Validity of the Bible

[MR. Nate]

I apologize for bringing up prophecy, (again) but it is the closest thing to "proof" that can be offered for the supernatural nature of the Bible.

On the other hand, the historical accuracy is better than anything else from the same period. Re-writes are, and were, notoriously frowned upon in light of it's source. We can say that we have the complete New Testament with only minor textual variations by 130 AD. That means that within 100 years of Jesus death, we know what the NT said

Most of the OT can be traced back another 450 years, or within 80 of its completion. The LXX can be placed between 300-100 years B.C., and we have that exactly as it was translated. Also, in the histories, the Israelites recorded their victories AND defeats, in contrast to their peers, who engaged in (ahem) revisionist histories, shall we say? That means that at the very mimum, it is more historically accurate than anything else from the time period.

[Backglass]

I apologize for bringing up prophecy, (again) but it is the closest thing

What is it they say about "close"? Something about horseshoes & handgrenades?

On the other hand, the historical accuracy is better than anything else from the same period.

Which isnt saying much. More accurate than guesswork is still guesswork.

Re-writes are, and were, notoriously frowned upon in light of it's source.

So was killing. But it still happened...a lot.

We can say that we have the complete New Testament with only minor textual variations by 130 AD.

You can guess.

we have that exactly as it was translated.

And who translated it? How do we know the translation isnt flawed?

That means that at the very mimum, it is more historically accurate than anything else from the time period.

Again. I say ANY handwritten, transcribed document from ancient times has changed or had pieces added/omitted...especially one that involves a religion, as the bearers always have an axe to grind.

BTW...I noticed today is your first day on CC, your first two posts are in this thread, and you are a seminary school student. How exactly did you come to find Conquer Club anyway? Buddy of jays?

[2dimes]

Again. I say ANY handwritten, transcribed document from ancient times has changed or had pieces added/omitted...especially one that involves a religion, as the bearers always have an axe to grind.

In the case of the torah you compare it to the oldest ones.

If there was an error of a single letter in it they had to burn it and bury it.

As for translation from Hebrew to what ever language, it's easier then ever to find translations for every word.

[MR. Nate]

No, I don't have to guess. The papyrus fragments are at Duke University. Fragments start about AD 85, and are most of Paul's Epistles and all of Hebrews. Complete copies of the NT we have in 300. And everything matches what we have today exactly.

and 2dimes is right, you made an error, you had to burn the whole copy, that was the rules. The Masoretes made it their life's work to make sure that every copy was accurate.

I don't know jay, but like you said, I'm a seminary student. The only thing more enticing to a seminary student than a discusion on "the Validity of the Bible" is "free books."

[Backglass]

No, I don't have to guess. The papyrus fragments are at Duke University. Fragments start about AD 85, and are most of Paul's Epistles and all of Hebrews. Complete copies of the NT we have in 300. And everything matches what we have today exactly.

OK...Admittedly, I am no biblical scholar by a loooong shot. <cough cough!> What of the older storybooks? And even if they are exact copies from day 1 (which I still doubt)...how does this "validate" them as anything other than works of fiction?

and 2dimes is right, you made an error, you had to burn the whole copy, that was the rules. The Masoretes made it their life's work to make sure that every copy was accurate.

And of course the ultra religious are never crooked or out for personal gain. The LA Police department makes it their lifes work to uphold the law. They too would never vary from the rules.

I don't know jay

He will be very glad your here. He was drowning.

The only thing more enticing to a seminary student than a discusion on "the Validity of the Bible" is "free books."

A fundamental difference between your college days & mine. "Free Beer" is what got my attention.

Regardless....welcome. Even if you dont plan on actually playing any games of Risk.

[MR. Nate]

And of course the ultra religious are never crooked or out for personal gain.

There is a difference between those who claim to be religious and those who are religious. James says that true religion is acting lovingly and remaining pure. So, in a real sense, the ultra religious are NOT ever crooked or out for personal gain, only the fakers.

