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.
Thank you for your support. I promise to prove that I can be successful. I will start with why I believe in God. You will thing that this is crazy, but it makes sense to believe in God. I would believe in God even if I had never seen the Bible or been to church because it makes sense. Wait! Before you judge please let me explain. I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God. Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it. God is the reason that everything was created. Without God there would be nothing. Think about it. My questions to atheists: What or who cause the Big Bang? Where did the Universe come from? What is the Universe made out of? Who made that stuff? My answer? God.
As far as I can tell you are suggesting Yahweh is the only possible answer and so therefor it must be the answer. Well this is a fool's approach. If you don't know then I don't know is the only real valid answer.
I don't know is not the good of an argument, no offense. Something had to cause the Big Bang, the Universe had to come from somewhere, the Universe was made out of something, and someone made that stuff. Don't you agree?
I don't know is not the good of an argument, no offense.
On the contrary, if you don't actually know the answer, then "I don't know" is the most honest answer you can give. You can speculate, you can postulate, but to say that you know the answer when all you have is a possible answer to the question is not honest.
Further, if the answer is unattainable at the moment, the good investigator will wait until a time when it IS possible to answer the question. They won't name a possibility and call it the truth unless they KNOW it is true.
Something had to cause the Big Bang.... the Universe had to come from somewhere
There are potential answers to that question besides God. None of the potential answers are known to be fact, but several are falsifiable. God, as is commonly defined by Christians, is not falsifiable.
the Universe was made out of something
Energy
someone made that stuff.
Why? There is so much stuff in the world that is made without the involvement of a personality, that it is more likely that any random thing you could produce from any random point in the world was the product of cause-and-effect than of intelligent purpose.
Proof? Even accepting that, what makes that think god?
someone made that stuff
That is hypocritical. First you stated that something cannot come from nothing, therefore god must have put it there. Now you are saying an entire universe can come from nothing because god has special powers that weren't applicable before. You are changing the givens of your arguments, so this is essentially straw man logical fallacy.
I don't know is not an argument, it s a fact. I agree is someway these things were causes, but jumping to the conclusion it is a god is silly with no evidence.
There may very well be another element to our universe in which some event happened that created our universe like a raindrop hitting the surface of a pond and our universe is the ripple, but we don't know.
Sorry, the scientist in me can't resist answering your questions.
What or who cause the Big Bang?
Well, we don't know, but we have two very plausible candidates: Quantum loop gravity, and M-theory. There could also be multiverse theory, but I prefer the first two.
Where did the Universe come from?
The Big Bang, a mass expansion from a singularity. Or so it is accepted, although I do like the idea of string theory.
What is the Universe made out of?
Oh crikey, I need to remember now... about 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, 4% baryonic matter (atoms, molecules, what have you), and 1% everything else.
Who made that stuff?
"Who?" implies a sentient being, which may not be true. We can but guess, really. Matter is just energy, that gives the "illusion" (hate that term, but it's the best way of describing it) of having a physical state. As for the energy, we're working on it. The problem is that the deeper you go, the less you can know. But if you look up the elkpyrotic universe, we can guess an answer.
I don't disagree with the part you said about something, though not the Christian, creating everything, like the big bang and evolution, but I do not agree with the Christian God at all. What proof do you have for YOUR God?
You are wrong. I have every reason to believe in God. God is my very best Friend. I can trust Him. I love Him. He is the reason that is continue to live on this earth. I will not turn my back on Him.
But if he doesn't exist, then he can't be a friend and he can't love. Until now, you haven't proven him to exist. Therefore, by logical deduction, you have no reason to believe God is a friend and you don't have any reason to say that he can love anyone as well.
God is my very best Friend. I can trust Him. I love Him. He is the reason that is continue to live on this earth. I will not turn my back on Him.
Now can you imagine, just for a moment, how much better this world would be if people like you had that kind of attitude towards other people?
How arrogant is this view, that the creator of the Universe, the designer of DNA, the engineer of galaxies, the master of maths and physics, should want to be your best friend. We are insignificant specks of dust in the vastness of this universe. Now imagine, rather than pretending that we are loved by the designer of the universe, that we acknowledge that we are small, and this universe can be dark and lonely and unpleasant, and work to make it a better place - by loving each other, not some imaginary friend.
