CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there a "god" that is capable of and is active in influencing the lives of humans?
This debate is limited to the confines of Christianity. The affirmative side argues that there is a god who is capable of, and actively influences the lives of humans. The negative team argues that no such higher power exists.
Of course there is. If you present Atheists reality, they scoff and walk away, or say that's stupid and present nothing. Example?
Either there was always nothing, and this magic nothing just magically manifested something, which would be magic, OR we have a regress of infinite causes, meaning, everything HAS a cause, but there was no "first cause", which would be magic as well. Atheists just glaze over this simple logic and have no coherant rebuttal... The fact is, we need an answer from beyond space and time, from beyond our reality all together, a programmer, a creator, a designer, whatever you wish. Where did He come from? Nowhere. All things, abstract or otherwise exist to him. There is no beginning. There is no end, where he is. Time does not exist beyond our reality other than in abstract thought. Being born does not exist except in abstract form. Everything just is, and God is the highest of all possibilities within this particular set where all things "are".
The question focuses on a god's influence over human life. Not the universe.
Your answer could equally well be given by a deist, who does not believe in a god who intervenes in human affairs, but who believes a conscious entity of some description brought the universe into being.
Not a Christian and therefore not taking a side in this debate but actually in that cited experiment, aside from the fact that energy was used, so were particles. To quote the first article "All you need is an... open mind about what exactly "nothing" is (hint: it's something)."
"OR we have a regress of infinite causes, meaning, everything HAS a cause, but there was no "first cause", which would be magic as well."
Theists always say that an infinite regress is not possible, or just as magical as God, but I don't see why it seems so far fetched to you. Could you please give an explanation for why an infinite regress is physically impossible?
I'm not a Christian but the problem I have always had with infinite regression is the fact that we would have never reached the present, due to the fact there would be an infinite number of past events. To give an example, if we imagine a person on an infinite road, but there was an infinite distance between their current position and their desired destination, they would never reach their destination.
I see what you mean, but the person on the infinite road could be present anywhere on the road, at least if you pick a point to measure from he could be as far from that point in any direction as you like. He'll never reach the end or beginning of the road, but that doesn't matter, there's no end or beginning, and no destination, just a direction. Same goes for time and events occurring in time, especially if the whole thing about past, present, and future existing simultaneously (that's probably not the right word to use, but I don't know what else to say) is true. A real life example is integer numbers, I can count to the number '11' without having to count every single negative number before zero. I could start counting from wherever I want. There are infinite numbers before '11,' which all exist simultaneously, but I don't need to count every past number to get to a certain number.
Saying "we would have never reached the present, due to the fact there would be an infinite number of past events" only makes sense if there was a beginning to count from, which there wouldn't be with an infinite regress.
It's clear in my head what I mean, but I might not have explained it clearly. Apologies if I sound like I'm rambling.
I think you may have misunderstood the example I used (and I don't blame you, I'm no good at analogies!)
OK so the person (all matter) at the beginning of the road is at a point that's an infinite distance in the past. The person has to then walk an infinite distance to reach their destination (where we are now in time). As such, the person (all matter) never reaches their destination (the present).
But there is no beginning of the "road," not even infinitely far in the past!
I still think it's entirely possible for the matter to reach any point in time, especially with all points in time existing simultaneously. It's at every time at once, the time isn't there waiting for the matter like a destination on the road, it almost is the matter.
Maybe a new analogy is needed? I always think that analogies are bad for this sort of thing, as there probably isn't really anything comparable to the universe, and time. I'm enjoying this line of thought nevertheless.
Interesting line of enquiry you're correct Winston is stating a ' beginning ' where there is none .
I think that part of the problem with a question like this is that humans are linear thinkers - even though there is increasing evidence that reality isn't linear
If there are an infinite number of preceding events then there is a point in the past that is infinitely far in the past. For matter to get from that point to the present is impossible because it would take an infinite length of time.
"I still think it's entirely possible for the matter to reach any point in time, especially with all points in time existing simultaneously. It's at every time at once, the time isn't there waiting for the matter like a destination on the road, it almost is the matter. "
I've had such thoughts about the nature of time too, though we can see that matter itself does progress through time linearly. Take for example the particles that make you up currently, if their building blocks have existed in some form for eternity then how did these traverse an infinite time period?
"If there are an infinite number of preceding events then there is a point in the past that is infinitely far in the past"
I disagree because every point in the past must be a certain distance/time back, which would be measurable, it's just that it is possible for that point to be any distance back - as far as you like - that's why it seems to make sense to say a point could be infinitely far back. There are infinite numbers, but no single number is infinitely high.
"Take for example the particles that make you up currently, if their building blocks have existed in some form for eternity then how did these traverse an infinite time period?"
I'm not sure that makes sense to ask... it just exists at every time, however far back in the past, as the infinite timeline exists at once. You can pick two points in time, like on a number line, and count through them. Also if there is no point infinitely far in the past, as I think I've shown, then it's not really traversing an infinite time period.
I'm not sure I've explained it well, probably because I don't understand it well enough. To be honest, I don't know enough about the nature of time to be sure in what I'm saying here, but it's still fun to apply what logic I can.
"I disagree because every point in the past must be a certain distance/time back, which would be measurable, it's just that it is possible for that point to be any distance back - as far as you like - that's why it seems to make sense to say a point could be infinitely far back. There are infinite numbers, but no single number is infinitely high."
I see what you mean. How does one ever reach the present, however, if the past stretches on infinitely? Our constituent parts would have existed eternally so it makes sense to say there is a point at which the period of their existence can be said to be infinite. There is after all no point at which we can state our constituent parts sprang into existence. If our constituent parts only existed, for example, for nine googolplex years, then infinite regression doesn't hold true.
"I'm not sure that makes sense to ask... it just exists at every time, however far back in the past, as the infinite timeline exists at once. You can pick two points in time, like on a number line, and count through them. Also if there is no point infinitely far in the past, as I think I've shown, then it's not really traversing an infinite time period. "
What makes no sense though, is that for infinite regression to hold true the past must stretch back an infinite number of years. As such, our constituent parts must have traversed an infinite time period, because the past stretches on endlessly. One can pick two points in time, but one cannot pick out the point in time at which our constituent parts began to exist.
Humans' understanding of time is severely limited and I appreciate that our conception of time could be wrong. However I personally cannot cause infinite regression to actually make logical sense.
You make some good points here, but I still think it makes sense to say that the matter or energy, whatever it is, still exists in all places on the timeline at once and thus doesn't have to traverse an infinite time period (insert quantum physics space-time stuff here).