A fundamental difference between your college days & mine. "Free Beer" is what got my attention.

Never reject anything that's really, truly free. Never.

Regardless....welcome. Even if you dont plan on actually playing any games of Risk.

Thank you for your hospitality. I'd like it to be clear that I came for the game, and am currently playing (read: being soundly whipped ) in 2 games. It's been a while since I played. That's my excuse until I find a better one.
What I've noted in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are two types of people posting. Type 1 believes:
A: God created the World, and has power over everything.
B: The Bible is God's Word, and is therefore true.
The type 2 believes:
A: The world came into existence on it's own, presumably through evolution.
B. The Bible is NOT God's word, since God doesn't exist.
IF you accept the existence of God, and that he is Just, Loving, All-Powerful, All knowing, etc. (and I admit that it is a huge if) than you have to assume He would somehow reveal Himself. You then examine the claims of the various sacrad texts, the Vedas, the Qu'ran, the Bible etc, and you look and see how wll they work in the lives of the people that believe them. Then you make a decision, but you keep examining, poking that decision to make sure it's true, and that it works.
On the other hand, if you don't believe God, then no forum is going to convince you that the Bible is His word. But then, if you are not constantly examining THAT belief, then you are not thinking critcally.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

[MeDeFe]

There are quite a few "in-betweeners", too. In fact, most of us are. It's just that jay is really one of those ultra-religious persons who want to interpret the bible literally. And that makes him a likely target for pretty much everyone else.

[Backglass]

There is a difference between those who claim to be religious and those who are religious. James says that true religion is acting lovingly and remaining pure. So, in a real sense, the ultra religious are NOT ever crooked or out for personal gain, only the fakers.

Well, of course. Backglass says the truly good cops dont beat motorists...only the bad ones.

Never reject anything that's really, truly free. Never.

True dat!

What I've noted in this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are two types of people posting. Type 1 believes:
A: God created the World, and has power over everything.
B: The Bible is God's Word, and is therefore true.
The type 2 believes:
A: The world came into existence on it's own, presumably through evolution.
B. The Bible is NOT God's word, since God doesn't exist.

There are also Type 3 (the majority of the world IMHO) that arent sure of either and just go to church, play the game, etc, because they are told (or were raised) that it's the good & moral thing to do and they figure "Hey, why not...whats it going to hurt, and type 1 might be right". They also read this thread, but never post having no firm opinion either way.

IF you accept the existence of God, and that he is Just, Loving, All-Powerful, All knowing, etc. (and I admit that it is a huge if) than you have to assume He would somehow reveal Himself.

I would think so, and by "reveal" I mean something tangible. Not an image of jesus in the oatmeal or a TV evangelist healing. Besides, what is the point in being mysterious and hiding for thousands of years if you are the supreme being of the universe? As I have said many times before, why the "cloak & dagger"? Why the trickery?

You then examine the claims of the various sacrad texts, the Vedas, the Qu'ran, the Bible etc, and you look and see how well they work in the lives of the people that believe them. Then you make a decision, but you keep examining, poking that decision to make sure it's true, and that it works.

But MANY, if not all of your type 1 people do not questrion. They have giant blinders on and cannot & will not question any of it. These people (we know who they are) are the ones that I pity/mock as they have no objectivity. When faced with valid questions they retort "god works in mysterious ways" or "he doesnt speak to us because a second to him is a thousand years to us" cop outs. Or they back up scriptures with more scriptures to prove scriptures as true.

I have no doubt that these books help many people find a purpose and do good things with their lives. Bravo for them, but that doesnt make the stories true. Many other people do not need these crutches in order to do good things and lead good, moral lives.

On the other hand, if you don't believe God, then no forum is going to convince you that the Bible is His word. But then, if you are not constantly examining THAT belief, then you are not thinking critcally.