Just because I cannot prove it, does not mean that He does not exist.
You are right. It only means there is no logical reason to believe he exists. Nor is there a logical reason to believe the bible, creationism, the story of jesus, noah's ark, adam and eve, moses and the red sea, the seven plagues, jesus's resurrection, etc.
So you admitted there is no proof of your god (either empirical or logical), yet you state his existence as "100%" true. That is as illogical a statement as I have ever seen.
You don't know that, and you're not even trying. The problem here is that you don't debate, you just roll over and let us overshadow your opinions. We WANT you to argue back and TRY to convince us that we are wrong.
You appear to make promises lightly. Since you are promising to prove something, I am wondering how you became so sure your arguments would be convincing, and who you are so sure they would be convincing to. Perhaps you REALLY meant that you would try your best.
I will start with why I believe in God. You will thing that this is crazy, but it makes sense to believe in God.
So the reason why you believe in god is because it makes sense to believe in god. There are people who kill their children because it made sense to them to do so, thinking that they would be sending them to a better place where they could be closer to god. Do you think that you are immune to misunderstanding?
I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God.
If you believe that there was never a time when god didn't exist, then you believe that god is uncaused. If god can be uncaused, then why can't you think of reality itself as being uncaused? ie having always existed.
Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it.
Yeah, I've heard that. Why do you believe that god always existed?
God is the reason that everything was created.
How did you learn that?
Without God there would be nothing.
That's what you illogically suppose. But why you think that's true is what's interesting to me.
Think about it.
Ok I thought about it and it doesn't make sense. (to me)
My questions to atheists: What or who cause the Big Bang?
No one can say with certainty. Truthful people speak with humility because they understand their beliefs and theories might be wrong.
Where did the Universe come from?
I suppose it always was. Kind of how you view god as having always been.
Where did the Universe come from?
The universe is a much more logical "where" than god is. I don't think the universe "came from" anywhere because the universe IS the greatest where.
Where did god come from? Where did god hang out before he created the universe?
What is the Universe made out of?
I'm as stumped as I suspect you would be if I asked you what god is made out of.
Who made that stuff?
I would presume it wasn't made but always was.
My answer? God.
So the difference between you and I is that you suppose a WHO (god) to have always been in existence and I suppose that a where (the universe) has always been. Both of us are admitting an uncaused.
You do not have to believe me. I will prove to you that I can be good. Just watch. As to your claims, which one do you want me to address first? I do not know how to use the quote feature.
I have no doubt that you can be good. How about proving to me that you are willing to engage in in depth conversation. That would be neat.
Just watch.
I don't think you are bad or stupid or anything like that. You already get mad credit from me just for being willing to stand up for what you believe is good.
As to your claims, which one do you want me to address first?
How about answering each and every question I asked you just like I did. Being respectful is good. You must have wanted to be politely and thoughfully challenged. I desire the same thing so I am doing unto you like I would like done to me. :) Does that make me a bit Christian at least?
I do not know how to use the quote feature.
If there is text that you want to be in bold put two (2) asterisks on each end. That would make for a total of four (4) asterisks for each quote you want to make boldface.
Nice to meet you Ismaila
BTW I would be honored to wait for a response that's not rushed.
I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God.
That is a circular argument. Creation implies God. To state that creation implies God translates as "creation ergo creation", which is entirely unsupported.
Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it.
Cause and effect is an acceptable axiom. However, it gives no indication as to the identity of the cause for any effect, and therefore cannot be used as a logical step in proving that a God created this universe. You can safely conclude, however, that "some cause, or diverse causes, resulted in this universe as we may imperfectly perceive it, or at least impelled it to its current configuration".
God is the reason that everything was created.
Again, circular logic.
Without God there would be nothing.
That is not a reasonable axiom. It is simply a corollary of your unfounded premise that your God exists.
Think about it.
If you will excuse the pun, I recommend that you practise as you preach.
What or who cause the Big Bang?
Concentration beyond a certain limit necessitates expansion.
Where did the Universe come from?
the universe comprising existence, it cannot have come from anywhere; for, any origin would have to be without the universe, and therefore not an element of the set "existence".
What is the Universe made out of?
