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.
I firmly believe God is a belief. And there has to be faith. I believe that the rightness and the conscience to do the honest way is God! You just define God the way you like. But, a super power does exist. It might even be the Aura around you!
I know there is a God, but religions and books are created by man to create who he wants God to be. I don't believe in any specific religion, but I support people who rely and need these religions in their lives.
morality changes from nation to nation, culture to culture and even individual to individual based on our collective and individual experiences and does not support the idea of a universal god or universal morality.
stick 100 priests in 100 closets and have them answer 100 moral dilemas (Just war, abortion to save the mother, etc.) and you will get many different answers (and a couple of molested alter boys).
What I spoke of was the God that lies with in us. It wasn't theological... It was rather philosophical. Yes, Morals differ. But, there has to be one universal moral accepted by all. I do not define God as per the scriptures. That is also a belief that you like holding on to. They might have different views, but there is a commonness. You and I will agree with a lot of common ethics as human nature. Things like abortion, sometimes even war tend to bend a little with the high confusion of their existence. But, if I said that the kid is being aborted at one of the grown stages due to it being a girl. ( It is very common in certain 3rd Worlds) You will agree with all of us that it is a wrong thing and not ethical. It will be a universal belief.
But, nonetheless I was referring to God who resides subjectively in you as a guide.
God exists as a term. As a rule poorly defined, inarguably and absolutely authority centric, hence as divisive a term as there is, but existent nonetheless.
One friend of mine likes to define god as "All that which Is", Another prefers "god is love"
what the term is supposed to be describing
When YOU use the term are you describing something that you don't think exists? Can things that don't exist be discussed? Do imaginative constructs exist? Is an imaginary problem a real problem?
Go ahead and be bold enough to define the term god in your own words. What do you think the term means? Don't tell me what you think other people think it means, tell me what you think it means. Blurt it out if you're satisfied with your opinion on the matter.
People can define God as whatever they like, they just won't be correct definitions. You can define god as a flat piece of wood supported by four legs, and then assert that your table is God, but that would be a fruitless argument, in the same manner leveraging the ambiguous nature of god as supporting his existence. This is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters.
If you say God is everything then clearly we are not talking about the same thing.
Do you do any give and take dialog where you ask and answer questions? Offer scrutiny and lay yourself open to it?
Was my question: "Is an imaginary problem a real problem?" not worth responding to?
My point (well one of em) is that when people are using the word god (or any other word for that matter) they do so for actual reasons. I think the word god is USUALLY a metaphor for beliefs that people have that they no longer leave subject to enough scrutiny and doubt. (That's just one way that I'm willing to articulate using my own words to give you an idea of what I think about god) Care to offer any scrutiny of the way I think about god? Or do you think that using the word god to describe a non-existent entity is somehow logical, or in any way likely to enable fruitful arguments?
People can define God as whatever they like, they just won't be correct definitions.
Tell me what authority you rely on without question to determine "correct definitions" and it will give me a clue as to the nature of the god you worship.
This is nothing but an attempt to muddy the waters.
No it's an attempt to sow discontent and self doubt. To expose worship under WHATEVER guise it may be hiding behind
If you say God is everything then clearly we are not talking about the same thing.
I don't describe god that way, a friend of mine does. You want to try telling me what groups X, Y, and Z believe, I'd like to hear what you believe.
Do you do any give and take dialog where you ask and answer questions? Offer scrutiny and lay yourself open to it?
I don't know what you're asking.
Was my question: "Is an imaginary problem a real problem?" not worth responding to?
I assumed it was a rhetorical question that did/does not require an answer. As a serious question, NO, it does not merit an answer.
My point (well one of em) is that when people are using the word god (or any other word for that matter) they do so for actual reasons.
As opposed to? Fake reasons?
Yes, people use words for reasons. I fail to see how this in any way demonstrates the existence of Deities.
I think the word god is USUALLY a metaphor for beliefs that people have that they no longer leave subject to enough scrutiny and doubt.
And how many metaphors do you worship? How many days have you set aside for metaphors? Any foods that you refuse to eat because of a metaphor? Attend any services dedicated to a metaphor? Persecuted anyone because of a metaphor?
Or do you think that using the word god to describe a non-existent entity is somehow logical
And how would one discuss non-existent entities without words to describe them? Should we stop calling Santa, Santa because he is non-existent? How would we discuss ancient mythology if all non-existent entities lacked names?
Tell me what authority you rely on without question to determine "correct definitions"
The dictionary.
give me a clue as to the nature of the god you worship.
I don't worship any god. I thought that this was clear. Did you not read the arguments above?
No it's an attempt to sow discontent and self doubt. To expose worship under WHATEVER guise it may be hiding behind
Does this include metaphor worship?
I don't describe god that way, a friend of mine does. You want to try telling me what groups X, Y, and Z believe, I'd like to hear what you believe.
I believe calling everything God to assert the existence of God is about as logical as calling everything Unicorns to assert the existence of unicorns.
You are attempting to define something into existence.
Yes, people use words for reasons. I fail to see how this in any way demonstrates the existence of Deities.
A deity is an imaginative construct that does or did exist.
And how many metaphors do you worship?
I try not to worship
How many days have you set aside for metaphors?
I don't feel like tallying it up
Attend any services dedicated to a metaphor?
I have
Persecuted anyone because of a metaphor?
I haven't. Question: Have you?
And how would one discuss non-existent entities without words to describe them?
You can't describe something that doesn't exist. You can however describe imaginary things.
Should we stop calling Santa, Santa because he is non-existent?
the phrase "he is non-existent" makes no sense whatsoever
How would we discuss ancient mythology if all non-existent entities lacked names?
The deities of ancient mythology were named so we don't have to worry about that.
I don't worship any god. I thought that this was clear. Did you not read the arguments above?
