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.
Are your ideas about heaven based on hearsay or hard fact? How do the amazing claims of people who say they have been to heaven line up with the Bible's own description? And what will we do once we're in heaven? . . . Finding the answers is simple: piece together the biblical details, sift out the popular myths, and you have an amazingly accurate picture of heaven, angels, and the afterlife . . . That's what John MacArthur does in his classic, best-selling study with the simple title—Heaven http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-series/175/heaven .. enjoy
"Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work." 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
It's still circular reasoning... we know homosexuals are wrong because god says so, we know god says so because it is in the bible, we know the bible is true because it is the word of Jesus, we know it's the word of Jesus because the bible says so... It is circular reasoning with an extra step in it...
The Bible is under attack! We live in an age when the very idea of clear, objective, knowable truth is being assaulted—even from within the visible church. A growing number of pastors claim it’s impossible to know exactly what Scripture means by what it says. They say the Bible is simply not clear .. http://www.gty.org/products/Audio-Series/298/Making-a-Case-for-the-Bible .. rather, it’s filled with mystery and ambiguity.
supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long .. supposed to be 50 characrers long ..
What? There are many copies of the Bible that are different to the one we have today. Many with people crossing things out and writing over it. It's a fact. It doesn't mean Christianity isn't true though.
Hitler the king of propaganda, whom influenced an entire country onto a path of racism once said "If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will begin to believe it." Christians don't believe in heaven for any rational or logical reasons, for the most part it is because it was taught to them at a young age, and the fact that society seems to have allowed religion to ingrain itself into it. When we are told about santa clause, we believe santa is real, because we are little, because we are ignorant. Santa is to a child, as gods are to most countries. We're still "growing up" or advancing, we don't want to let go of our superstitions. God was taught to humanity when humanity was ignorant, and now it is learning a lot of things about those religions weren't true.
It's really because the bible points to a life after physical death. They believe that something happens after you die. Religions are not as "premature" as Santa Claus. What logic is behind Santa claus? When presented with both sides of the arguments with Christians the end result is always the same. There is no way to exactly explain what they bible has said and there is no way to actually test God for yourself.
For example what use does the Omnipotence Paradox have if you cannot actually test it on God himself? You can only test it on your concept of God. We have no idea what God would have to input on it. If he is truly omniscient then he can always crush any question that is pressed upon him with human logic. In fact what would any logic prove it it cannot be tested on God himself? Even the logic that Christians use cannot be as accurate as they wish since they can only fathom the concept of their God. Any, and all, arguments from both sides will be inaccurate since they can only brush simple human concepts. The bible says that God is beyond us and then the bible says that we should argue with people "weak in faith" (Atheists/Agnostics/Any other religions). I woupd imagine that God wouldn't even bother to intervene in arguments that can barely address him.
It's really because the bible points to a life after physical death. They believe that something happens after you die.
Kids believe in santa, because santa brings them presents every year, as long as they were good. At least they get guaranteed to see the reward system work. The presents were real though, but because people around them told them that those presents were from santa, they thought "if the presents are real, then santa has to be!". Well, their is no logical reason to think an afterlife exists, even if there was though, that doesn't mean that a god exists, or anything else about christianity is true.
Religions are not as "premature" as Santa Claus. What logic is behind Santa claus?
How do my presents get under the tree every christmas? Or where did christmas come from? Christians would have an explanation but I was raised in a secular home, there didn't seem to be much reason to celebrate christmas, it was for the hell of it. Where did all my friends presents come from? Other than that, I am not sure, about the same for a god though.
There is no way to exactly explain what they bible has said and there is no way to actually test God for yourself.
We can't run a test for the existence of a god, because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when we are talking about an insensible being. However where no evidence can be expected, no belief should be either. Especially when the only claims can't be made head or tails of by anyone seemingly.
For example what use does the Omnipotence Paradox have if you cannot actually test it on God himself? You can only test it on your concept of God.
If no concept of god that we can think, where omnipotence makes sense, that if anything gives us less reason to believe in a god. There are a lot of paradoxes about santa, I'm sure kids just thought "but it's santa, those paradoxes don't apply to him".
We have no idea what God would have to input on it. If he is truly omniscient then he can always crush any question that is pressed upon him with human logic. In fact what would any logic prove it it cannot be tested on God himself? Even the logic that Christians use cannot be as accurate as they wish since they can only fathom the concept of their God.
I would agree, if, said god existed. Santa, is magic though, whatever problems you see with him giving presents across the world to lets say only a quarter of children, lets assume 75% of children are bad. It would still be ridiculous, but not for santa, because santa is magic. Santa would be able to explain it to us, how magic was able to help him in his spreading of christmas cheer.