In all probability, something too small to be detected with anything that we are capable of using as an instrument. But the question is irrelevant. An inability to answer that particular question does not overturn the entire system of logic that has taken thousands of years to distil into its current form, and of which your supposedly logical argument has managed to defy almost every rule.
Something which had not evolved fully into what we call today a "chicken" had an egg with the precise makup of what today we call a "chicken" therefore we know for an absolute fact that the egg did necessarily come before the chicken.
If you are talking about eggs or those things which lay eggs in general and not a specific animal--things first reproduced by splitting, eggs were a later evolutionary addition to any species which lays them.
God created matter. Only panentheists think that the Universe, which is made up of matter is a part of God, or the pantheists think that the Universe, which is made up of matter is God, but I, as a Christian, am a monotheist, so I do not think that the Universe , which is made up of matter, is a part of God or is God. I think that these things were created by God instead of being eternal.
... so your answer is "only a specifc group believe something therefore it must not be?"
If you understand that it is possible for yourself to not believe in someone else's definition of god whilst providing no proof why they are wrong, why do you demand proof from those who do not believe in your specific god?
And here's where I'd generally go into a rant about the logical and cerebral bankruptcy of Christianity as a general religion even when compared to other myths, but you've had quite enough from this debate it looks like.
Then that pulls us back to our previous question: Who created God?
But then we realize how circular this argument is as you will reply with "he always existed." Then I would say- God is too intricate to just exist, then you will say the universe is to intricate to just exist.
I'm sorry but it's a circular argument that will not end until undeniable proof is provided, so you can go on believing what you believe and I will keep on believing what I believe.
But the thing is- just because we can't fully 100% disprove the existence of a God right at this time, we could still at least try to disprove most man-made religions (Aka cults) that brain wash people's minds every day. We do this by searching for contradictions and problems in their holy scriptures, providing theories, facts, disproving claims that religion bears against science, (How humans came into existence) etc, etc.
Unfortunately for you, Christianity falls under the category of "monotheism". In order to maintain your view that Christianity is true, you have to do a few things:
1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
2. Prove that all other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism, etc.) is illogical to believe.
3. Prove that all other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam) are illogical to believe.
Until and unless you can do all three, your position is fallacious.
Essentially, if you take away the god related part of your arguments, then they still make sense, thus God being the creator is not a necessary part of your argument.
"who made those particles that the Universe is made out of?"
Existence and non-existence is a continuum, we think of reality in terms of creator and created, in terms of cause and effect, we think of a beginning having an end, and an end having a beginning, but this may not be the correct way to interpret it.
Really? I'm harrassing you? Last time I checked, you are the one rebutting every comment that I make about you, even the one that I posted on the "Atheists" side of this debate. You have a choice to respond don't you?
So what if it's the "Ismaila God Debate"? The moderator and creator of this debate, Apollo, invited me to debate. Still, you are the one choosing to respond to me. You can just ignore me. Instead, you choose time and time again to stir the pot.
And what makes you think that I should be afraid of you? You have nothing to threaten me with. The best you can come up with against a much more well read and intelligent person is "fuck off", "leave me alone", "deal with it" or "you are wrong". You obviously can't debate. You have zero knowledge of philosophy. You aren't even a good Christian! In fact, looking at some of the things you've said, I wonder if you are even a Christian!
What you just said sums up pretty entirely what she does on this site. She posts these horrible arguments, and if you dispute her she accuses you of attacking her and says it’s none of your business even though this is a debate site, and says you are wrong, brushing aside all your evidence no matter how relevant, even though she gives no proof for her argument and doesn’t even debate her point. And once she says something nothing will show her she is wrong even when it is 100% evident that she is, and when she is out of excuses she resorts to profanity, ad hominems and says "leave me alone or ill report you." And she says you are stalking her if you debate her more than once. But every single time i say something related to her even in the least, she mystically finds it and addresses it. And if multiple people see her ignorance and try to address it, she says that all of them are in a group whose goal is to bring her down. Also if you see her acting entirely unreasonable to another debater, and she is cursing and accusing them, then you try to defend the person, without any hostility towards her, she starts attacking you and says that you are only defending them because you’re “friends”, even if you’ve never even met them, you don’t agree with their perspectives and aren’t even their allies. (this is also bulverism)
She is one of the most vulgar and crude of human beings. She has no intelligence whatever. What she does best is to stir the pot and then when others rebut her and try to get her to justify her views, she tells them to "fuck off" and claims that others are harassing her. All this while, she is completely oblivious to the fact that she's guilty of everything that she's accusing the others of.