Not referring to an authority that you rely on without question [The Dictionary] as a god, doesn't make what you're doing any less worshipful.
Does this include metaphor worship?
Yep
I believe calling everything God to assert the existence of God is about as logical as calling everything Unicorns to assert the existence of unicorns.
I'll relay that to him if I remember to. Him being the friend of mine (who calls himself a pantheist btw )who likes to define god as All That Which Is
You are attempting to define something into existence.
I am trying to get you to think in terms of things existent. When someone speaks of god I think you should be considering the underlying reason they use the term. That reason is real and can be scrutinized. The non-existent cannot
A deity is an imaginative construct that does or did exist.
I am not asking if the concept of God exists, I am asking if God exists. Why are you making this more complicated than it needs to be? I fail to see how the ability to imagine something makes it real.
My earlier point was that if God was just considered a metaphor people would not worship him/it. People worship God because they think he is a real entity, which has influence on their lives (beyond their belief in him). So your statement that people 'Usually' regard God as a mere metaphor is false.
You can't describe something that doesn't exist.
Bullshit. Watch me.
Typherdraken:
-Has 30 legs with hooves
-Has a Dolphin for a face
-Has poisonous fangs
-Has Wings made of ferns
-A tail made of cheese
-Eats the hopes and dreams of children.
-Lives in your garage
Not referring to an authority that you rely on without question [The Dictionary]
As opposed to making up your own definitions, yes. The dictionary is an authority on definitions. If you want to make an argument for why I should not go to the dictionary to learn the definition of a word, I would like to hear it.
I'll relay that to him if I remember to.
Were you not using his statements as support of your own?
I am trying to get you to think in terms of things existent.
You need not try, I already do.
When someone speaks of god I think you should be considering the underlying reason they use the term.
Simply because you use God as a metaphor does not demonstrate that most people do.
Do you even know what a metaphor is?
A metaphor is when we use a real and literal thing to represent an idea. God cannot be a metaphor because he/it is not a real and literal thing. Calling God a metaphor is tantamount to representing an idea with yet another idea, which defies what a metaphor actually is.
Why are you making this more complicated than it needs to be?
To frustrate you. :)
I fail to see how the ability to imagine something makes it real.
I am aware of that.
your statement that people 'Usually' regard God as a mere metaphor is false.
If you're going to call a statement of mine false, please quote it verbatim.
Bullshit. Watch me.
Typherdraken:
-Has 30 legs with hooves
-Has a Dolphin for a face
-Has poisonous fangs
-Has Wings made of ferns
-A tail made of cheese
-Eats the hopes and dreams of children.
-Lives in your garage
You just described something you created using your imagination. I know you have trouble thinking of peoples imaginations as being part of reality, but with a little effort you will understand that thought is as real a phenomenon as any other.
If you want to make an argument for why I should not go to the dictionary to learn the definition of a word, I would like to hear it.
I won't argue against referencing a dictionary definition. I will argue that a dictionary shouldn't be considered the ultimate authority as to the meaning of a word. Meanings of words change and evolve over time. For me, the conversations I have with other people weigh more heavily than dictionary definitions.
Were you not using his statements as support of your own?
Not in the manner evidenced by the way you are calling it into the conversation.
Simply because you use God as a metaphor does not demonstrate that most people do.
I agree. I'm not going to spend any effort here trying to convince you of the metaphorical nature of language. Nor do I care to debate with you the definition of metaphor on this thread.
Truly, statements inconsistent with logic frustrates me.
I am aware of that.
Now that you are aware of it. Do something about it. Support your claims, they do not support themselves.
I know you have trouble thinking of peoples imaginations as being part of reality
On the contrary, it is you who possesses the inability to distinguish imagination from the subjects being imagined. Imagination exists, yes. The things being imagined don't. Why this is difficult for you to comprehend I cannot say.
For me, the conversations I have with other people weigh more heavily than dictionary definitions.
And if those with which you converse are ill-informed, or misusing those terms?
Not in the manner evidenced by the way you are calling it into the conversation.
Then in what manner? Any manner which attempts to draws support, is unfounded.
I agree. I'm not going to spend any effort here trying to convince you of the metaphorical nature of language. Nor do I care to debate with you the definition of metaphor on this thread.
Truly, statements inconsistent with logic frustrates me.
It's pretty common to be frustrated by statements that don't agree with YOUR logic. You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous. I am used to that too.
Support your claims, they do not support themselves.
If I have convinced you of anything, I don't expect you to admit it. I expect nothing but pejorative comments, should this thread continue. I haven't said anything I feel a need to retract out of embarrassment.
And if those with which you converse are ill-informed, or misusing those terms?
Well I can cross reference with a dictionary, or I can converse with people like you, and see how compelling the arguments are. I cannot however escape trusting my own decisions.
Then on what do you base your argument?
On my observation that the problem of theism is better addressed recognizing it as a worship issue, rather than a believing in non-existent entity issue. There is more to my atheism than constantly reiterating that I don't believe in fairies
If you don't agree that: "An imaginary problem is a real problem" then what can I say beyond that? I leave the texts between us to reflect what they may and offer you TLW
It's pretty common to be frustrated by statements that don't agree with YOUR logic. You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous. I am used to that too.
Contradictio in terminis is not just a violation of my logic, it is a violation of accepted logic.
You don't appear to be trying to understand my logic beyond attempts to make it appear ridiculous.
To say that something which is imaginary exists, does not require my input to appear ridiculous.
If I have convinced you of anything, I don't expect you to admit it.
Expectations are often false. Even if this were so, it wouldn't make your argument any less unfounded.
On my observation that the problem of theism is better addressed recognizing it as a worship issue, rather than a believing in non-existent entity issue.