I suppose that you are right that it's a bit personal as to how we view it. It might not be possible to know whether it's possible, at least now. But if we don't know whether something's possible, isn't that practically the same as saying it is possible that it's possible? My goal here wasn't to prove an infinite regress possible, simply to try and argue that we can't assume it is impossible.
"You make some good points here, but I still think it makes sense to say that the matter or energy, whatever it is, still exists in all places on the timeline at once and thus doesn't have to traverse an infinite time period (insert quantum physics space-time stuff here)."
As I say, if we misunderstand time in some manner that makes an infinite past possible then it makes sense. When you speak of quantum physics and space-time is there something in particular that you're referencing which already gives this view of time some credence?
"It might not be possible to know whether it's possible, at least now. But if we don't know whether something's possible, isn't that practically the same as saying it is possible that it's possible? My goal here wasn't to prove an infinite regress possible, simply to try and argue that we can't assume it is impossible."
I completely appreciate what you mean and can accept that perhaps the correct manner of conceptualizing time does make infinite regress possible. I don't see the evidence that time works in such a manner but accept it's definitely possible that it's possible since we have such a limited understanding of time.
"When you speak of quantum physics and space-time is there something in particular that you're referencing which already gives this view of time some credence?"
Here's a Wikipedia link (below) which covers some things. It's not directly to do with infinite regresses, and it only mentions physics in passing, but it may give you a better idea as to what I'm thinking about. I would have used the word 'eternalism' earlier if I'd known it. Also, I've only skim read the link, and don't necessarily support the view.
"I don't see the evidence that time works in such a manner but accept it's definitely possible that it's possible since we have such a limited understanding of time."
Great. I'm not sure I believe an infinite regress is possible either, an might have just been playing the part a bit in our discussion, but I think it's possible that it's possible, and therefore shouldn't be dismissed as a 'logical absurdity' as it is in the first cause (Kalam cosmological) argument for a creator.
P.S, I'll respond in our debate about objective morality some time soon, I'm a bit busy.
Past and future tense, is an infinite concept in the circumstance you speak, you guys sound like your dropping epiphany's when at best you're farting in the bath tub...
But there is no beginning of the "road," not even infinitely far in the past!
But there is. The Doppler Effect proves that galaxies are moving away from each other, which in turn proves that the further back in the past you go, the closer the galaxies were. There cannot have been an infinite number of past events because the history of the universe is demonstrably finite.
Your pseduo-intellectual nonsense is, as per usual, at odds with science.
I still think it's entirely possible for the matter to reach any point in time, especially with all points in time existing simultaneously
All points in time only exist simultaneously from the perspective of someone who does not experience time (i.e. someone observing from outside the universe). Within the perimeter of the universe, time is an arrow which can be demonstrated by, among other things, the second law of thermodynamics (or the law of entropy, if you prefer).
"There cannot have been an infinite number of past events because the history of the universe is demonstrably finite."
I understand your point, but if there is a multiverse or some other thing, (remember this is all a 'what if' discussion) then it's possible for there to have been an infinite number of 'past' events.
"All points in time only exist simultaneously from the perspective of someone who does not experience time (i.e. someone observing from outside the universe). Within the perimeter of the universe, time is an arrow which can be demonstrated by, among other things, the second law of thermodynamics (or the law of entropy, if you prefer)."
Similar answer to above, with possible multiverses and things. I don't fully understand it, and I haven't claimed to. As I mention later in my discussion with Winston, I'm just playing the part here, and am also skeptical of infinite regression.
I understand your point, but if there is a multiverse or some other thing, (remember this is all a 'what if' discussion) then it's possible for there to have been an infinite number of 'past' events.
A good attempt at an argument, but ultimately you are incorrect. If multiple universes do exist, as you speculate, then there is nothing to suggest they experience time as our universe does. There is also nothing to link them causally to our own universe.
If we rewind time back to the very beginning of our own universe, then that is when time began for us. We can't rewind any further because time is no longer there. Even if there is another universe out there somewhere, then we can't say any events within it happened "before" the birth of our own. The "past" is a term you cannot use if the observer does not experience time.
Similar answer to above, with possible multiverses and things. I don't fully understand it, and I haven't claimed to. As I mention later in my discussion with Winston, I'm just playing the part here, and am also skeptical of infinite regression.
Hey, I have no problem with that. As long as you are prepared to recognise the faults in your understanding then we can have a discussion.
"A good attempt at an argument, but ultimately you are incorrect. If multiple universes do exist, as you speculate, then there is nothing to suggest they experience time as our universe does. There is also nothing to link them causally to our own universe.
If we rewind time back to the very beginning of our own universe, then that is when time began for us. We can't rewind any further because time is no longer there. Even if there is another universe out there somewhere, then we can't say any events within it happened "before" the birth of our own. The "past" is a term you cannot use if the observer does not experience time."
Hmmm. I suppose that's true, there'd be no past in that context. (Assuming there's a multiverse) I linked something below talking about the multiverse and time. Would that mean then that there would be neither an infinite regress of causes nor a first cause? (remembering this is in the context of the first cause argument for a god) Then what happens? Does cause and effect not apply outside of the so called bubble universes? I guess I was assuming that if there was no first cause there had to be an infinite regression, and I thought the multiverse hypothesis may not need a first cause. Is the multiverse itself the first cause of every universe? You'd still have to ask where the multiverse came from, or why things happen rather than don't happen wouldn't you?
"Hey, I have no problem with that. As long as you are prepared to recognise the faults in your understanding then we can have a discussion."
Sure, I think I just recognized the flaws, and a friendly discussion about the questions I raised would be fun.
I linked something below talking about the multiverse and time. Would that mean then that there would be neither an infinite regress of causes nor a first cause? (remembering this is in the context of the first cause argument for a god)
Yes. It's late, so I had to think about your argument a little bit, but your logic appears to be sound. The finite nature of time prohibits both an infinite regression of causes and a first cause in a theory of a multiverse. However, in a theory of a single universe, only the former is precluded.
Then what happens? Does cause and effect not apply outside of the so called bubble universes?
Well, again, cause and effect is an observation we have made about our own universe. There is no guarantee that any other universe will have the same conditions. Technically speaking, once we leave this universe, there is no requirement for a cause.
I guess I was assuming that if there was no first cause there had to be an infinite regression, and I thought the multiverse hypothesis may not need a first cause.
You are right. It doesn't need a first cause. Once we leave the present universe the word "first" ceases to have any physical meaning anyway, since we are no longer confined by the rules of time.
Is the multiverse itself the first cause of every universe?
In a multiverse theory (and incidentally I believe in a single universe) all universes would have to be born simultaneously. I suppose in fact that one could even describe the absence of time as the first cause. It might seem like cheating, but it's really the only way to explain how the multiverse began if it contains multiple universes -- especially if they emerged through different processes.