She seriously needs to get banned of this entire site. Her lack of intelligence is literally astounding. I dont know why she made an account on a debate site when she doesnt even know how to debate.
You know what? Some of us should probably do what she said and try to get her off this site. She's completely unintelligent and has no clue how to debate.
"Everything Happens for a reason" - is called teleological thinking. it is the projection of the human capacity for intention and purposeful action into the ontological. There is no good reason to think that things happen for a reason unless you assume that there is a reason why things happen. make sure you dont assume the conclusion in reasoning about what you believe to be true.
If we take observational data to their logical conclusions, time and space were not properties of existence prior to the event we call the big bang. all thoughts on an innitial even causing the Big Bang is called cosmogonical thinking, thinking about a process which existed prior to the emergence of the cosmos. Nearly all cosmogonical arguments are conjecture and can never have any basis in observation, this is why reason based thinking is and always will be skeptical of any cosmogonical theory (and by theory i dont mean it in the scientific sense - theory in this sense is the more banal common use).
Where did the Universe come from? this question assumes that there needed to be a non-contemporary originating force, however the originating place/or being needed an origin as well and thus all arguments for a devine mover are faulty insofar as they are infinite regressions.
What is the Universe made out of? Current particle physics suggests that there was matter and antimatter and prior to the formation of atoms some process resulted in asymetric anihilation ("barionic asymetry") after that point quarks and gluons existed in a plasma-like state, eventually condensing into subatomic particles and then atoms (all this happened in the first few seconds of the universe). This process also formed the first elements - Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium. for roughly 500 million - 1 billion years these elements floated around eventually accreating (via gravity and the weak nuclear force) into the first stars. Jump to the present and we now have the distribution of elements which from stars burning (fusion reactions) and supernovas came to be as they are (nucleosynthesis). Ask me to specify if you need details.
Who made that stuff? - This question asumes that there needed to be a creator which as I stated above results in an infinite regression into the thing that caused the thing that caused, etc...
My answer? God - I respect your right to believe what you want to but cant respect the belief because it brings so much more to the table than just some entity. There are way too many attributes associated with the concept of any god which are both not reasonable and are not knowable insofar as god cannot be part of our awareness (otherwise the existence of god would be emperically verified). God is properly understood as a memic construct of our psychological predispositions and the socio-anthropolical setting of our ancestors. We often come up with ways of understanding our world that are not real - even the idea of hot and cold. in the actual universe there is no such phenomenon as cold. cold is the absense of heat - 'cold' is a meme that has meaning to us but is not in truth about the nature of existence so much as how we relate to existence. The same is true with light and dark - dark is actually the absense of light. It makes perfect sense to me that god is an amalgam construct of our existential curiosity combined with all the assumptions that are implied (assumptions which were never and are never necessary to make) - Thus, I believe it is wrong to assent to the existence of god as an actually occuring thing, even though there is meaning to the concept in the subjectively based human condition.
God created man in his own image, and so we we were given the right to choose. Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil, However, there will come a time, when the Almighty God has had enough, and Satan will be cast out, and peace will rein for a 1000 years. As stated in the last book of the bible. Which has proven to be the most accurate history book
Further, as I ponder,the question of God, I can not imagine not believing in God. To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge. Knowledge, is like space. It is never ending, and to illustrate this point, I will ask you to agree that a simple math problem and its answer represents a very small piece of the body of knowledge. 1+1 = 2 , 2+1 =3, 3 + 1 =4 Do you see the pattern that states you can always add 1 more and so, the body of knowledge is without an end. However, if you seek the source of knowledge, you will find GOD
Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil
Very easily countered though. Natural evil exists, and that is through no fault of our own. So the problem still stands.
However, there will come a time, when the Almighty God has had enough
Sounds omnibenevolent to me...
As stated in the last book of the bible. Which has proven to be the most accurate history book
Excuse me whilst I burst out laughing. What proof is this? Can I see it? Revelations is the insane ramblings of mad men, nothing accurate whatsoever.
To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge.