Except that wasn't the question. The debate topic is "Does God exist" not "What is the primary issue with theism", which makes all of your previous posts entirely irrelevant. I stated this very plainly in my very first response to your post.
You also have not address my point regarding the difference between imagination, and the subjects of such imagination.
Since you don't see how my points are relevant to this thread, and you seem at least slightly interested in exposing my stinkin thinkin, please do me the courtesy at the following new debate topic:
No way. It took me way too long to navigate to the end of this thread. However, If you don't mind briefly summarizing the contention between us under a new topic I will give a good faith effort. But for some reason I can't put my finger on, we just don't seem to get each others points!?
I won't back down from the challenge, but I could just as well let the dead horse alone :)
Contradictio in terminis is not just a violation of my logic, it is a violation of accepted logic.
an appeal to "accepted" logic is Argumentum ad populum
Pointing out popular misconceptions comes across that way to almost everyone. There are plenty of situations where inadequately defined terms cause shallow thinkers to believe statements to be paradoxical or contradictory when they're actually not.
You also have not address my point regarding the difference between imagination, and the subjects of such imagination.
Ok so, if I imagine something that does objectively exist (say my truck), I am creating an image in my mind about it right? In this case the truck would be the objectively real subject of my imagination, correct?
"logical traps are hard to expose without the aid of yeses and nos" ~atypican
Pointing out popular misconceptions comes across that way to almost everyone.
A rationalization of poor logic.
Ok so, if I imagine something that does objectively exist (say my truck), I am creating an image in my mind about it right? In this case the truck would be the objectively real subject of my imagination, correct?
Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine? So you would first have to establish that God is an objectively and independently existing entity, before you could use such an argument. Do not beg the question.
Calling logic (especially such that one won't go to the effort of understanding) poor is another typical knee jerk response, common to people who are overly satisfied with themselves.
Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine?
I don't think so says the guy who has absolutely no aversion to having flaws in his logic exposed, to the guy who seems to. OK I will reword the question to see if I can get a straight answer from ya
If I imagine something that has no existence outside of my imagination, then whatever it is (or isn't According to accepted logic) that I am imagining, is the subject of my imagination, correct?
Calling logic (especially such that one won't go to the effort of understanding) poor is another typical knee jerk response
I don't concern myself over what is "typical", only over what can be defended rationally, and if this is the only defense of your argument is to call my response typical, then maybe you need a new argument.
common to people who are overly satisfied with themselves.
Ad hominem?
I don't think so says the guy who has absolutely no aversion to having flaws in his logic exposed
I didn't ask for what "the guy" says, I asked for what you say. Thinly veiled insults directed at atheists, do not constitute arguments.
Furthermore there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting that your arguments may have fallacies within them. Interesting that you say this because you seem intent on denying the fallacies that you have made thus far.Also notice that you didn't answer my question.
Does God objectively exist independent of what people imagine?
If I imagine something that has no existence outside of my imagination, then whatever it is that I am imagining, is the subject of my imagination, correct?
Is what you are imagining the subject of your imagination? Yes. Are the subjects of imagination always existent? No.
I'd be happy to lay off the exchange of thinly veiled insults and adhoms. I'll follow your lead :)
I don't concern myself over what is "typical"
Yeah right.
you need a new argument.
I'm here blurting out what I think, in order that I might read some thoughtful response that jostles me astray from ways of thinking that too quickly become undesirable ruts. I don't think you are a low type person just because you can't reach me with your (what I think to be somewhat unsavory as well) style of rhetoric.
Ad hominem?
I'll tell you what.. If ever we do approach anything resembling logical debate, I promise not to be the first one to divert attention away from the subject at hand by making innuendos designed to make my opponent appear ridiculous.
I didn't ask for what "the guy" says, I asked for what you say.
I would prefer that you behave more respectfully too. :(
Thinly veiled insults directed at atheists, do not constitute arguments.
The truth is that as far as rhetorical engagement goes, they are some of the most convincing tools available. Try not to be such a sloppy thinker. Another truth is that many arguments consist of nothing but thinly veiled insults. It's debatable (and no I don't want to debate it) whether I'm any more guilty of it than you. :)
Furthermore there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting that your arguments may have fallacies within them.
I am not as worried about a few fallacies cluttering up my arguments, as I am of missing the point you are trying so patiently to make.
you seem intent on denying the fallacies that you have made thus far.
I wonder what (other than introspection) you're going on to make such an assumption.
I'll cop to the ad-hominems, I use em when I see em on the table.
Regarding the apparent contradiction in terms....I think there is something here that could use better articulating. "Real" and "imaginary" ARE often enough regarded as neat and tidy antonyms.
No. You notice the one's of mine you avoided. Alas it's all too often our own stench is so hard to notice. I don't think I avoid your questions more than you avoid mine.
Bohemian: Is what you are imagining the subject of your imagination? Yes.
..!.!.recovering from shock.... Noted. A little like pulling teeth but a slight logical basis is better than none.
Are the subjects of imagination always existent? No.
Everything exists.......You don't like thinking of that do you?
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't rebut my statement by any means. You are never going to have 100% agreement on terms, that doesn't mean we don't have a general understanding of what is being discussed, or to know that we you are referring to isn't part of what is being discussed. I notice you like to muddy the waters so that you can inject whatever nonsense into the argument without anybody noticing.
Sorry, but your unsavory debate tactics may work on novice debaters, but not on I.
I'm sure it does, but that doesn't rebut my statement by any means.
Clearly none that you are quite prepared to accept.
You are never going to have 100% agreement on terms
In light of that, would you DISAGREE that god is a term with an especially low percentage of agreement on the meaning so to speak?
that doesn't mean we don't have a general understanding of what is being discussed
Neither does it mean that settling for your current "general understanding" is adequate.