Sure, I think I just recognized the flaws, and a friendly discussion about the questions I raised would be fun.
You absolutely did and you produced an insightful post which was enjoyable to read and think about. Thank you. When people debate honestly, recognise and acknowledge where they have deviated from reason or truth (and this applies just as much to my own posts), the process of debate becomes enlightening and highly pleasurable for all. We need more of this and less of people making errors which their nurtured ego prohibits them from acknowledging. The latter just stagnates debate and impedes the progression of knowledge. Remember, we all should be working together to find the truth, which is the ultimate purpose of debate.
"(and incidentally I believe in a single universe) "
Interesting. I would take the 'agnostic' view, of withholding belief, same as I do for a god. Perhaps you agree with me there, but if you do positively believe in a single universe, I wonder how you would respond to things like the first cause argument for a god, and especially the fine tuning argument? (I'm pretty sure you're an atheist too?) I could see how the first cause argument doesn't necessarily imply a god, but with the fine tuning one added it's a bit stronger isn't it. I'd normally just say that hypotheses like the multiverse one explain those circumstances just as well if not better than a god, but I still withhold belief in either. Not sure how you'd go about it.
I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, it can be frustrating to debate someone when you know they'll never change their mind, and this site would be better off with more honesty. Glad we can be at peace with each other. :)
Interesting. I would take the 'agnostic' view, of withholding belief, same as I do for a god. Perhaps you agree with me there, but if you do positively believe in a single universe, I wonder how you would respond to things like the first cause argument for a god, and especially the fine tuning argument? (I'm pretty sure you're an atheist too?) I could see how the first cause argument doesn't necessarily imply a god, but with the fine tuning one added it's a bit stronger isn't it.
I suppose I'd describe myself an an agnostic who leans towards atheism. In terms of a single universe, then I believe it because I only have evidence of one universe. If that changes, then my beliefs will change.
I don't subscribe to God as a first cause for the reason you stipulated (i.e. a first cause doesn't necessitate God). As regards the "fine tuning" argument, then I usually refer to the anthropic principle (i.e. if the universe weren't fine tuned then we wouldn't be here to question it). I also think we might be looking at it in the wrong way around, in that it is more probable we are the ones who have been fine tuned for the universe.
I'd normally just say that hypotheses like the multiverse one explain those circumstances just as well if not better than a god, but I still withhold belief in either. Not sure how you'd go about it.
A multiverse would definitely be a neat answer to the question of fine tuning.
I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, it can be frustrating to debate someone when you know they'll never change their mind, and this site would be better off with more honesty. Glad we can be at peace with each other. :)
There is one man made secular humanistic religion that influences billions of people.
These sheeples follow their secular political correct evolutionary God to the brink of financial and moral collapse and the world blindly falls in line. They have no moral foundation to hold on to.
Any person (who is not a God hating bigot) with the least of intellect sees what is happening to our culture as we separate God.
Spare me the bigoted nonsense of painting Christians with the same brush as the many man made hate filled religions.
This is what man is capable of when left to his own desires. The slippery slope of depravity.
Without a faith in God, a nation has no moral framework with which to guide it's laws.
The morals of man changes with the times as we see with NO RESTRICTION abortions, so called Transgender boys being allowed into our Daughter's bathrooms in public schools, Leftwing support for so called Pedophile right's, taking away our right to protection with conceiled hand guns, etc., forcing tax payers to pay for abortions through State medicaid, displaying the severed head of our President on the walls of Liberal Public funded Colleges, illegal immigration allowed, tax payer funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood dealing in the barbaric abortion trade, unbelievable debt spending taking our nation to the brink of bankrupcy, fathers and mothers abandoning their children leaving them for tax payers to support, people choosing to live together for years rather than making a commitment to each other and their children, etc. etc.
It's the self love me me generation that find's new ways each year to fall even further into the gutter.
As America separates our Christian heritage, it separates the very moral values that made us the greatest nation on Earth.
Ahteists once possessed the simple common sense to recognise the importance of our Christian faith, even though they themselves did not believe.
With all the so called enlightened progress in this nation, we are running full speed into a fiscal and moral collapse.
Men will never agree on whose moral values we should try to emmulate, so therefore we no longer lift up the importance of any moral values.
Yes I do believe He does. The problem is many people simply don't listen. There is so much going on, we are either deaf to it, ignore it or believe it's something else like fate or luck.
Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is just the God you're looking for. He is just one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God in the form of the Son is eternally existant as Yeshua Ha Mashiach. Don't Blasphem the Holy Spirit. That is the only sin that can't be forgiven.
The Bigots who go out of their way trying to insult Christians for their beliefs, are insecure people who hate the notion that many Christians are living more responsible lives then themselves. They will of course deny this fact and will try to say Christians are no more moral then they are.
Yes there are people calling themselves Christians who make little effort to live better lives, and bigots will use these examples to try and paint all Christians the same. The Left will always try to make you believe that the other side is just as bad.
Atheists put their faith in an evolutionary theory with absolutely no beginning. You see, if we simply evolved, then there are no moral values to try and live up to. Anything goes in this no fault Godless culture.
If there is no God, one might ask why bigots spend their lives worrying so over what Christians believe. I guess they are very insecure people who hate when others live moral responsible lives, while they choose to bring so many problems upon themselves.
Evolutionists do not know where the first living cell magically appeared. Yet they teach their man made secular humanist religion as fact in our schools.
God has influenced my life and many other Christian lives. The peace and wisdom obtained from faith in God changes our entire lives.
When you say influence our lives, I want you to understand what a huge influence God is on the lives of Christians.
When we grow into our teen years, we are bombarded by temptations from this world. Without faith in God, we could easily be led into worldly promiscuus irresponsible lifestlyes.
When peer groups try to influence you into drinking, taking illegal drugs, sex, drunk driving, speeding, etc., many Christians have the security and wisdom to know these things can destroy our lives. God gives us a roadmap to help keep us from all the pitfalls in life.
Without God, people constantly ignore the obvious harm from these irresponsible lifestlyes and glady follow the crowd.
It's more than just a book teaching us how to live. There is a power from our faith in God, giving us the will it takes to say no to so many worldly temptations. It gives us the wisdom to understnd that following the crowd leads to more heart ache, not less.
We have plenty of foundation. If you do not know what said foundation is, you should educate yourself on what that foundation is, and make a decision based on the real foundation rather than what you guess Christians found their faith on.