No it isn't. You're confused between believing something, and knowing something. I believe there is no God, but I don't know it.
However, if you seek the source of knowledge, you will find GOD
No. The source of all knowledge is your thoughts. God is an anthropomorphism, to me anyway.
none of your points motivate reason or logic, it is all predicated on dogmatic self fulfilling nonsense. Try to motivate with reasoned arguments that relate to independently meaningful ideas (i.e. ideas that have meaning independent of the assumption of god - the meaning of ideas cannot be based on assuming the conclusion, one cannot assume god to prove god). you might as well have said that you believe because you believe - or - that god is real because the bible says so and the bible is true because it is the written word of god.
The notion that an omnibenevolent god that would have a point in time at which the suffering had reached a certain arbitrary threshold and he then decides to end suffering, is a poor understanding of what omnibenevolence means.
Consider the following quote - "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~ Epicurus
The notion of "never ending space" is not based on observation. Your understanding of space is religiously based and is metaphysical nonsense. Emperical research into the behavior of galaxies and the expansion of the universe, and the significance of time suggest very different conclusions. Modern cosmology has reached the understanding that neither space nor time existed prior to the big bang, this truth, however odd, allows for the possibility of spontaneous emergence in a cosmic potentiality, especially given what we understand about the quantum mechanical probabilities relating to time and causality.
Denying the existence of god in no way equates to the statement that one has perfect knowledge. It is perfectly fine to deny the existence of god and adopt a scientifically supported notion of knowledge - that of informational entropy. This idea equates with (or is compatible with) the Blank Slate hypothesis that information starts at ~0 and is accumulated and then lost over time by death, parcimonious processes in brain function, or neurological degradation. Information can be accumulated in greater and greater quantities as data storage sources (books, computers, hard drives, etc...) but information in the mind is always limited and can only be accumulated by accessing data storage sources - Thus the importance of education, life long learning, critical thinking, and reading. Your conception of knowledge is purely metaphysical, not based at all in reality. Your expressed notion of knowledge is the metaphysical - theoretically knowable - which in no way equates to actual knowledge. There is also no need to perfect knowledge - perfect knowledge was a notion attributed to the devine to motivate metaphysical inclinations that favor the intellectual assent to the existence of the devine. (assuming an atribute of a devine to motivate or prove the existence of the devine [essentially assuming god to prove god (meaningless)])
God created man in his own image, and so we we were given the right to choose.
This is an unjustified assertion.
Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil
But you are then agreeing with the Problem of Evil! If God does not want to rid the world of evil and suffering, then he is not omnibenevolent. If he is not omnibenevolent, then the Christian God doesn't exist.
Which has proven to be the most accurate history book
Another unjustified assertion.
To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge.
But to say that there is a God is also to say that you possess all knowledge as well! We can both play this game, but such a disgraceful attempt at an ad hominem attack is laughable.
1+1 = 2 , 2+1 =3, 3 + 1 =4 Do you see the pattern that states you can always add 1 more and so, the body of knowledge is without an end.
Are you saying that an actual infinity exists? I can give you both mathematical and philosophical arguments to the contrary.
Along with that right, comes taking responsibility
I love phrases like this. It reminds me of a joke I once made about Henry Ford (one of my idols, incidentally) and democracy. "You can vote for anybody you please, so long as it's me".
Haha. Some like to sprinkle phrases like these to make themselves seem more credible. Oh well, they're just setting themselves up for a fall. Incidentally, Henry Ford is one of my idols too.
Ismaila is a Christian and she believes in the Judeo-Christian God. But that's all there is to it. She believes that God exists, but she doesn't know. In order to win this debate, Ismaila first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Atheists would recognise this as Russell's famous Celestial Teapot Argument. But let me ask, "What does it actually mean to 'bear the burden of proof'?" Since Ismaila is a Christian and Christianity is a form of monotheism, in order to bear the burden of proof, she needs to:
1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).
3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).
Until and unless she can do this, we must accept that the atheist position is the more rational position.
However, I am not going to stop here. Let me briefly present two arguments that make atheism seem to be the more plausible position vis-a-vis Christianity.
First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:
1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).
2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.
3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.
4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.
5. Evil and suffering exists.
Ergo,
6. God does not exist.
Next is the evidential form of the Problem of Evil:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.