I notice you like to muddy the waters so that you can inject whatever nonsense into the argument without anybody noticing.
You've got me figured out then, I should go hang my head in shame after being so plainly exposed. Here's a quote I picked out for you.
“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” ~Dyer
Sorry, but your unsavory debate tactics may work on novice debaters, but not on I.
Here I am just a novice trying to use novice tactics against someone who implies themselves to be an expert at debating. I hope it doesn't leave too bad a taste in your mouth when I tell you that my tactics HAVE worked on you just fine. You've found it worth giving your two cent response every time...PROVING that you aren't comfortable leaving the texts between us to reflect whatever they may.
Haven't you learned by now that Bohemian is the only one that knows all. (haha) He will never state anything that is not of popular opinion or of his own accord. His only weapon is to cry fallacy when in doubt.
It is childish to accuse others of thinking they 'know it all'. This assumes one must 'know it all' in order to know more than you. Which is certainly not the case.
I'm taking it that you are calling me childish, "am not". Your turn (are too).
I know better than to ever proclaim "knowing it all". Do you? Shut up for a second and reflect all that you have written; the answer will be come clear.
Because obviously 'This' does not require all-knowing omniscience to know. Examination, experience and study are generally the ways people acquire knowledge.
Are you also aware that you have the super-power to talk out your ass, because this to is obvious. Please examine all that everybody else has experienced and you to will see this to be the truth.
No that is not what i am saying. I am saying in the Bible that God created the Heavens and the earth. If there was no God we would not exist and there wouldnt be a earth
This argument only holds true, if the biblical account of creation were the only possible explanation. It's not. Have you not read literature besides that of your own theology?
Now that you've actually cracked the seal on your bible and made it all the way to verse 3 - why don't you read a little further and tell me what God creates on day 4...
very welll that is indisputable that it says that but you do realize if and in my oppeniopn when the scientists discover god is real he would be all mighty therefore it wouldnt have to be in order plus the bible (not surfe where) says that a day to god is a thousnd years to god so opbviously time is different to him so four days could be four seconds
notice that you only care about science when it proves god exists;
when it shows the bible to be wrong, then who needs science...
so hopefully you'll forgive that I don't give too much weight to your "oppeniopn".
I can understand the people of the bible creating stories to explain lightning, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, sickness, childbirth, and creation, etc. since they didn't know how those things worked, but it is harder to understand people today believing those same stories now that we have learned (through science) how those things work.
The Bible might be old but it can tell you stuff that you didnt know about and the Bible is the most accurate book. Everything that is in it is correct all the other books says someone else created the earth was wrong.
You know you guys if you want to know that God exist go to a church and ask the pastor or read the Bible it has many answers for you that God truly exist or ask a Christian.
You are making some broad assumptions here. You have no way of knowing how much time I have spent in church, how many pastors/priests etc. that I have talked with, how many apologetics books I've read, how many Christian friends and family members I've listened to, how much time I've spent on Christian sites.
And its not just Christianity. I have checked out all the world's big ones to some extent, as well as many lesser known or non-local religions, and a few dead ones. I have a pretty broad view of religion.
..read the Bible...
Why should I not read the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita or the Pali Canon, or any other religious book? The followers of these books all claim that theirs is right. Most of their view is simply based on the environment in which they were raised. Not too objective, huh?
...ask the Pastor..
I've talked to a few. They haven't said anything I haven't heard before, and the arguments they make don't get less illogical or incomplete just because a pastor is saying them. Ultimately, when I start to challenge them, they resort to telling me that I just have to have faith. But faith should never be used as a substitute for inquiry...so I walk away just as convinced that they don't know anymore than I do concerning the veracity of God.
well think about this the diciples followed jesus with all their hearts and were willing to die and they knew him yet they still put their lives at risk so they were either stupid or had enough proof to belive in him also you cant exactly say anything since your belief also calls for faith and the world is so beutiful it cant be created by chance which means that ur relogen is just as shady as ours ps i just want to debate please no mean comments
well think about this the diciples followed jesus with all their hearts and were willing to die and they knew him yet they still put their lives at risk
This has happened countless times throughout history. For instance, the Buddha and Mohammad. Does that mean that were also right about everything they taught? Or, for a darker example, what about the members of cults who take their own lives for their leader?
cant exactly say anything since your belief also calls for faith
Such as?
the world is so beutiful it cant be created by chance
I already responded to this in a previous debate with you. Beauty is subjective, so that doesn't really go too far in identifying objective truth. And while there is an element of chance involved in the creation of the world, it is also really just the culmination of a string of cause and effect, with the theories used to describe it being based on observable and testable pieces of evidence.
This assumes that the pastor is correct, or that the bible is true. There are many religions, how is it that you came to the conclusion that yours is the correct one?
Did you know that the Bible is one of the accurate books on the earth. When archeaologists wanted to study where Jesus went they went to the Bible and they found answers. Also a lot of people back then thought that the world was flat but Christopher Columbus went to the Bible and found that the earth was round not flat
Nope my friend, the bible doesn't state that the earth is round. In fact many people was crucified by the church (in the old days, back then). There are many sites that explain, Galileo was put to death (by the church), because of his theory that the earth was round. Of course there are also many sites these days that explain the oppsite. That galileo death was not of this theory. Never the less, the theory that the earth was flat back then was very popular, and the church didn't deny this. So can you state 'where' in the bible that God said the earth is round? Coz i cant seem to find it anywhere
Galileo was put to death (by the church), because of his theory that the earth was round.
This is false.
Galileo was not put to death, he was imprisoned because he taught a heliocentric model of the Universe. Galileo was declared a heretic and imprisoned where after he died of natural causes.
because he taught a heliocentric model of the Universe.