Agreed...and likewise, no forum will convince the diety-deluded that it's all just fairy tales either. Unlike the ultra-pious among us I DO constantly question and am always open to alternatives. It's just that the more I question, the more like a house of cards religion(s) become. Thus I have chosen not to have one. It's funny, but the religious have a very hard time with absence of religion. It would be easier for them to understand if I said I was a Scientologist then an athiest...even though they are ultra-wacko.

[heavycola]

Agreed...and likewise, no forum will convince the diety-deluded that it's all just fairy tales either. Unlike the ultra-pious among us I DO constantly question and am always open to alternatives. It's just that the more I question, the more like a house of cards religion(s) become. Thus I have chosen not to have one. It's funny, but the religious have a very hard time with absence of religion. It would be easier for them to understand if I said I was a Scientologist then an athiest...even though they are ultra-wacko.

In nomine patriis, filiis, et spiritus sanctus, amen

Addendum: yesterday i was reading about Zorastrianism - Zoroaster 'recieved' a vision of the apocalypse about 2,000 years before St John did. Good vs evil, divine judgment, paradise for the faithful... etc etc.

[MR. Nate]

I would think so, and by "reveal" I mean something tangible. Not an image of jesus in the oatmeal or a TV evangelist healing. Besides, what is the point in being mysterious and hiding for thousands of years if you are the supreme being of the universe? As I have said many times before, why the "cloak & dagger"? Why the trickery?

Well, first God told a bunch of guys to write a book, but nobody obeyed the book. Then He came down and lived as a person and they killed Him. Then He told a bunch more guys to write more in the book, and nobody obeyed it, and you say it's invalid.

What trickery were we talking about?

In nomine patriis, filiis, et spiritus sanctus

Good to see someone has their trinitarin theology down

[Backglass]

Well, first God told a bunch of guys to write a book, but nobody obeyed the book.

And why not? Maybe because the non-believers of the day (like myself) thought it wasnt true and didnt trust the "chosen ones", most likely because they were out to conquer and control. Why the secrecy? Why just a few? Why didnt god just tell EVERYONE at the same time so there would be no doubt?

Then He came down and lived as a person and they killed Him.

How can you kill a god? Perhaps, he just wasnt a god in the first place but a very influential public speaker.

Then He told a bunch more guys to write more in the book, and nobody obeyed it

See above.

and you say it's invalid.

Pretty much, yeah.

What trickery were we talking about?

Sorry...past topic. The whole "we are just gods ant farm" theory. Meaning that this god, who has ultimate power and created everything, knows what you are going to do "before you were even born". Yet he wants you to make a choice (that evidently he already knows) and throws a few disasters our way from time to time just to make it interesting and confusing. If true...why the tests? Why the hidden agenda? Why not just come out and say "Here I am...worship me".

IE: Why perform this grand experiment if you already know the outcome.

[vtmarik]

IE: Why perform this grand experiment if you already know the outcome.

As any scientist can tell you, just because you know the outcome doesn't make the experiment not worth watching (especially if it's the kind that involves exploding).

It's probably a case of God enjoying the show. "Let's see what happens if I throw a tornado at them!"

It's like Garry's Mod or The Sims.

[MR. Nate]

Why the secrecy?

What secrecy? If you don't have a copy of the book, it's cause you don't want one. It's the most widely distributed and discussed book in history. How is that secrecy?

How can you kill a god?

If God comes in human form, then you could kill his human body.

. . . and throws a few disasters our way from time to time just to make it interesting and confusing.

I would argue that when sin entered the world (I'm not going to rehash Adam & Eve) it distorted and destroyed a lot of God's original intent, so natural evil, such as disasters, are not God's fault.

IE:

Never use Internet Explorer

Why perform this grand experiment if you already know the outcome.

Now you're asking me to understand God's thought process, which I am not qualified to do. Rather, let me say this: God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that He would be more glorified by creating us than not. And that includes, somehow, the fact that horrible things happen, and people reject Him. So He created us.