Why should I educate myself on your beliefs? I'm perfectly fine without them. If you want me to believe what you do, then the onus is on you to persuade me. And if you are familiar with the plentiful foundation of your beliefs, then you should be able to articulate it here yourself. I'm certainly not going to trawl through some random facebook page trying to find your argument for you.
Human beings are greedy, filled with hate, burn children alive, behead children, rape women, take sex slaves, are cannibals, cover women up with burkas, steal, envy, and much much more. Yes, I have a lack of faith in a group of creatures that would destroy itself, its environment and each other intentionally.
It is just as naive to overlook the creative human capacity as it is to overlook the destructive; humans are not quite so unidimensional as that. But whatever the nature of human beings might be, my observation was not about how humans actually are but about how OP perceives them. So you're rebuttal is non-responsive.
If there is a God then he/she is relatively neutral.
People around the world pray to their respective gods for aid but nothing ever comes of it.
Anytime you hear of a prayer being answered, it always turns out that it would have happened anyway without the being guided by a magical,anthropomorphic, immortal.
We live in a world that works perfectly fine without even the concept of a God.
To believe in the Christian god is illogical , belivers claim to have a ' realationship ' with a supernatural entity that cannot be seen heard or touched yet exists but fullfills none of the criteria of existent things .
Science cannot detect this supernatural entity so what method should be used to detect this entity ?
The world has natural disasters , wars , crime , happiness ,pleasures this is the way the world is what difference would a god make to the world we live in ?
Three questions for the believer demonstrating how weak their position is ....
You cannot make the claim god is omniscient and knows the future while also claiming that he has free will and can change his mind. If a god does know the future then he could not change the future because his mind would already be made up so there would be nothing to change.
You cannot claim god is perfect while also claiming he is a creator. This is because being perfect means having no wants or needs so there would be no reason for him to create anything. If he needed to create something this would make him imperfect.
You cannot claim god is just while also claiming god is merciful. If god is just he is treating the person exactly how they deserve to be treated. If god is merciful he would be treating a person better than they deserve to be treated.
Logic and science cannot prove themselves, and though they may seem reliable to people like you and me... the Christian God seems reliable to them. Without using logic and science to prove themselves, which contradicts their core premises, how can we be certain that there is no Christian God?
The inability to prove God through science or reason is not proof against the existence of God. The existence of God need not impact the (perceived) harms you reference in order to exist, although on the Christian account the difference is that the events can take on a significance as part of a broader plan (maybe we find that horrifying, but that just means the Christian God is horrifying to us... not that He doesn't exist).
Omniscience and omnipotence are at odds for beings who live linearly in time, but the Christian God is not constrained in this fashion. Moreover, a being who transcends our limitations might be beyond our conception (because it is beyond our capacity) but that does not make it impossible... just inconceivable.
Why does perfection mean having no interests or motives, particularly on the Christian account? And is there a discrepancy between human conception of perfection and what perfection actually is?
Why does mercy necessarily entail treating someone better than they deserve to be treated? Where is your concept of mercy deriving from? There are other accounts of mercy that are compatible with being justice, where indeed to be just is to be merciful because mercy is doing right by the person and anything beyond mercy is a self-serving excess.
As an atheist I always claim I lack belief in gods , other times I will say I do not believe in a god , if challenged by a believer I say well if you can say you totally believe in a god I can just as easily assert the opposite .
One other thing is I can also using Christian ' logic ' demonstrate that they cannot justify claiming the nature of their god is good , I can show this position is untenable and a rationalist could not fault my position
How can we be certain there no Christian god ? We cannot be 100 per cent certain but after a lifetime of studying the question I'm fairly confidant in my position as in there's no god or gods .
How does one use science and reason to investigate supernatural claims ?
I've yet to see any solid evidence for any of the countless amount of claims for supernatural entities that are made almost daily worldwide ; so I reasonably ask myself what's more likely which I think fair enough .
How does a believer know about their god ?
For me it was as a Catholic I was told about the way god ' operated ' and his plans and reasons for doing things every Christian is told a version of the basic tale as in the bible and none of them agree with each other's version which is why we have 30,000 denominations of Christianity worldwide .
Not one person has ever effectively defined this being they have a ' relationship ' with yet they claim to know it's will and mind ; you of course can answer the three questions I asked because one never defines their god but constantly make new revised statements to allow their god to avoid any pitfalls as in tricky questions .
What does perfection mean ? From a Christian point of view it means God is complete , faultless and totally sufficient in every aspect of his being and ways
Our ideas about perfection as humans may differ .
Regards mercy one would think that a morally perfect being would treat someone better than they deserve , isn't that what a fairly decent but morally flawed human might do ?
Seeing as we are talking about the Christian god the only way to know about him is through his word as in the bible which has 500 to 1000 contradictions in it , is littered with errors and pure fantasy
I dismissed this book as pure nonsense a long time ago as it's the most ridiculous story and rather amusing that an all powerful god would need such a ridiculous back story to explain his existence
I have no idea what you mean by "Christian logic", not because I think it is an oxymoron but because there is no singular logic practiced by all Christians. The rationales within Christianity are actually quite diverse. Further, it is one thing to claim to have a faultless proof of God's non-goodness and another thing altogether to actually present it. I'm not going to take you on your word anymore than I would a theist, so until such point as you make the argument your claim is just bravado.
With respect to logical merit, how is your confidence significantly different than their conviction? It proves nothing beyond your own convictions and beliefs, not the least of which seems to include the soundness of logic, reason, and science themselves... though they remain as unproved as the existence of God. Your account offers an explanation for your incredulity, to which I'm sympathetic, but it is not proof against the existence of God.
That humans err is fundamental to the Christian narrative, so it is is neither surprising nor proof against God's existence that humans cannot properly conceive of or articulate the idea of something as immense as God. It just means they keep getting it a bit wrong. If I misunderstand who someone is, they don't stop existing do they?
You have not really answered my question about perfection. Again: Why does perfection mean having no interests or motives, particularly on the Christian account?
Why should we presume that a perfect moral being would treat someone better than they deserve? Or even a "fairly decent human" for that matter? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Even the Bible recognizes that God did not write it directly, but that God transmitted knowledge to human receptacles and through verbal and eventually written communication their (flawed) understanding of that transmission was put down. Nor can we presume that just because we value consistency that consistency is actually as valuable as we regard it as being; it certainly isn't requisite under the Bible, is it?
I, too, find it ridiculous. However, while I value logic and reason I don't regard them as certain truths. I hold them on faith, no differently than a Christian holds their faith in their God.
Ok , let's clarify I was born and raised a Catholic and was heavily influenced by the teachings of St Thomas of Aquinas who had a lot to say about logic from a Christian perspective .