Also false. He was imprisoned for publicly humiliating Pope Urban VIII, at the time one of the most powerful men in the world. This is not a defense however of that action, I still find it reprehensible but this was not a science vs. religion thing as its been portrayed here.
Also false. He was imprisoned for publicly humiliating Pope Urban VIII
That was the explanation given by the prevailing authorities of the time, but when they talk about humiliating the Pope they are referring to his contrary beliefs, ie a Heliocentric universe. I was also pointing out the person I am replying to that Galileo was not teaching a spherical earth he was teaching a heliocentric universe, one wherein the earth revolves around the sun (and not vice versa).
Yes, though people may call him/her by a different name it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Also, there's a difference between believing in God and taking part in an organized religion.
At any rate, it isn't something that's worth arguing over. You either believe or you don't.
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not."~Hospitaller (from 'Kingdom Of Heaven')
I would challenge anyone to show me proof that there is no God. An atheist makes a factual statement.......THERE IS NO GOD. In order to do this, they would have to have all the knowledge in the universe. That is impossible.
So give us proof that there is no God, that everything was created by random change...that life came from NOTHING.
We are not claiming that we can prove...there is a God, we just have faith in the things we have seen and through our experiences and the evidences of the Bible that have been verified. We believe by faith, something God values. You who say He does not exist are making a faith judgement...the same thing we are doing.
Einstein said that mankind grasps less than one percent knowledge mankind possesses. of total knowledge. If we have only one percent of total knowledge, would it not be possible for God to exist in the other ninety-nine percent?
At best you can only say that you don't know if there is a God or if there isn't.
I would challenge anyone to show me proof that there is no God.
An essentially impossible task, and most atheists understand this fact. However, you are misrepresenting what is philosophically at the core of atheism.
An atheist makes a factual statement.......THERE IS NO GOD.
Some do, but that is not a prerequisite of atheism, and I think you will find that most modern atheists don't make such a statement. Atheism refers to our lack of belief in God. We're not looking for evidence that he doesn't exist. If something does not exist it cannot provide evidence. However, if something DOES exist, it WILL have evidence. What most atheists are saying is that we find the evidence provided to us to be faulty. Without said evidence we choose not to believe.
a)So give us proof that there is no God,
I already addressed this. Give us proof that there IS a God. That is how these things work.
b) that everything was created by random change...
First off, let me assume you meant "chance" not "change", although I can deal with both. There are two basic definitions of "random." The first is without design or intent, without a guiding intelligence. No guiding intelligence is apparent or necessary for virtually any natural occurrence: rainclouds, crystal formations, biological processes, formation by accretion, degradation by friction; all things that observable causes, reasons why they happen. Close examination and careful experimentation has revealed these causes, but never was intelligence needed or apparent. By this definition of random, change can easily be random.
The other definition of random, the one you would be using if you said "random chance", is that all things have an equal chance of occurrence, which is most certainly not what we are saying at all. Study any science, and you will quickly learn that cause and affect dictate what the likelihood of an occurrence is. Certain things will never happen in certain situations, certain things must happen in others. It is practically the antithesis of random. Physics and chemistry are outstanding fields to demonstrate this concept.
c)that life came from NOTHING.
Not at all, that's what you are saying. You are saying that things just poofed in out of thin air because an immensely powerful being wanted them to. What we are saying is that the building blocks for life, at least life on our planet, have been around for billions of years. And we keep tracing it all back, reverse-engineering the universe, and keep seeing how THOSE building blocks formed, etc..
We are not claiming that we can prove...there is a God,
Than why say there is?
we just have faith in the things we have seen and through our experiences and the evidences of the Bible that have been verified.
Such as? Most evidence I have seen has either been incorrect or an incomplete thought process. Most of this "evidence" has been a matter of changing your observations to fit your notions, and a fear of changing those notions. A fear that is fueled by unshakable faith, a weakness.
We believe by faith, something God values.
Why would our creator value something that flies in the face of rationality, the tool that would allow us to know him? Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that the limited founders and leaders of religion would have far better need of your faith than a being who has no weakness?
Einstein said that mankind grasps less than one percent knowledge mankind possesses. of total knowledge. If we have only one percent of total knowledge, would it not be possible for God to exist in the other ninety-nine percent?
Yes, it is possible, but it is just as possible that the concepts of religion and deity were created to fill the gaps in our knowledge when we knew much less about our surroundings. When we were young and afraid. Again, faith is best at helping us not be afraid, but it does not help us learn anything. And knowledge can help conquer fear too.
At best you can only say that you don't know if there is a God or if there isn't.
They can't make the statement that there is no God because they look riduculous. It can't be proven. What you talk about is what agnostics believe. They admit that they don't know. Atheism says there is no God.
You talk about providing evidence.....you would have to know everything to say for certainty that there is no evidence for God. The answers to lifes complicated questions...seem to be unanswerable...Science can't address the first cause so we are left with what? How did we get here.....intelligent designer or random chance, life coming from nothing? Can something come from nothing? So how did we get here? You look at the solar system...the universe and how it works perfectly and....how could that possibly be by something random. The peacocks tail, the miracle of birth, the working of the eye....the chicken and egg. And no life anywhere else that we know of in our solar system.
It takes faith to believe that something comes from nothing. Is that possible?
I already told you that I have no proof that I believe by faith in what I see and have experienced....and especially what science CANT ANSWER.
So what was the very first cause...the one that most atheists refer to as the Big Bang. What caused the energy to cause it?
And do tell me how peacocks tails appear the way they do....randomly? That the beautifullness of the tail, just evolved....that the eye just evolved perfectly...in appearance and function. Physics and chemistry cant answer those questions.
I am not the one saying that things poofed into mid air, you are. If a creator didnt do it...and you exclude one, then what happened?