[Mirak]

Why the secrecy?

What secrecy? If you don't have a copy of the book, it's cause you don't want one. It's the most widely distributed and discussed book in history. How is that secrecy?

How can you kill a god?

If God comes in human form, then you could kill his human body.

. . . and throws a few disasters our way from time to time just to make it interesting and confusing.

I would argue that when sin entered the world (I'm not going to rehash Adam & Eve) it distorted and destroyed a lot of God's original intent, so natural evil, such as disasters, are not God's fault.

IE:

Never use Internet Explorer

Why perform this grand experiment if you already know the outcome.

Now you're asking me to understand God's thought process, which I am not qualified to do. Rather, let me say this: God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that He would be more glorified by creating us than not. And that includes, somehow, the fact that horrible things happen, and people reject Him. So He created us.

JAY...JAY...come back...all is forgiven...

[2dimes]

Well I just wanted to point out that the oldest copies of the old testament are perported to have been scientifically (take that for what ever you want) proven to be older than 2000 years.

So we can figure and I believe that those have not been altered in the 2000 years backglass was spouting about.

Even though the entire bible is most definately open for interpretation and therefore miss-interpretation.

The hebrews that rewrote those documents would have been terrified that God would make them burst into flames or cause lightning to hit them.

Much different than the LAPD or any other modern man that knows they can get away with corrupt practices like that with a perception of no penalties.

I like to hear a person present their ideas on what's what regardless of what side they are on.

I find it amusing to see or hear people repeat other people's ideas they have learned and present them as fact when they don't really understand what they are repeating.

ie. "The catholic church wrote the bible as a tool of fear and oppression."

That's completely wrong but based on the fact that. The catholic church translated the bible into a dead language to hide it from the people they controled for centurys.

Only certain people that were chosen to advance in the organisation were allowed to learn the language and reading skills needed to read it. And as they were taught that they were also taught to interpret things in the "official" church way.

Those ways were steeped in fear and used for oppression.

I would agree that after a while those translating bibles probably would be bold enough to alter the new testement but by that time there where too many copies around to get away with it.

I think there was probably more potentially valid doubts about how accurate the translations were untill the dead seas scrolls were found.

They may not prove that the new testament is accurate to the origionals but it proves the Catholics didn't do what the Jehov-witnesses are doing. From the different translations I've read, the watch tower societies are the only ones that seem intentionally altered, as opposed to things just being worded diferently.

[Backglass]

What secrecy? If you don't have a copy of the book, it's cause you don't want one. It's the most widely distributed and discussed book in history. How is that secrecy?

Sorry...let me re-phrase. Your gods secrecy. Why no news for thousands of years? And why a book at all? Why not just appear to the entire world, (maybe a giant face in the sky)...and lay down the law? Telling ancient humans secrets and having them write them down in a book from memory seems very un-god like to me. A book is an extremely primitive method of communication when your a god...no?

If God comes in human form, then you could kill his human body.

Why? Couldnt he wave his hand/claw/flipper and become immortal? He does have that power doesnt he? He can create all humans and animals, but cant make a "stone & dagger proof" person?

I would argue that when sin entered the world (I'm not going to rehash Adam & Eve) it distorted and destroyed a lot of God's original intent, so natural evil, such as disasters, are not God's fault.

What? So we are just an experiment run amuck on gods frankenstein planet? I thought he was in control of everything? Everything except the weather? IF he didnt create sin...who did? Are their multiple gods?

Never use Internet Explorer

lol...funny. I use Firefox.

God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that He would be more glorified by creating us than not. And that includes, somehow, the fact that horrible things happen, and people reject Him. So He created us.

So we are back to "god works in mysterious ways". <sigh> What would be more "Glorifying" than appearing to the ENTIRE PLANET and speaking out? He would have every human on the planet worshipping his every move, wars would cease, lots of kumba-ya singing, and testifying, etc. And that IS the point isnt it? To get everyone to follow, worship and obey this god?