Any, and all, arguments from both sides will be inaccurate since they can only brush simple human concepts.
Any and all arguments for and against santa, will be inaccurate because they only brush on concepts of santa, not the real santa. It is the concepts of god, that are being claimed, I see no good reason to believe a god exists, any concept I can think of, or any concept that has been articulated to me. You may as well be saying "well maybe X is true, but we just don't know how it is true, because if X is true, we only know of it conceptually". For instance, I could say "well maybe I am about to inherent a billion dollars, I just don't know how I will inherent a billion dollars, because if I am going to inherrent a billion dollars, I just wouldn't understand how or why, my ability to assess that would only be based off any concepts I can think of as to how or why I would, rather than how it will actually happen". With all due respect and little of offense I can mean, to me, this is kind of a cop out, with giving your reasoning as to why you believe, and still doesn't make the case on why one should believe a god and therefore heaven exists.
The bible says that God is beyond us and then the bible says that we should argue with people "weak in faith" (Atheists/Agnostics/Any other religions). I woupd imagine that God wouldn't even bother to intervene in arguments that can barely address him.
My question is, why would god need faith, or want faith for that matter. Faith is a vice, it isn't a good thing. I would call myself an apistevist, meaning I am "faithless" I don't believe things on faith. I see believing things on faith, problematic, nonsensical, unreasonable, and without a reason itself. Of course I mean faith associated with religion, believing on no evidence, or when evidence is against you. Faith is the equivalence to gullibility, asking someone to buy (not financially, but like "I buy that, it sounds convincing) something for no reason is gullible no? Why would a god want that for his people?
Kids believe in santa, because santa brings them presents every year, as long as they were good. At least they get guaranteed to see the reward system work. The presents were real though, but because people around them told them that those presents were from santa, they thought "if the presents are real, then santa has to be!".
I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.
Well, their is no logical reason to think an afterlife exists, even if there was though, that doesn't mean that a god exists, or anything else about christianity is true.
I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.
How do my presents get under the tree every christmas? Or where did christmas come from? Christians would have an explanation but I was raised in a secular home, there didn't seem to be much reason to celebrate christmas, it was for the hell of it. Where did all my friends presents come from? Other than that, I am not sure, about the same for a god though.
I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.
We can't run a test for the existence of a god, because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when we are talking about an insensible being.
I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.
If no concept of god that we can think, where omnipotence makes sense, that if anything gives us less reason to believe in a god.
I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.
I would agree, if, said god existed. Santa, is magic though, whatever problems you see with him giving presents across the world to lets say only a quarter of children, lets assume 75% of children are bad. It would still be ridiculous, but not for santa, because santa is magic. Santa would be able to explain it to us, how magic was able to help him in his spreading of christmas cheer.
Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.
With all due respect and little of offense I can mean, to me, this is kind of a cop out, with giving your reasoning as to why you believe, and still doesn't make the case on why one should believe a god and therefore heaven exists.
This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.
My question is, why would god need faith, or want faith for that matter. Faith is a vice, it isn't a good thing.
I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.
. I would call myself an apistevist, meaning I am "faithless" I don't believe things on faith. I see believing things on faith, problematic, nonsensical, unreasonable, and without a reason itself. Of course I mean faith associated with religion, believing on no evidence, or when evidence is against you.
I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.
Faith is the equivalence to gullibility, asking someone to buy (not financially, but like "I buy that, it sounds convincing) something for no reason is gullible no? Why would a god want that for his people?
Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.
I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.
What if Santa, does exist though, but he's not the one responsible for putting presents under your tree? What if Santa Clause is a real person but not going around the world to give presents, or is going around the world but is just eating the cookies you give him, and your parents are putting the presents there and saying it is Santa, or someone else other than Santa does it, while Santa just eats the cookies? You see, any claim that you make, the more details you have in that claim, the more you have to tie those details together, otherwise, even if we were to prove one detail correct, that doesn't mean every detail in the claim is correct. You and me both know, or at least 99.999999% certain that Santa doesn't go around spreading Christmas cheer, our parents eventually tell us it was a story they told us. Just because presents appear everywhere, wouldn't mean that a man living in the north pole named Santa is responsible for it, the cause and effect there is also an assertion that has yet to be proven. The effects aren't necessary, the asserted effects are simply asserted to be from the asserted cause. If a god does exist, this doesn't necessarily mean that an afterlife exists either, if we proved a god's existence, that wouldn't necessarily prove any other claims about said god. Same if, santa's existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Santa is necessarily the one putting presents under the tree, it would seem intuitive and natural to think, because the only claim of Santa's existence also claims that this person puts presents under our Christmas trees.