You said, "Why would our creator value something that flies in the face of rationality, the tool that would allow us to know him? Wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that the limited founders and leaders of religion would have far better need of your faith than a being who has no weakness?'
I look to no leader of my faith other than Christ. Everyone else is fallible. I give to my church to help the poor and for missions work. My pastor is not rich....he lives modestly and not lavishly like you are saying that all religious leaders do.
I know a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion. But if you follow what Christ said, and you center your life around Him....you would treat people with love and respect. People of faith do a lot for humanity.
Tell me.....without God, who gives moral law........do we just all live according to what we think is right, what society says is right?
You are a relativist. And from all you have said here, you believe that what is true for one person or group is not necessarily right for another. Your brand of relativism says that no truth is universally or objectively true or false. Example..... in the case of abortion ….you are saying that one persons truth, (me-antiabortion) which really amounts to opinion, can conflict with anothers (anothers-proabortion) truth, and still be valid. You basically challenge the very existence of truth. Your views contaminate your entire worldview and what you call your brand of morality. For you no religion is truer than another.... NO MORAL ABSOLUTES, no objective ethical right or wrong. So if I sleep with someones husband, its ok because I think, he thinks its ok, even though spouses might think differently.
I am sure you oppose slavery and in America you can't own a slave even if you wanted to. But how about the countries that do have slavery, are they wrong? Cultural relativism says the same thing…….what is immoral in our culture may not be immoral in another culture. No one, can judge another cultures moral values. We can’t then condemn then slavery in America, genocide in Africa or infanticide in China. It is a crap shoot for the person who lives without God…they make up the rules as they go along. The rules and players change as does the game.
If truth is truth, it must exclude something-falsehood. If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists. Yet truth for you changes because you try to live without God.
They can't make the statement that there is no God because they look riduculous.
Just as ridiculous as you look to them. If someone truly believes in something, they don't feel that they look ridiculous, and wouldn't care if someone told them they did.
What you talk about is what agnostics believe. They admit that they don't know.
This is true. But there is no law that says an agnostic can't also be an atheist (or a theist, for that matter). Agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief. I am an agnostic AND an atheist; agnostic because I don't make truth claims about God and an atheist because I don't believe in him. In my experience, this is how the majority of modern atheists view this subject.
Atheism says there is no God.
Dictionary.com:
atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Denies OR disbelieves. Obviously, those who deny will also disbelieve. But one DOS NOT HAVE TO deny to disbelieve.
You talk about providing evidence.....you would have to know everything to say for certainty that there is no evidence for God.
Sure, but there is a foundation for belief. So you probably believe there is evidence. So offer it up to scrutiny, but don't be surprised if someone finds a whole in it.
Science can't address the first cause so we are left with what?
A reason to continue investigation. To invent new technology, to keep thinking about it until everything makes sense. Every piece of current scientific understanding we have was once unknown. You keep pointing out how we don't know everything, why do you assume that any of that is unknowable? Plus, assumptions that there had to be a first cause is based purely on the linear nature of time as we know it. If time were a loop, there wouldn't necessarily need to be a first cause, at least not in a linear, three-dimensional sense.
life coming from nothing?
You seem to be confusing "life" with "universe". Life came from already existing matter.
So how did we get here?
There a few different possible answers, which are currently being investigated. But abiogenesis is perfectly viable in certain conditions. We just have to figure out if those conditions existed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. So far its looking like undersea volcanoes could give us what we need.
intelligent designer or random chance
You aren't listening. SCIENTISTS ARE NOT CITING RANDOM CHANCE. It is cause and affect based on the inviolable laws of physics. Thing happen because they can. The most likely occurrence is the one that manifests.
the universe and how it works perfectly
Everything breaks down. How is that perfect?
And no life anywhere else that we know of in our solar system.
Do you have any conception of how small our solar system is compared to the minimal known size of our universe? Smaller than a molecule of water in the ocean. Even if we were the only life in our own galaxy, that would still be nothing. There are countless other galaxies.
It takes faith to believe that something comes from nothing. Is that possible? and later So what was the very first cause...the one that most atheists refer to as the Big Bang. What caused the energy to cause it?
I don't claim something came from nothing. I claim we don't know what got the ball rolling yet. Just because we don't know an answer does not mean we have to fabricate one that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.
And do tell me how peacocks tails appear the way they do....randomly? That the beautifullness of the tail, just evolved
First off beauty is subjective. As far as we know, only two creatures on this planet find peacock tails beautiful, humans and peahens. As far as humans go, many animals have mating adaptations that we don't find at all beautiful, some are downright nasty. But it serves the species pretty well when mating season comes around, especially since the those with big, bright tails are likely to be among the most fit. It also makes the bird look larger than it is and appear to have eyes on the their hindquarters, so predators rarely attack them. There were most likely thousands, maybe millions of variations on that tail before we got to see it. This would appear to be the one that worked best for them, and they might just keep getting more and more glorious through the successive generations.
that the eye just evolved perfectly
You keep saying "just evolved" as if this were some simple matter. No. It took many, MANY years and a lot of poor organisms died young because they got the design variation that wasn't all that great. Lots of teeny, tiny little alterations that gradually formed a gestalt product that serves us. And optometrists have been telling us for years that our eyes are anything but perfect. We have blindspots in our vision that don't need to exist. We could see more clearly and accurately if our blood vessels in the eyes were arranged differently. If simple humans can catch these design flaws, how could a perfect being allow them?
Physics and chemistry cant answer those questions.
Well, in this case I had to use biology. Although there was some physics in the eye problems...Just because you don't know anything about science does not mean you should be so arrogant as to assume that nobody does.
My pastor is not rich....he lives modestly and not lavishly like you are saying that all religious leaders do.
I did not say that. However, the earliest leaders of any religion had something to gain. They didn't all get it, but that doesn't mean that they didn't hope for it.