Unless of course, gods/devils/angels/demons/leprechauns dont exist in the first place.

JAY...JAY...come back...all is forgiven...

lol..nah, I like this guy better.

[MeDeFe]

What secrecy?

Of telling only a handful of people instead of everyone. Please don't make the same mistakes as jay, read the posts thoroughly.

. . . and throws a few disasters our way from time to time just to make it interesting and confusing.

I would argue that when sin entered the world (I'm not going to rehash Adam & Eve) it distorted and destroyed a lot of God's original intent, so natural evil, such as disasters, are not God's fault.

So? Pay some attention when you read Genesis if you're going to be using the bible (which I think is a BAD idea since it counts as a book but not much more). God creates this fancy tree, and tells them not to eat of it. So far so good, but then they see that it's a GOOD tree, pleasant to the eye and whatnot (I don't have a bible here so I can't throw a quote at you, sorry), pay attention to the text, the worst sin would be NOT to eat the fruits from the tree of knowledge. And anyway, you would also say that god is omniscient, right? So he knew they were going to disobey him and take those fruits. How can it be sin if it's all according to his plan?
This is what is in the text itself, pretty much free of a religious perspective. The way the bible should be read (also in accordance with your perspective) if you think about it. If it's god's word to humanity it's also made for non-believers (to spell it out: people who don't read it from a christian perspective) it must be written in such a way as to give them this religious perspective.

Why perform this grand experiment if you already know the outcome.

Now you're asking me to understand God's thought process, which I am not qualified to do. Rather, let me say this: God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that He would be more glorified by creating us than not. And that includes, somehow, the fact that horrible things happen, and people reject Him. So He created us.

So it boils down to "gods mysterious ways". You say you cannot understand god's thought process. I say that if god exists as the being he's defined as you're damn right about that. But you still claim to know what he wants of us. And that's hypocrisy of the highest degree.
And if god created us for no other reason than to glorify himself he can go f*ck himself whether he exists or not. By claiming that you're reducing humanity, the whole universe, to nothing more than a big piece of graffiti saying "god was here".

[MR. Nate]

Here's what I'm trying to say about the "secrecy" of God.
God's not hiding. Ever heard the adage "You'll never find what you're not looking for?" However it got here, we certainly have the Bible. If you're not going to begin looking for God in the book He wrote, don't accuse Him of secrecy. You demand He meets you on your terms and refuse to meet him on His. By way of analogy - If you give me your cell phone number, and I'm trying to find you, but never call, who's fault is it I couldn't find you?

IF he didnt create sin...who did? Are their multiple gods?

You act as if sin were something in and of itself. It's not. If an orange is a good deed, than a bad deed is not an apple, it's a rotten, dried up orange. Sin is a perversion of the good, not an equal alternative. So who created sin? We did. We took good things that God gave us and twisted them.

I say that if god exists as the being he's defined as you're damn right about that. But you still claim to know what he wants of us. And that's hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Well, He told us what He wants from us, but He didn't tell us his motivation in creating us. How is it hypocrasy to say I only know what He told me?

And if god created us for no other reason than to glorify himself he can go f*ck himself whether he exists or not.

Shouted the insignificant little man, barely bigger than the grains of sand beneath his feet.

Somebody said the religious ones were hostile. They may want to reconsider.

[jay_a2j]

lol..nah, I like this guy better.

So do I...

[Backglass]

God's not hiding. Ever heard the adage "You'll never find what you're not looking for?" However it got here, we certainly have the Bible. If you're not going to begin looking for God in the book He wrote, don't accuse Him of secrecy.

Well, he certainly isnt showing himself now is he. Nobody has heard a word for thousands of years. That sounds pretty secretive to me, OR...he doesnt exist at all...a more logical conclusion.