As I have said. You need to bear the burden of proof. All you have done as of now is to assert without any justification. Furthermore, you haven't responded to my arguments at all.
Can you prove Allah as described by the Qur'an is not the true god? Can you prove I'm not a flying centaur that breathes fire? Therefore It's reasonable to assume that I am. Well, not quite...
Even though the burdern of proof is on you, your beliefs have still been proven wrong by Reventon; in the same way that a square circle cannot exist, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god (Such as the Judeo-Christian god) can not exist.
Well, Obama is a butt pirate, he has no experience and it shows, he's racist, his wife hates America, he hates Israel, he insults our allies and apologizes to our enemies, he's spending the country into bankruptcy, he doesn't have a clue how to fix the economy, he's declared war on religion, he's a hypocrite and a Chicago thug!
12 years teaching constitutional law, working at a law firm, being a united states senator, being the god damn president for over three years...that's a hell of a lot of experience.
it shows
Where? In the economy? HA!
he's racist, his wife hates America, he hates Israel, he insults our allies and apologizes to our enemies
Jesus! How many hours of Fox News do you listen to!?
he's spending the country into bankruptcy
This shows your ignorance to the facts.
Obama has spent about $350 billion in non-reccesion new spending (and that is the total for the next 8 years combined!). He is a small government (fewer public sector workers) who has spent almost nothing. The debt has gone up because of Bush's unsustainable policies.
12 years teaching constitutional law, working at a law firm, being a united states senator, being the god damn president for over three years...that's a hell of a lot of experience.
He had no experience at governing, leading or managing anything at the time he became POTUS.
Where? In the economy? HA!
Just about everywhere.
Jesus! How many hours of Fox News do you listen to!?
Very little and obviously you watch none because FOX does not report Obama to be racist.
This shows your ignorance to the facts.
No, if you don't think this country can go bankrupt then that shows your ignorance.
Obama has spent about $350 billion in non-reccesion new spending (and that is the total for the next 8 years combined!). He is a small government (fewer public sector workers) who has spent almost nothing. The debt has gone up because of Bush's unsustainable policies.
Bwhahahaha!
Really? Then why is it recovering so beautifully?
beautifully LMAO, Three years later? Save it, the blame Bush stuff is old.
he's a hypocrite
How so?
He said in 08 that he would accept public financing for his campaign... he didn't, I guess was more like a lie. He is against Super PACs but will use his, hypocrite.
If that's not racism, I don't know what is.
Since when did Chicago Thug become a race?
Now, go ahead and call me a racist like all the other rabid Obamabots so we can get this over with because to be honest with you, it's boring.
He had no experience at governing, leading or managing anything at the time he became POTUS.
So you are arguing about was about what Obama WAS, not what he IS. Now that he has a solid record, you have to make up shit or talk about what he was years ago.
Just about everywhere.
Any examples?
you watch none because FOX does not report Obama to be racist.
No, if you don't think this country can go bankrupt then that shows your ignorance.
You said Obama is bankrupting this country. And actually, no, we can't go bankrupt.
Bwhahahaha!
What an intelligent response. Either dispute my argument or admit you are wrong.
the blame Bush stuff is old.
Where did I even mention the word Bush in that sentence? And do you really want to argue we aren't recovering? I will blow holes in that argument all day.
He said in 08 that he would accept public financing for his campaign... he didn't
Wow. You really had to dig at the bottom of the barrel for that one, huh?
rabid Obamabots
That is original, I will give you that, Hadn't heard that deeming name before. If there is one thing republicans are good at (and I really had to think to come up with one), it is finding ways to demean and insult our president.
I'm not Republican and Obama is a public figure... do you think Democrats didn't demean and insult Bush? Give me a break! Are you against insulting people because you insulted me first... I guess that would make you a hypocrite like your Messiah Barry!
"you think Democrats didn't demean and insult Bush"
Bush waged an illegal war against a sovereign country that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of inncent civilians, he deserves a hell of lot more than insults.
Isreal has in place a racist apartheid regime that refuses to abide by international law, and Obama doe not hate Isreal, he has treated Isreal exactly the same as all the other puppets that came before him, you're confusing his dislike for the mass murdering war criminal Netanyahu as dislike for the country he govern's.