Regards my bravado I can demonstrate how illogical a Christians claim regarding the nature of their god to be good by demonstrating the total opposite as in claiming their god is evil using the very same steps to reach the conclusion .
We would still be left with a god but it's nature could be neither evil or good .
Regards logical merit I have to ask myself how likely is it that a supernatural entity is in total control of the world and its affairs , this entity cannot be seen heard or touched but exists , I dismiss such claims as absurd And see no merit in speculating there may be an outside chance I'm wrong .
A believers conviction is instilled in them through indoctrination in nearly every case and logic rarely comes into their belief and if so it 'after the fact '
Yes I cannot say for100 per cent there is no god or gods but I do not consume my time wondering if the supernatural exists indeed I spent a fair amount of my time in the past de-bunking with others such claims .
You say ......humans probably cannot conceive or articulate the idea of something as immense as god ......
Yet they come out with statements like that as if they know something we don't .
I'm hearing nonsense like this all my life from believers who seem to say a lot about what god is or is not depending on circumstances yet one has never defined the god they allegedly have a ' relationship ' with .
Motives on the Christian account are all about bringing glory to god only then may one start to understand a little of his motives , I'm rusty on this bullshit but still remember enough .
Why should I believe that a perfect being would treat someone better than they deserve because that's what my Catholic upbringing hammered into us ,
A fairly decent human might not show mercy ?
That makes no sense to you ?
I never claimed god wrote the bible and if it's a flawed transmission why believe any of it ?
What I value in a book is less than a 1000 contradictions very few ( if any ) errors and no fantasy as in talking donkeys , resurrecting humans and virgin births .... I'm fairly fussy that way on my literature
The bible I've found use for it makes a pretty good door stop .
I detest that word ' faith 'I've kept for years a definition of faith from ..... The Atheists guide ,
Faith is not a substitute for evidence or meaningful and objective data. Faith is devout ignorance but religious people don’t call it that. Faith is a filthy word exuding a fake appearance of purity and virtue while fronting some of the most ugly ideas this world has ever seen such as sexism and slavery. Faith closes people’s hearts when it should be opening them. Faith makes people proud of things they should be ashamed of and faith makes people ashamed of things they should be proud of. We can see throughout the world and throughout history that the people who have claimed faith especially in the barbaric Islamic countries live under oppression and violence. The thought process for people who claim faith is that if you take the god completely at his word you can be just like him, a cruel, coldblooded, monster and feel good about it. In other countries they use faith to make blasphemy laws and use censorship in order to keep from hearing words and seeing pictures that would take peoples minds out of the Stone Age and into the 21st Century. If your argument boils down to just have faith then you have taken all the real reasons to actually accept a claim because you can have faith in anything such as leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, magical men and mythical story books. People do not have faith in brakes working in my car, the sun rising or me waking up. These are things that have a high probability of happening because there are past experiences of these things and there is knowledge of them functioning correctly. Also people have a working model of how and why these things happen.
Regards my bravado I can demonstrate [...]. We would still be left with a god but it's nature could be neither evil or good.
Again, claiming that you can demonstrate a line of reasoning is not the same as presenting it. Even presuming you could do what you claim, though, your conclusion is unproved because it is predicated upon the unproved axioms of logic and human morality.
Regards logical merit I have to ask myself how likely is [...] And see no merit in speculating there may be an outside chance I'm wrong. [...] A believers conviction is instilled in them through indoctrination in nearly every case and logic rarely comes into their belief and if so it 'after the fact ' & Yes I cannot say for100 per cent [...]
Yes... because you take the merit of logic on learned faith. Logic itself has never been proved. It is an accepted revelation passed on through a largely but not exclusively secular narrative which affirms itself, not different in this respect from the Christian narrative which affirms its God.
You seem to agree, though, that the non-existence of God cannot be proved with certainty. Correct me if I'm wrong? We might be closer in agreement than it initially seemed.
You say humans probably cannot conceive or articulate the idea of something as immense as god. Yet they come out with statements like that as if they know something we don't. [...] I'm rusty on this bullshit but still remember enough.
I don't really disagree. It just isn't relevant to the debate topic, because that doesn't disprove the existence of the Christian God. It just says something about the average Christian.
Why should I believe that a perfect being would treat someone better than they deserve because that's what my Catholic upbringing hammered into us
I don't know that Catholicism necessarily represents Christianity at large and that conceptions of God's mercy are therefore limited to it. Perhaps this conception of mercy versus deserts is more consistent across the sects than I realize, though; I honestly don't know. But I still don't know that his disproves the God, since desert might capture not what it is most good to do in response but what is permissible to do.
A fairly decent human might not show mercy? That makes no sense to you?
No, not really. But I'm also a value nihilist so the ideas of decency, mercy, and justice all seem rather ridiculous to me. You still haven't explained, though, we should suppose a fairly decent person to show mercy... other than by appeal to the Catholic concept of mercy, which you seem to repudiate?
[...] The Atheists guide [...]
There are more kinds of faith in this world, Dermot, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Religious faith is only one kind of faith. Secular faith is just as real, and its adherents are just as devoutly ignorant when it comes to their most basic axiomatic "truths"... as logic, reason, science, family, morality, social welfare, etc.
Religion has never stood alone in fronting anything, and it rarely if ever was the initiating motive for the behavior it was used to justify. Sexism and slavery, for instance, were originally motivated by gains in social and economic capital and were heavily justified with appeals to economy, nation, morality, etc. as well. Had religion not existed, they would have got off the ground without it because the benefits were too great to those with power for them not to have. Religion has been a prevalent narrative alongside many other narratives, so to afford it such singular culpability not only assigns it more influence than it has had but obviates the need for critical reception of other non-religious narratives which share quite heavily in the culpability. But... that's how faith works, isn't it? Lay the blame anywhere but with the allegedly irreproachable beliefs one holds.
People absolutely have faith in car brakes, the sun rising, and waking up. Probability is not a proved thing, as Hume in particular argues very effectively. We take it as granted because it seems reliable, but reliability is neither proved nor proof of necessary causal connection. And if perceived reliability were truly sufficient for claiming knowledge, then religious faith can make the same claim insofar as its adherents find their beliefs reliable guides in their lives (which many do).
Well yes I can present it and have done so several times on this very site and my claim was I could demonstrate that as a Christian can ' logically ' state their god is good I can indeed demonstrate using the same steps that their god is evil .
Neither side will ever be able to prove their position is correct but each is equally valid .
I take the merit of logic on learned faith ? That statement made me smile ; faith is blind trust without evidence and even against the evidence . Faith is an absurdity and a weakness it does not require justification and does not broker argument .
Logic is the complete opposite of faith as it's reasoning according to strict principles of validity , I reject totally your comparison and no offence intended I think you're merely 'taking the piss ' as we say over here , if not apologies .