If he is a god after all, why must you hunt and search for him while he plays hide-and-go-seek? For what purpose? Please answer...WHY doesnt he just show himself and end the debate? What is there to lose?! Why is this such an unreasonable request of an all knowing all powerful supernatural being?

You demand He meets you on your terms and refuse to meet him on His.

No. I demand nothing other than proof, which you have failed to give me. Proof isnt a big thing to ask when dealing with a god I wouldnt think and again...not an unreasonable request.

By way of analogy - If you give me your cell phone number, and I'm trying to find you, but never call, who's fault is it I couldn't find you?

You are assuming I know (1) you are a real person and (2) have a number & (3) a phone! I dont even know you exist...so why would I try to find you? Why then did he "give his number" to only a few dozen "chosen people" (out of the public eye) thousands of years ago, and never again to this day, if he wants the world to seek, find and worship him?

I could say that YOU have never found Buddah/Muhamed/Shiva because you really didnt try to seek/find them. Or is that different because THOSE gods arent real?

Sin is a perversion of the good, not an equal alternative. So who created sin? We did. We took good things that God gave us and twisted them.

Why didnt he prevent it, if it is so bad? Doesnt he have this power? Why doesnt he just wave his magic wand and stop it now? Is he so weak that he cannot control his own experiment?

Somebody said the religious ones were hostile. They may want to reconsider.

Yeah....those religious folks were/are never violent.

So do I...

Well you were beaten pretty badly, so it's probably better that you rest up for awhile.

[MeDeFe]

Mr. Nate is doing the same as jay, selective reading. Too bad, I'd almost gotten my hopes up.

[demigod]

I read an interesting section of a book not long ago called 'who made God'... it might be relevant to some of this discussion. i've copied an extract below. read it or don't read it... meh:

Christians naturally believe there must be a god because the world had a beginning. And everything that had a beginning had a beginner. But the tough question to answer is how do we know the world had a beginning. Maybe the world always existed.

Famous agnostic Bertrand Russell presented this dilemma: Either the world had a beginning, or it did not. If it did not, it did not need a cause (God). If it did, we can ask “Who caused God?” But if God has a cause, he is not God. In either case, we do not arrive at a first uncaused cause (God).

This asks a meaningless question: Who made God? To put it another way, it wrongly assumes that “everything must have a cause” when what is claimed is that “everything that has a beginning had a cause”. This is quite a different matter. Of course everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Nothing cannot make something…

This being the case, we need only show that the universe had a beginning, to show that there must have been a cause of it (i.e. God). Two arguments are offered: one from science – the second law of thermodynamics. The second is from philosophy, namely, the impossibility of an infinite number of moments.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy. But if the universe is running down, it cannot be eternal. Otherwise it would have run down completely by now. While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy. Hence the universe must have had a beginning. To illustrate, every car has a limited amount of energy (gas). That is why we have to refuel from time to time… The fact that we have to refill shows that it was filled up to begin with. In short, the universe had a beginning. And whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner (God)… This would mean that the universe could not have existed forever in the past.

A second argument that the universe had a beginning – and hence a beginner – comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today never would have come (which it has). This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed – that is, we have arrived at today – it follows that there must only have been a finite (limited) number of moments before today. That is, time had a beginning. But if the space-time universe had a beginning, it must have been caused to come into existence. This cause of everything else that exists is called God. God exists.

I'd be interested to hear what people think???

[Mirak]

Mr Nate...

Why do theists always want it two ways? God is omniscient and omnipotent! But is not responsible for sin, natural disasters, disease..etc

Either he is All or Nothing...you cannot have it both ways..

[Mirak]

I read an interesting section of a book not long ago called 'who made God'... it might be relevant to some of this discussion. i've copied an extract below. read it or don't read it... meh:

Christians naturally believe there must be a god because the world had a beginning. And everything that had a beginning had a beginner. But the tough question to answer is how do we know the world had a beginning. Maybe the world always existed.