Like the overheard conversation between Obama and Sarkozy, how did that go again, something like:
Sarkozy:I can't stand him, he's (Netanyahu) a pathological liar.
Obama:You think you've got it bad, I have to deal with him everyday.
Yes Gary, i know, you hate Israel, the little Satan, but Obama hasn't treated them the same as all the others... he's on record as saying Palestine should be a contiguous state for example... have you seen a map of the area? How can Gaza and the West Bank be connected without wiping half of Israel off the map? Now, I know you'd be fine with that but that's not the point. The point is that Barry has treated Israel differently.
Now, I'm not really in the mood for a back and forth with you today as we've already been through this same stuff many times and I haven't had a thing to drink. (yet) ;)
I came across this argument called the Problem of Worship by Professor Scott F. Aikin, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. It's a bit complicated and has about 10 premises, so bear with me. Now, it must be noted that many people don't realise that there are actually three characteristics of theism. What this means is that to be considered a theist, one must believe that:
1. God exists.
2. God is maximally great (i.e. has all the relevant omni- attributes) and;
3. Humans are obligated to worship God.
Thus, it is rather uncontroversial for a theist, or monotheist (such as a Christian) to be specific, to have to believe in the above three statements. In other words, theists must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above three statements are true. To defend Christianity, they must further defend the contentions that (1) monotheism is true and (2) the Christian conception of God is true.
Once we have established this, then we can go straight into Prof. Aikin's argument. The notes added in parentheses are my own.
Aikin's Problem of Worship argument:
1. If the Christian God (henceforth referred to as "God") exists, then He is the proper Object of worship.
2. For any object X, if X is the proper Object of worship, then all rational moral agents (i.e. those capable of worship) are either:
a. obliged to worship X, or
b. if they worship already, are obliged to worship X only.
3. For any rational moral agent A, if A worships X, A's worship of X is the joint performance of three acts:
a. A is unconditionally obedient to X and to the demands that X's existence and properties placed on A.
b. A views X as absolutely worthy of worship, and
c. A performs rituals or communicative acts expressing 3(a) and (b), as described above.
4. Unconditional submission to any authority contravenes the requirements of rational moral agency.
5. If A is obliged to view X as worthy of worship, then A must have to see some property that makes X worthy of deference and worship (call this property W).
6. If A has no reason to see property W of X as making X worthy of worship, then A is obliged not to worship X.
7. If A has reason to see property W of X as making X worthy of worship, then there at least is one property that makes X worthy of worship.
(Note: What this means is that even if it is a fact that such properties are good reasons to want to worship, it doesn't mean that such a being ought to be worshipped. In other words, the property must necessarily be a good reason for X to be worshipped.)
8. There are no properties W sufficient to make any X possessing them worthy of worship.
(Note: I defend this premise by referring to the Problem of Evil, both logical and evidential.)
Ergo,
9. There are no W-properties any A may reasonably see as making any X worthy of worship. (From (7) and (8).)
Ergo,
10. A is not obliged to hold any object to be worthy of worship. (From (6) and (9).)
Ergo,
11. A is obliged not to hold any object to be worthy of worship. (From (7) and (9).)
12. Rational moral agents are obliged not to engage in communicative acts promoting the contravention of moral agency or commitments to views with no rational grounds.
Ergo,
13. Rational moral agents are obliged not to worship any entity. (From (3), (4), (11) and (12).)
Ergo,
14. There are not proper Objects of worship. (From (2) and (15).)
Ergo,
15. God does not exist. (From (1) and (14).)
This argument is powerful because the theist and Christian not only has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) God exists, (2) only monotheism is true and (3) only their conception of monotheism is true, they also have to disprove the two forms of the Problem of Evil argument in other to even get close to proving beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is rational to believe. If they can't do this, and I'm challenging Ismaila to do so, then we must accept that atheism is the more logical position.
A is unconditionally obedient to X and to the demands that X's existence and properties placed on A.
Not all religions require submission of will to God. In fact, it's really only Christianity and Islam that require this,
b. A views X as absolutely worthy of worship
This I can accept.
c. A performs rituals or communicative acts expressing 3(a) and (b), as described above
This is not necessitated by A and B, and, therefore, it is illogical to assert so. I'm gonna have to pull Occam's Razor on you (an atheist being challenged with Occam's Razor...I have officially gone mad).