Yes I did say I cannot say 100 percent there is not a god but I say this in the same way that I would say that there are no multicoloured unicorns in existence .
The proof of existence surely must come from those who make the claim and it's logically fallacious asking someone to prove the non existence of something .
I can only know of the Christian god through the lens I was tutored in as in the Catholic tradition no others were relevant or meaningful to me when I was a believer ; isn't every believer the same as in his version is the correct one ?
Regards disproving god I think I've covered that .
I stated my Catholic upbringing taught me that god was merciful , I as a human being and an atheist could and would show mercy which has nothing to do with the Catholic concept of mercy and how it's dispensed .
As I've said I reject your definition of faith ; religion was used by early man to explain the unexplainable the first man who could claim that natural phenomena such as thunder , eclipses , hurricanes etc , etc were the works of a god had instantaneous power and control and so it continues.
Religion has been a cancer on societies and been responsible for appaling brutality and suffering all in the name of god or gods , most people come to god through the insidious practice of indoctrination; I honestly think in 100 years time a belief in a god will be seem as a mental illness .
Thanks for the exchange either way I've enjoyed it and you ask some very interesting questions
I still don't know what your argument about God's badness is, since I still don't know which logical proof of God's goodness you're referring to either. I trust that you've made it elsewhere, but I can't recall it so can't say much more on it if you don't want to repeat it here.
How do you know the soundness of logic, if not by learned faith?
It is fallacious to conclude that something exists if someone cannot prove it's non-existence, because that is taking the absence of evidence against the thing's existence as evidence of its existing. However, I'm less convinced that it's fallacious to expect someone to prove non-existence of a thing if they claim non-existence of a thing (as opposed to suspending belief). That seems like it constitutes a claim, even though it's content is negatory (i.e. -P is just as much a claim as P is).
I think you reject my application of faith more than the definition, but I'm not sure from what basis you do either really. Things we look on with disgust have been done in the name of ideology throughout human history, and that includes but is hardly limited to religious ideology. And generally speaking religion and ideology more broadly are the justifications rather than the motivations for such behavior. I'm not denying anything you've claimed about religion... I'm just taking it further to include all ideology.
Thanks for the exchange as well. I wrote responses as I went along so I just now gathered you might be trying to leave this discussion. Catch you elsewhere I imagine. Cheers...
My argument is the Evil God Challenge , indeed you made comment on the original argument
I first heard of this argument from Professor Stephen Law , this brief outline of the argument is from Patheos .
Imagine that, instead of the Judeo-Christian God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) there was an Evil God that was all-powerful, all-knowing, and totally evil. People who believe in this god are frequently asked by skeptics: “How can you believe in Evil God? Isn’t that hypothesis falsified by the existence of good in the world?”
“Nuh-uh” say the believers in Evil God. “We have plenty of explanations for the Problem of Good. For example…”
Evil God allows good to exist only so that greater evil may be achieved
Evil God likes evil best when we freely choose it, but allowing us free will means that some people may choose good
Evil God works in mysterious ways
Not every Judeo-Christian argument can be successfully transposed in this way, but Law doesn’t need to flip them all for his point to stand. If we think these are weak arguments when mustered by the proponents of Evil God, should we give them any more credence when mustered for actual religions?
This argument is equally valid as the good god argument thus making their position equally as absurd .
Again you're using that term 'faith ' and that dreadful expression learned by faith ; learning by faith means to open your heart up to the Holy Spirit and inviting his teaching .
Don't take my word for it see what others say about the statement learned by faith , not being a wise guy Jace but why do you keep using the term 'faith ' ?
If a god existed evidence for it could be discovered by investigators from different fields ; as such I think it perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence as being good enough to confidently state their is no god .
The burden of proof is always on the one making the affirmative claim , only last week on here I was asked to 'disprove ' the god I didn't believe in .
I reject your use of the term 'faith ' and am totally confused as to why you keep using it , maybe it's something lost in translation but it's a term I only ever hear the religious use over hear ; if one stated they had 'faith ' in their computer working they would be looked at with stunned incomprehension and possibly greeted by laughter .
Good point about religion and ideology the huge difference is that certain ideologys are looked upon in hindsight and critiqued for there appaling treatment of fellow humans and are totally rejected not so religion in fact it's embraced and encouraged .
Some of the nastiest acts of barbarity and cruelty have been carried out collectively by religions and so it continues .
I disagree when you state that religion is the justification rather than the motivation , surely the motivation comes directly from the spoken word as in what the preacher or Imam spouts from their lofty perch ?
I don't want to leave the discussion Jace I was merely taking time out for a bite to eat and a beer and I'm enjoying the exchange .
If I may could I ask you about your philosophy as in Nilhilism beacause so many people have different opinions as to what exactly nihilism is ?
My memory sucks; thanks for indulging me with the breakdown! I think the Evil God Challenge is good at addressing the class of arguments it targets; I'm less convinced it resolves the less anthropocentric concepts of morality which really center God as originator. But we don't have to get into that...
I'm not convinced that -P isn't an affirmative claim, because it is affirms the position that something is not true (rather than suspending belief about P).
I'm not sure someone would be met with incomprehension or laughter for saying they have faith in their computer. We say we have faith in all sorts of things other than deities, and its usage isn't limited to the theistic. But let's suppose you're right; I can at least acknowledge my use here isn't common. The reason I use it, though, is because I feel about all ideology and belief the way you do about religious ideology specifically. I find the ways 'faith' is used (almost pejoratively) to talk about religious beliefs parallels the ways I regard secular ideology as well. As an epistemic nihilist, I think all belief is taken on faith (i.e. without proof or certainty). If you prefer 'trust' or 'confidence' to 'faith', that's all the same to me... but I think it's somewhat telling of a desire for distinction that might be forcing conceptually distinctness where it isn't.
I don't believe knowledge can be known. Reason cannot be proved; it cannot be used to prove itself because of circularity and it cannot be proved outside itself because that would be unreasonable and thus invalid. Anything following from reason, as science and its observations, is transitively unproved. Evaluating theistic claims on the basis that they (seemingly) cannot be proved by reason or science necessarily presumes that reason and science are themselves sound, but that is taken on faith just as equally as theistic belief in deities. What follows from the original presumption of the soundness of reason looks substantively different than what follows from the original presumption of a deity, so when the former is used to evaluate the latter it of course makes the latter seem ridiculous. But the same could be said conversely.
Religious ideology has also been looked back upon and critiqued. It's not static; a certain degree of dynamism is necessary to persist through culture change. For instance, I don't think most contemporary Christians look back positively on things like the Inquisition, witch burning, etc.
