not know that it is wrong to kill but the Christian is expected to understand the value of love completely and not because there is a Jewish law against killing but because it is Christs law to love.

Everyone is only held accountable to the extent that they know wrong. That is completely fair. Aside from the unborn or most mentally deficient all of us fail that test.

And everyone is forgiven to the extent that they want to trust God's plan for their life however well they know it. That is fair too.

Wow!

Dr. Who, I've just got to come right out and ask:

Are you a Mormon?

Because what you've just said fits Mormon theology to a T.

I think there are some differences between your point of view and that of the evangelical Christians, and they revolve around the very questions I've been asking:

Do the Evangelicals believe that non Christians go to Hell?

I think a lot of them do believe that. Mormons don't.

Do the Evangelicals believe that we are saved by the grace of god only, or do we have to follow the teachings of Christ?

My understanding is that many of the Evangelicals believe the former. The Mormons believe the latter.

Do we get a second chance after death?

Mormons say yes. My understanding is that Evangelicals (again, maybe not all, but at least some) say that if you die not knowing or believing in Christ, that's it, your goose is cooked, no second chances.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who, I've just got to come right out and ask:

Are you a Mormon?

No I believe that the Mormon concept of Christ and God is so different from mine that they do not worship the same God.

If mine is the true God (it would be illogical for me to believe anything else) and they love and trust a different God then they do not love and trust the God that forgives.

I believe that to each Mormon God reveals enough about himself that they could believe if they wanted to and in spite of the false teaching they learn (every church teaches at least something that is false but who Christ is would be major enough that the mainstream churches all call Mormonism a cult). If they do not that is their choice.

Do the Evangelicals believe that non Christians go to Hell?

Many non Christians will go to hell. If the thing that makes them non-Christians causes them to reject God then it is assured.

While I have been talking about the chance to be saved that God offers to all I am not saying that all accept what has been offered. Sadly, even on the pews of many Christian churches there are many who are not saved.

The ability to recognize God and to respond in love has been offered to all but even with the word of God as a guide many do not take it.

Do the Evangelicals believe that we are saved by the grace of god only, or do we have to follow the teachings of Christ?

The bible makes it very clear that it is by grace alone. But grace comes to us through faith. And faith without works is not really faith it would be pretend faith. Faith also does not come except through hearing first. What many miss is that hearing the word of God as preached on Sunday is not the only way to hear it. I don't know how they miss it since the bible mentions that God reveals himself directly to all one way or another many times. Hearing the teachings of Christ would be helpful to many. I would add that when Abraham heard about God before Christ was crucified he heard the word of Christ. Following the word of Christ is a different matter altogether and I don't even think most Christians think that works are required. Though clearly there is a lot of confusion as they may state works are not required then they turn around and condemn someone based on works without knowing if that person is a believer.

My understanding is that many of the Evangelicals believe the former. The Mormons believe the latter.

It is the grace that saves but it is through faith which cannot be divorced from the natural outflow of faith which is works. The works do not save but if one does not love then how real is that faith?

Do we get a second chance after death?

I don't know.

There are several passages that make it appear that we do not. But depending on the translation they may not explicitly state that, one needs to make an interpretation to come away with that view. For example, at one point there is a description of goats and sheep and the goats are not saved. Are the goats people who did not believe? This is the strongest passage I know of and yet it contains a metaphor. Another passage asks a rhetorical question. One must assume one knows how to answer the question to interpret the passage.

If there is no second chance after death I don't understand the reason why. Is it because with flesh one gets second chances but without flesh one does not? Angels who are spiritual that fall do not get a second chance. If that is the answer it is not given in the bible that I know of.

Personally I am not worried about second chances after death since I have responded to God in love now. And if God is deserving of love then obviously the best time to respond that way would be sooner rather than later just for its own sake.

Mormons say yes. My understanding is that Evangelicals (again, maybe not all, but at least some) say that if you die not knowing or believing in Christ, that's it, your goose is cooked, no second chances.

That is the predominant view by far.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr Who, I will concede that your view of God is a benign being, but it smacks of almost negligence for you to appear to be unaware of the malignant and vengeful God that many fundamental Christians worship.

It seems to me that most fundamentalist would say their God is loving as well. it also appears that it is the atheist mostly who spin God to be malignant and vengeful.

Why should I judge a fundamentalist based on how an atheist paints him?

That being said I have heard preachers on the radio describe God in malignant and vengeful ways. I always switch away so I don't know who they are and if they are fundamentalists or not.

I don't know what made you think I was unaware of the malignant portrayals of God coming from some people. I just don't think that either all Christians hold those views or even all fundamentalists who are a minority.

I don't think I was arguing that all christians have a completely wonderful view of God. I think I was arguing that the portrayal of them as representative of all Christians is both false and blown out of proportion. As stated, all people are bad and we all know God imperfectly. When bad people say wrong things about God what do you suppose those things will be?

 

[Dr.Who]

The idea of having nothing to do with God sounds Ok to me.

Case in point.

Then you will have no defense if in the afterlife it is suggested that you not be allowed in the presence of God.