-
And I don't understand how you derived #8.
There are no properties W sufficient to make any X possessing them worthy of worship.
Not all religions require submission of will to God. In fact, it's really only Christianity and Islam that require this,
Well, this is the ISMAILA God Debate. So, by default, we are debating over the Christian conception of God. I think my point still stands.
This is not necessitated by A and B, and, therefore, it is illogical to assert so.
But you are attacking a straw man here. 3(c) doesn't assert that (a) and (b) necessitates (c). It merely states that in Christianity, it is imperative for one who worships God to engage in rituals expressing 3(a) and (b).
There are no properties W sufficient to make any X possessing them worthy of worship.
This seams highly subjective.
Let's try this. Are there any properties that the Christian God is said to possess that makes him/her worthy of worship?
I neglected to read #1. It does clearly state "Christian God."
it is imperative for one who worships God to engage in rituals expressing 3(a) and (b).
I was thinking all along the whole argument was deputing the existence of any god.
Are there any properties that the Christian God is said to possess that makes him/her worthy of worship?
He is supposedly omniscient and omni-benevolant. Supposedly merciful. Logic and fact disprove all of these claims, but that is irrelevant. One may worship omniscience.
So, if it is made clear that this is a debate about Christianity, I should be right to assume that you have no problems with premise 3.
He is supposedly omniscient and omni-benevolant. Supposedly merciful. Logic and fact disprove all of these claims, but that is irrelevant. One may worship omniscience.
Look, even if logic does not disprove of all these claims, the burden of proof is still on the theist to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these characteristics are worthy of worship.
Obviously, the second problem is if we can ever know if some entity is omniscient or not. That would be quite a logical paradox if one can claim to know an omniscient entity.
Finally, even if it is a fact that someone is omniscient and we are not (which, I think is paradoxical), someone still needs to prove why we ought to worship that omniscient entity. Until and unless the theist's claim can stand the test of Hume's Guillotine, the Problem of Worship remains unchallenged.
the assertion - there is a god - is extraordinary and requires extraordinary proof if one is seeking to motivate a reason-based belief. There is no proof of any emperically significant kind, let alone extraordinary proof, therefore denial of this truth needs no strong counter-motivation. Atheists can merely say "I doubt it" and this would be sufficient. Even though there is no need for counter-motivation, there are the many contradictions and scientific improbabilities and incompatibilities which if needed could be provided.
We need to understand that humans should never be forced to obey a God. What would life be, without choices? So I can honestly say that I am happy that there is no god and can live my own life.
Since faith and truth now have the same meaning, I believe in a giant, invisible, living mushroom that has placed little bunnies all over the earth to spread fairy dust. I am here to preach to all of you that you must believe in the giant, invisible, living mushroom, and all the messenger bunnies or when you die your soul will be trapped in a public toilet forever.
Do not question me or ask me for proof that the giant, invisible, living mushroom exists because my niece dreamed about it and scribbled it in her kindergarden class, thereby revealing it to the world. Her scribbles are in fact revelations and you all are commanded to obey.
If forty superstitous men could make up a religion, write it down and have it be believed by otherwise intelligent people, then my niece can make up a religion too. After all, I don't have to demand proof from my five year old niece, because she said she dreamed about it, so it must be true.
If God caused everything to happen, what caused God to happen? It is wishful thinking to suppose a higher entity lives. God is only there for humans to feel safer, and to think that nothing is your own fault. If that is so, then why try at all?
The bible has already been often proved wrong. Science disproves the start of the world, or humankind, for that matter.
And isn't God evil, he does not prevent bad things from happening. This problem was once tackled by the Greek philosopher Epicurus in this enlightening paragraph:
If God is willing but unable to prevent evil,
Then he is not omnipotent.
If god is able but not willing,
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able,
From whence comes evil?
If he is neither willing nor able,
Then why call him God?
Humans would not even follow the known religions if not for God. They would grasp at another entity, just for its comforts. If the bible is the book of god, then why does it lie?
And many people don't truly follow their religion. If they would, they would be honest and nice and nonviolent, which too many humans are not. If their were a God, then we might be happy, except for the limitations of freedom.