Some of the nastiest acts of barbarity and cruelty have been carried out by nations. Even when those are theocracies (and they aren't always, or even often) they are still a confluence of other institutions ranging from the economic through the social and political. I'm genuinely confused how you single out religion for fault the way you are doing. For that to follow religion either has to be extremely isolated or exclusively powerful, and neither seems evident to me.
What motivates the words to be spoken in the first place? The motivations of religious figures aren't necessarily religious, and religion strongly interrelates with other social institutions... that's why theocracies like the Vatican and ISIS are possible in the first place. The Conquests were not about god, but economics and geographic expansion... in other words, power. The Inquisition was similarly about power. Slavery was about power. Marriage, power. Religion is just one instrument among many that can be used by people who have or want more power to secure their interests. Nationalism, populism, zenophobia, morality, etc. can all be used to equal effect... and they have been.
A bit more on what nihilism is to me... Epistemic nihilism as an expression of suspended belief in certainty. If you're familiar with the Justified True Belief standard of knowledge in western philosophy, I basically don't think we can know when we're justified in a belief so we can't know what we know. I'm also very sympathetic to existential and value nihilism; I don't believe that objective meaning or value exists. All meaning and value is imagined and projected from consciousness. Consequentially, I'm a moral relativist and egoist. I regard morality as a non-transparent attempt to coerce one another to complying with our respective interests, and that ethics is essentially about affecting the distribution of power (as with religion).
Less relevantly, mereological and soft metaphysical nihilism: I don't believe in an objective self, or any other objects but the smallest possible particles (and I don't hold to the existence of particles firmly either). I regard consciousness as a product of association between proximate particles which forms object concepts and imposes them onto other associated particles. Also political nihilism: I don't view institutions of state as necessary, although I think they may be desirable depending upon one's interests. In short, you might understand me as an extreme skeptic. But I don't take any of nihilism's observations as certain conclusions. To me, it's more a practice of maximizing suspension of active, strong belief than it is a position.
Glad you're still interested in the discussion, and that I misunderstood you there! I'm enjoying our exchange too. :)
Surely reason isn't about being a " proof " like some mathematical axiom . It's a method , a cognitive tool .
Reason it seems is an evolved response to the need to preserve physical and mental health .
Your post is very stimulating and I wish to give what you said regarding reason some further thought .
I single out religion Jace because the appaling behaviour and treatment of others still continues and is encouraged and supported , religion seem to get a special exemption when it comes to the ill treatment of others all because it makes very big claims for itself .
Religions by nature are regressive and divisive .
You say .. The motivations of religious figures aren't necessarily religious .... they certainly think they are going on my experiences in a so called holy Catholic country . One only has to look back to the times of the AIDS crisis especially in Africa where 1:7 million people died and the Pope at the time said the use of condoms was immoral thus causing untold suffering, the U N criticised the Vactican for its stance .
This is an example of religious figures being religious I can think of many more examples .
Thanks a lot for that excellent explanation of what Nihilism is to you , if you don't mind I may have one or two questions regarding Nihilism ; thanks again look forward to your reply
I don't see a notable difference between reason being a method and being a proof, the latter just being a form of method. More importantly, I suspect that the basis from which we suppose that evolution is a sound theory is reason... so appealing to it as proof of the soundness of reason is rather circular.
That religion engages in disgusting behavior is not in contest here, but it's uniqueness in that respect is. I don't see that you've shown religion to be especially more pernicious than things such as nations, political parties, economies, ideology broadly, morality, justice, etc. At that point, your singular focus on religion doesn't make sense even if your criticisms against it are sound.
Unless I know more about the experiences you're referring to, I can't really evaluate how accurately they get at motive (which would always be speculative at any case). With respect to the role of the Vatican in the AIDS epidemic in African nations, what makes you think that that decision was strictly religious in motive? Just because it is a religious organization, that does not prove its motives are actually religious. We easily imagine a politician whose interests are other than what they profess, so why is it so hard to imagine a theocrat in similar fashion? They are, after all, just politicians using a different narrative (and sometimes they're one and the same). Anti-conception in particular has been framed as a divisive socio-political issue that religious institutions use to manipulate their congregations to gain broader political influence; it is an easy, hot-button issue wrapped in dog whistle politics, economic interest, etc. You are also overlooking the considerable role of non-religious interests in creating the circumstance in the first place.
Feel free to ask anything you like about (my version of) nihilism. I enjoy talking about it, so I'll gladly answer.
My focus on religion is because it is unique in the sense that no matter how dreadful its behaviour the behaviour is supported and encouraged by its followers ; this leads into what I said about the AIDS epidemic in Africa ........
Pope Paul VI issued the Humanae vitae Encyclical Letter on the Regulation of Birth in 1968, which outlined opposition to "artificial birth control" on the basis that it would open a "wide and easy a road... towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality".[4] The AIDS epidemic emerged from the 1980s. In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI characterized condom use as not a "real or moral solution" to the spread of AIDS, but in the case of homosexual prostitution,[5] a potentially lesser-evil "first step" in the direction of moralization and responsibility, when used with "the intention of reducing the risk of infection". A 2014 report by The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the Church to "overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraceptives".[6]
Globally, well over thirty million people have died from HIV/AIDS. The Church's condom ban was largely ignored in industrialised countries, in which public awareness campaigns encouraged condom use.The church's stance against condoms has been blamedfor the prevalence of AIDS in Africa.
I don't think the Catholic Church had any hidden agenda regarding the AIDS crisis rather than religious ; they've always had strong views about contraception only softening attitudes in recent times .
I will have a question or two about Nihilism thank you
That's not at all unique to religion. People have justified all sorts of things with non-religious ideology that others would consider dreadful. The very function of ideology is to affect power dynamics to favor one's interests, and what is dreadful is wholly contingent upon one's ideology. There's no reason to even suppose that religious ideology would exist uniquely in the way you claim it does.
I'm fairly informed on the relationship of the Vatican with the AIDS epidemic in African nations, and I'm not contesting its effects at all so you don't need to keep arguing them. But, again, professed motives are not necessarily the actual or exclusive motives. The Vatican's leadership need not actually believe in conjugal fidelity as a matter of religious faith in order to profess it as such. As a religious institution it has to profess something, though, and the complex socio-political environments it developed in determined that in this case that something would be an opposition to birth control. Even if held with sincere and exclusive religious conviction, it isn't really sensible to suppose those beliefs were acquired in a religious vacuum immune to non-religious influence. The economy, politic, and so forth that religious organizations exist within heavily inform their practices and professions as well as the beliefs and convictions of its leaders.