Famous agnostic Bertrand Russell presented this dilemma: Either the world had a beginning, or it did not. If it did not, it did not need a cause (God). If it did, we can ask “Who caused God?” But if God has a cause, he is not God. In either case, we do not arrive at a first uncaused cause (God).

This asks a meaningless question: Who made God? To put it another way, it wrongly assumes that “everything must have a cause” when what is claimed is that “everything that has a beginning had a cause”. This is quite a different matter. Of course everything that had a beginning had a beginner. Nothing cannot make something…

This being the case, we need only show that the universe had a beginning, to show that there must have been a cause of it (i.e. God). Two arguments are offered: one from science – the second law of thermodynamics. The second is from philosophy, namely, the impossibility of an infinite number of moments.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy. But if the universe is running down, it cannot be eternal. Otherwise it would have run down completely by now. While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy. Hence the universe must have had a beginning. To illustrate, every car has a limited amount of energy (gas). That is why we have to refuel from time to time… The fact that we have to refill shows that it was filled up to begin with. In short, the universe had a beginning. And whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner (God)… This would mean that the universe could not have existed forever in the past.

A second argument that the universe had a beginning – and hence a beginner – comes from philosophy. It argues that there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today never would have come (which it has). This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed – that is, we have arrived at today – it follows that there must only have been a finite (limited) number of moments before today. That is, time had a beginning. But if the space-time universe had a beginning, it must have been caused to come into existence. This cause of everything else that exists is called God. God exists.

I'd be interested to hear what people think???

I think that Bertrand Russell makes the point admirably... and that whoever is responsible for the rest of the article is making a very disingenuous argument to rebut, and failing miserably

"it wrongly assumes that “everything must have a cause” when what is claimed is that “everything that has a beginning had a cause”

What a total misrepresentation of Russells assumptions...typical twisting and turning required by creationists

It is only the assumption that "everything must have a cause" and that that cause must be a supernatural being that has led to mans creation of God...Russell demonstrates that even with that assumption it doesn't stack up...he is not advocating that assumption

[MR. Nate]

WHY doesnt he just show himself and end the debate? What is there to lose?! Why is this such an unreasonable request of an all knowing all powerful supernatural being?

You demand He meets you on your terms and refuse to meet him on His.

No. I demand nothing other than proof, which you have failed to give me.

That's my point, actually. You demand proof, God demands faith. It's not that God can't provide you the "proof" that you demand, He just wants you to meet Him halfway.

Please don't tell me that you don't have any faith, because you appear to have faith in you're own existence (still not proven) my existence (also not proven) the validity of your own memories (you assume that you existed 10 minutes ago) etc.

Mr. Nate is doing the same as jay, selective reading. Too bad, I'd almost gotten my hopes up.

I'm not reading selectivly, I'm answering selectivly. There's 10 questions in every post, and there are more questioners and answerers. If you've got 1 really important question, let me know, don't just chuck 20 at me and expect me to handle them all.

Why do theists always want it two ways? God is omniscient and omnipotent! But is not responsible for sin, natural disasters, disease..etc
Either he is All or Nothing...you cannot have it both ways..

Why didnt he prevent it, if it is so bad? Doesnt he have this power? Why doesnt he just wave his magic wand and stop it now? Is he so weak that he cannot control his own experiment?

Here are the two fiercest advocates for free will demanding that God remove their free will. Try this.

An all powerful, all knowing God creates some very weak creatures. The thing about these creatures is that they can continue to develop as long as they are alive. He wants them to love Him, and He knows that if you force love, it's not real. So He gives every one of them the choice to choose him or reject him. He doesn't do anything to bully them into believing in Him, because if they're not looking for Him, they'll never love Him anyway. He doesn't prevent all evil from happening, because people caused it in their own free will, and a lot of time, when bad things happen, people start to look for God, and end up loving Him. The sin thing was a problem, but He allowed His human form to suffer and die, so that if they wanted to get rid of their sin, they could.