But if you follow what Christ said, and you center your life around Him....you would treat people with love and respect. People of faith do a lot for humanity.
I treat people very well. Much of what I do is in the interest of trying to make the world a better place. You are right, (some) people of faith do a lot for humanity. Some do not. And some who have no faith do great stuff too. Ever hear of secular humanism?
Tell me.....without God, who gives moral law........do we just all live according to what we think is right, what society says is right?
First off, atheists are very underrepresented in the prison system. It seems we do a pretty good job living on what we think is right and what society says is right. But you are correct, there is a bit more to it than that: morally is programmed into our brains. It is genetic, and has evolutionary advantage. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=3&ref;=science.
You are a relativist. And from all you have said here, you believe that what is true for one person or group is not necessarily right for another.
Give me examples. Because, for the most part, I am no relativist. Especially:
Your brand of relativism says that no truth is universally or objectively true or false.
That's not even close to anything I have ever said. Indeed I debate with people who feel that way. You appear to have put me in some atheist stereotype mold. But you are reading into my words things that I'm not even coming close to saying. That is kind of rude.
For you no religion is truer than another.... NO MORAL ABSOLUTES
Religion is not the only source for morality.
I am sure you oppose slavery
Absolutely I oppose it. I would die to stop it. You know why? Because I have empathy. I would not wish to be property. Therefore I would not wish anyone to be property, unless they contractually entered into it of their own free will, no coercion. Slaves have little freedom, and I support freedom for others as much as for myself. This little thing, this empathy, is a huge source of morality.
We can’t then condemn then slavery in America, genocide in Africa or infanticide in China
Yes we can. We don't need God or scripture to tell us right from wrong. You already have faith...try having some for humanity.
If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists.
These statements are true. But then...
Yet truth for you changes because you try to live without God.
See, now you are the one who is sounding like a relativist.
It can't be proven. What you talk about is what agnostics believe. They admit that they don't know.
Most atheists are agnostic. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions. This is what, unfortunately, many people are lead to believe.
Agnosticism speaks on the attainability of absolute knowledge, specifically that it isn't attainable. It is not the position that one doesn't know, but rather someone who believes they CAN'T know. This is the critical distinction.
I suggest you educate yourself on the matters being discussed. Are you aware of the difference between positive (strong) and negative (weak) atheism? If not, follow the link I have provided below:
you would have to know everything to say for certainty that there is no evidence for God.
Well, there are two points to be made here. The first point being that we need only know that no evidence has yet been provided, and the second point one of the epistemological arguments which states that verifiable evidence for the existence of God is essentially impossible, given the characteristics of the Supernatural.
The answers to lifes complicated questions...seem to be unanswerable...Science can't address the first cause so we are left with what?
Relying on ancient myths, apparently. Which boils down to argumentum ad ignorantiam.
A "We don't know what caused it so lets assume this was the cause" type argument.
In actuality, science can answer the question of first cause, just not with the level of certainty and poignancy many people unreasonably expect.
How did we get here.....intelligent designer or random chance
Isn't it a little redundant to say "random chance"?
Probabilistic as well as deterministic factors played a role in the formation of our current universe. Whether you like it or not the fact that you exist at all, is the product of numerous chance events.
life coming from nothing.
Well, life didn't come from nothing, it came from non-life. Currently, as it stands now, all life is made up of non-living (inorganic) materials. So it's not much of a stretch to say that life came from inorganic compounds because that's exactly what we are made of.
It takes faith to believe that something comes from nothing. Is that possible?
You believe that something came from nothing (God), not I.
I already told you that I have no proof that I believe by faith what I see and have experienced
So you saw and experienced the universe coming into existence?
and especially what science CANT ANSWER.
Then you believe in a God of the gaps. The more science explains the smaller and smaller place God must reside. You use faith only to fill the gaps in your knowledge. Such is an untenable position.
So what was the very first cause...the one that most atheists refer to as the Big Bang. What caused the energy to cause it?
If you are asking me personally, I think the Big crunch caused it. As for scientists there are still many unanswered questions.
And do tell me how peacocks tails appear the way they do
That the beautifullness of the tail, just evolved....that the eye just evolved perfectly...in appearance and function. Physics and chemistry cant answer those questions.
They can and they have. Just because you cover your eyes does not mean the rest of us are blind.
I look to no leader of my faith other than Christ.
I would be willing to bet that most of your opinions on Jesus derive from the opinions of other men. Especially those that wrote of him. Jesus himself did not write a single word of the bible, so then on whose word are you trusting? Eh?
Tell me.....without God, who gives moral law........do we just all live according to what we think is right, what society says is right?
Moral law is nothing more than that which promotes cooperation amongst men. It exists because all who did not cooperate have perished.
There is a reason why certain actions are moral and others immoral, and no, not just because God said so. Society has always promoted those actions which promotes social cohesiveness. Actions which hurt society are deemed immoral. This is why the golden rule exists in all religions and all cultures, because it is necessary for the survival of man.
Technically atheists just lack a belief in god, they don't necessarily believe in the non-existence of god.
Also, a god in general is too ambiguous, in order to state weather some god exists one must know which god one is speaking of.
Many atheists have no problem with pantheists, even with the gods of modern pagans, yet they do with the god of the 3 Abrahamic religions.
Well I can't speak for all atheists, I can say that the god of the abrahamic religions appears to posses several logical contradictions in its definition. Also If a being is supernatural, then by simple logic it is unknowable. If it is unknowable, then its true, or objective, meaning to humanity is unknowable and thus its existence is rather a meaningless point.
Well some atheists do make unverifiable claims concerning god, the same as every traditional theist, not all of them do.
"Technically atheists just lack a belief in god, they don't necessarily believe in the non-existence of god."