To fault religion so singularly seems in error, but it also means that other institutions which bear culpability escape criticism. For instance, the pursuit of economic and political interests by the developed Western nations is significantly responsible for many nations in Africa having been vulnerable to the Vatican's professions against birth control in the first place. If not for the complex of economic and political motivations, and the ideologies used to legitimate colonialism, military intervention, etc. the conditions that produced the consequences you talked about would not have existed and the Vatican's proclamations would have had an affect comparable to what was observed in industrialized nations.
Would I be correct in saying in your view , nobody is objectively right or wrong?
Yeah, sort of. As a pragmatist I do operationalize the belief that nobody is objectively right or wrong, but I wouldn't say it's certain that no one is objectively right or wrong. I'd say there's no reason to suppose that anyone is, and that absent any basis to suppose it it's both practical and reasonable to disbelieve it. Let me know if that distinction is confusing.
Can there be any kind of moral discourse... Why argue about something that is relative?
Sure it can. If morality is understand to be relative to individuals, then the discourse becomes about understanding and negotiating the interests and values that morality represents for us. It still represents an opportunity to influence others' values through other mutually shared values, and can also be very helpful for better understanding one's one values and how to realize them.
Is 'moral progress ' impossible ?
Yes. That's down to the concept of progress itself being untenable. Moral progression is another matter, though; since moral preferences tend to influence and inform one another a progression could be observed (and is, I suspect, commonly confused for progress).
You have possibly answered these questions several times before , if so apologies
Ha, I have. But discussing the ideas with different people brings the ideas out differently in my experience, and it's good practice for learning to communicate the concepts better too. Far from minding, I appreciate your asking! :)
Why does perfection mean having no interests or motives, particularly on the Christian account? And is there a discrepancy between human conception of perfection and what perfection actually is?
God is morally perfect because laws of morality were made for his creation.
He can do as he pleases and it is just perfect.
God is perfect in talent/abilities/omnipotence because his creations are limited in all their abilities. Any ability man posses, he can do multiple times than that and that is the highest standard/bar no one else rises above.
Ex. If the whole world's talent sumed up could be measured in monetary value as $1000, he alone can do $9000000+. Compare to individual creations and he is omnipotent.
That is the logic.
The witless always try to make God subject to the moral laws made only for creation .....
If supernatural beings are exempt from morality then how do you know whether or not you are actually worshipping the devil in disguise? The bible God killed over a million people in the old testament and the devil only killed 11. The devil is supposed to be the lord of lies then what if he switched places with God in the book? The biblical God cundones slavery, child abuse, child molestation, genocide, murder, racism, homophobia, spousal abuse, and rape.
Your arguments are devoid of evidence.
You are not at the level required to be apart of a debate.
God is perfect in talent/abilities/omnipotence because his creations are limited in all their abilities. Any ability man posses, he can do multiple times than that and that is the highest standard/bar no one else rises above..
Hang on a minute. If God's creations are "limited in all their abilities" (i.e. not perfect), then how can God be perfect? If God were perfect then all his creations would also necessarily be perfect.
According to my story of creation, God made man in his own image. Man had a glorious body and limited to nothing; ability or desire. And like in every civilised society there is a law. "Thou shalt not eat from that tree".........
For their own good.
Now lost.
(Like you warn a child not to drink from a science lab.).
Or you think it is impossible for a human to glow? firefly, glow worm...
You think fast speed is impossible? what is faster than light?
Have you ever done something over your normal human ability in a time of danger? that you tried afterwards the danger time and failed?
A friend of mine jumped a huge gutter when being chased by a cow when he was 14. The gutter is supposed to have a brigde. He is 18 now and he can't jump a quater of it plus he is a short guy.
I don't wanna mention mine or you may say i am crazy, was hallucinating or just lying.
I believe used to be adam and eve's daily normal ability until lost.
Just like some people after being crippled in an accident, in a situation of anger or danger, are able to get up at once without thinking until they realise. They may try again consciously afterwards and will fail.
I heard people with cut legs sometimes have a sensation or feeling of still having installed legs.
There is always evidence of an ability you used to have beyond the normal senses.
According to my story of creation, God made man in his own image.
Yeah, but your same bullshit story says God is perfect and man isn't. It is one big stinking contradiction of itself. A person has to have mental health problems in order to believe it. That might seem rude, but the cold reality is that if you believe things which contradict themselves then you have mental health problems.
I am a Christian however I believe in proof and surely if there was a God we would all be certain about it because he would present himself in an obvious way. I am open minded however I feel that a story that has been passed down generations that may or may not be true isn't worth wasting life over. We only discovered that the earth wasn't flat in the 20th century, we are always discovering new things.
I am open minded however I feel that a story that has been passed down generations that may or may not be true isn't worth wasting life over. We only discovered that the earth wasn't flat in the 20th century, we are always discovering new things.
Well you're one of the most sensible Christians I've ever spoken to, that's for sure.
There is one man made secular humanistic religion that influences billions of mindless sheeppeople.
These sheeples follow their secular political correct evolutionary God to the brink of financial and moral collapse and the world blindly falls in line. They have no moral foundation to hold on to.
Any person (who is not a God hating bigot) with the least of intellect sees what is happening to our culture as we separate God.
Spare me the bigoted nonsense of painting Christians with the same brush as the many man made hate filled religions.
This is what man is capable of when left to his own desires. The slippery slope of depravity.
Without a faith in God, a nation has no moral framework with which to guide it's laws.
The morals of man changes with the times as we see with NO RESTRICTION abortions, so called Transgender boys being allowed into our Daughter's bathrooms in public schools, Leftwing support for so called Pedophile right's, taking away our right to protection with conceiled hand guns, etc., forcing tax payers to pay for abortions through State medicaid, displaying the severed head of our President on the walls of Liberal Public funded Colleges, illegal immigration allowed, tax payer funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood dealing in the barbaric abortion trade, unbelievable debt spending taking our nation to the brink of bankrupcy, fathers and mothers abandoning their children leaving them for tax payers to support, people choosing to live together for years rather than making a commitment to each other and their children, etc. etc.
It's the self love me me generation that find's new ways each year to fall even further into the gutter.
As America separates our Christian heritage, it separates the very moral values that made us the greatest nation on Earth.
Ahteists once possessed the simple common sense to recognise the importance of our Christian faith, even though they themselves did not believe.
With all the so called enlightened progress in this nation, we are running full speed into a fiscal and moral collapse.
Men will never agree on whose moral values we should try to emulate, so therefore we no longer lift up the importance of any moral values.
I just got done explaining that you do believe in the invisibe magically appearing first living cell. You blindly follow what the evolutionary Godless bigots want you to believe.