I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.
Why should we use faith in this instance though, when I say faith, I mean belief in no evidence or with evidence against you, or logical reasoning, because logical reasoning is self evident, or as philosophers call "a-priori". One does need to decide for themselves if said god is the Christian god, however, they still need to justify their decisions to believe logically, if they want to be substantiated. If we see more details about a claim coming true, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of them are true, unless those details, or various claims within one are tied together. For example with evolution, (first thing that comes to mind, I'm not making an evolution v.s. christianity argument) evolution is a theory with a large body of facts, it is a claim with a bunch of miniature claims within it. One premise of evolution is that the layers of our earth align in a way where the top layers are newer than the layers underneath, because of how earth science works, and thus we can date fossils depending of how deep underground, (we have other means of dating to, but I will just use this one for now) and in what layer of rock they are preserved inside, which is the second premise. Third premise is that all the fossils line up in a timeline that shows change over time or evolutions. We conclude that fossil X is so-and-so old because it is in rock layer 1, because according to earth science layer 1 is so-and-so old. The age of the rock layer is one claim, and the age of the fossil from said layer is another claim, if we discover that the rock layer preserves everything in it from a certain range of time, then that connects it to the fossil, making true the claim that the fossil is from a certain range of time. However what is the connection that if a supreme being exists, then an afterlife exists? and further more, the afterlife itself is two claims, or two premises. If we discover that we live again after death, why would that mean we live forever after death? If a man named Santa Clause was found to exist and lived in the north pole, how does it follow that, this man distributes presents all over the world? We assume B follows from A, because B and A are asserted not only by themselves but asserted within that same assertion that B follows A, without a reason why, without the connection. In other words, if somethings within a claim is true, it doesn't mean everything in a claim is true.
I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.
These are things that can be used for arguing for or against Santa's existence.
I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.
Indeed. I agree.
I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.
Ahhh, you are THAT kind of agnostic, interesting.
Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.
Well, what do you consider ruling out? Concluding something isn't worth believing, or concluding something is impossible. I do the former, but not the latter. A god COULD exist, I just haven't been supplied any reason to think so. So I'm not ruling it out, just can't really consider it much with what it supplies, if any evidence or logical argument came up, after some contemplating, I probably would change my stance on the issue.
This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.
I don't think there is a logical argument though.
I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.
Faith and confidence, and trust are different, at least with the type of faith I'm talking about. I can logically justify having confidence, because I control my own outcomes, my own achievements, so whatever I can achieve, at least to an extent is based on me, and I can control that, and I have past success, I have evidence to support confidence. Things external to me, like god, I have no control over. Trust is different because I can base my trust on how much my fellow companions have earned it, I can base it on evidence, personal evidence, but evidence none the less. For example, if I know someone whom always does (what I feel) is the right thing to do, or is fair, just, and kind towards others, and has shown this behavior time and time again, I have evidence that I can trust this person. God, however, I don't even know if a god even exists.
I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.
I don't agree, logic can be more or less substantiated, and the reasoning I am aware of for a god's existence is lacking, however to with hold belief, or to not be convinced of a god's existence is by default logically justified. I don't need a reason to not believe something, I need a reason TO believe something.
Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.
This again is a different type of faith then that is applied to a god, and what I mean by faith as an apistevist. I can trust that my spouse won't cheat on me, because she has shown me that she isn't the type of person to do that, and if she wasn't worthy of that trust I wouldn't date her anyway. If I am dating somebody, I have no reason to think they will cheat on me. If I am dating somebody and they do cheat on me, then I have less reason to trust them, and thus don't trust them. Trust can be, and I prefer it to be personally, to be evidence based. Trust is something you earn, that you show that you are worthy of.
Hitler the king of propaganda, whom influenced an entire country onto a path of racism once said "If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will begin to believe it." Christians don't believe in heaven for any rational or logical reasons, for the most part it is because it was taught to them at a young age, and the fact that society seems to have allowed religion to ingrain itself into it. When we are told about santa clause, we believe santa is real, because we are little, because we are ignorant. Santa is to a child, as gods are to most countries. We're still "growing up" or advancing, we don't want to let go of our superstitions. God was taught to humanity when humanity was ignorant, and now it is learning a lot of things about those religions weren't true.
Christians believe in heaven because the bible says so
They don't know it. They believe it because the Bible tells them. But more importantly, the believe it because they want it to be true. Never mind that outside of the Bible there are few if any reasons the believe that we "go" anywhere but the ground. Never mind that its obvious wish fulfillment to encourage certain behaviors. Never mind that they have to establish a soul to make sense of Heaven. None of this is important to them.
They know its real because they will not let themselves accept that when they die, its all over.