The trouble is that atheist don't just use this meaning, they act upon it. They attack God and religion, making atheism a religion. They don't lack a belief, they just have a different one.
Fervent opposition does not requisite religion. You are speaking as if strong belief and religion were interchangeable concepts...that is not the case.
What on earth are you talking about? When have I, or anyone else for that matter, claimed to not hold beliefs? Everybody has beliefs, it's part of being human. Having beliefs does not in any way preclude or exclude the use of facts. Beliefs are sometimes based on facts, some more than others. So Yes, you can have it both ways. You can hold beliefs and still use facts to support 'said beliefs.
You have attacked religions because it takes faith and then you admit to having faith. Beliefs are always based on facts, the problem is some refuse to use all of them. You throw out anything that is deemed religious without even considering it to be a possibility; Who is the blind one?
No, I have admitted to having belief. Having belief and having faith are two separate (but related) concepts. Faith is a particular kind of belief. Faith (the religious kind) is fervent belief despite the absence of evidence. I have not admitted anywhere to having any such faith. I have admitted only to having belief.
I do not criticize religion because it requires belief, many things require belief. I criticize religion because it relies on hearsay and anecdotes.
Remember that I am an ex-christian. I have seen both sides of the fence. I understand Christianity better than most Christians do. I understand Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism better than most Christians do. I am currently reading the Koran. So tell me, who is the blind one?
How lucky must one be to be raised in the correct religion?
If one belief is not a religion than another belief must not be a religion by the same token.
I've spent the past 20 minutes trying to put into concise words exactly why this statement is completely insane and I think I've got it.
The "same token" you are referring to is the fact that it is a belief, yet the fact that something is a belief in no way requires or concludes that it must also be a religion.
You are essentially saying:
X is Z
therefore
B is Z
Anybody who knows anything about logic, knows that this an illogical statement
Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
By this definition Football fanaticism is a religion. In the same vain that something dangerous, difficult, or unpleasant is murder. Of course that's not what we are talking about, is it?
What you listed was an informal definition, to conflate it with the literal definition and then to assert they mean the same thing is either naive or disingenuous.
If atheism is not a religion than neither is Christianity.
If a Rabbit isn't a bird then neither is an Ostrich.
I know you prefer the pick and choose method.
No, I prefer the 'Does it fit the definition?' method.
Religion:
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Does Christianity fit this definition? Yes. Does atheism fit this definition? No.
Your the one that says x=y, but y doesn't equal x. I simply say if x=y then y=x.
And what exactly are X and Y supposed to represent in this example? I don't see how it would even work with just two variables. Any sort of logical formula requires at least two premises and a conclusion, otherwise you would just have a redundancy. How do you express that formula with just two variables?
This is the reason I structured it thusly:
X = Z
therefore
B = Z
(X-Christianity)(Z-Religion)(B-Atheism)
If you know anything about logic, you would know the above statement is illogical. The reason it is illogical is because the first statement doesn't support the second statement, you need to establish a valid relationship between X and B to make that conclusion. It is just as likely that B = Y or that B = A.
You have demonstrated repeatedly that you lack a basic grasp of logical thinking.
I have a question if you guys think that there is no God then who made the earth? Who created us? If we didnt have a God then there would be no earth and all of us wouldnt be here today. All there would be was darkness and nothing would be there.
I have a question if you guys think that there is no God then who made the earth? Who created us?
Why do you assume there is even a "Who" involved? When it rains do you angrily demand to know "Who is responsible for this"? Not everything that happens has an intelligent being as the cause. Some events occur because of non-intelligent forces.
Nobody is doing it. Rain is nothing more than the accumulation of atmospheric condensation, and upon reaching critical mass it falls as precipitation. With all due respect, the idea that we need God to make rain is primitive. Science has rendered such notions obsolete.
No other gods exist like budda allah and all those other gods are fake.
Buddha is not a god, nor is he regarded as such. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, it is the same god you worship only under a different name. Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians.
This leaves me to wonder, how can you be so certain that your religion is correct when you know so little about other religions?
I have a question for you. Who came first Adam and Eve or the Dinosaurs.
It is a proven fact that Dinosaurs evolved 200 million years before humans existed and they dominated the earth for 150 million years and we have the fossils to prove it. How long has humans existed? Adam and Eve" were a mythical invention of ancient Hebrew priests who wrote the books later to be edited and assembled by christian scholars as the christian bible.
If you clearly read the arguments on the other side, you will see that most of us are saying that we don't have proof of God, not that we "think there is no God." There is actually a difference. It is one of certainty, and the majority of us are saying that certainty in either position (there is a God vs. there is no God) is impossible. Given this lack of certainty, we argue that a standpoint of skepticism is the more logical path, at least until better evidence is provided.
then who made the earth?
There is no proof that any persona was responsible. Simply some conjecture that has no basis in fact. We do, however, know that many things on Earth and in our universe form via aggregation, and it is entirely possible and likely, given the evidence that we have, that the Earth did exactly that. Also, there is a vast body of evidence that the Earth is FAR younger than the rest of the universe.
Who created us?
Again, there is no prerequisite for a "who". Its all about cause and effect. Abiogenesis still has some holes to work out, but by testing and observing we can fine-tune our theories until everything fits the observations and current base of knowledge. Sometimes it takes a while, and its possible that some questions will never be answered, but these are not reasons to call off investigative inquiry and anthropomrphize everything we don't understand.
If we didnt have a God then there would be no earth and all of us wouldnt be here today.
"We exist, therefore God" is just an excuse to stop questioning, and not a valid logical statement.
C'mon people! Is it really that hard to choose? God is real and the only way to eternal life. Seriously, whoever chose "NO" should re-evaluate what they chose. Do you want eternal life, or the other? (ETERNAL LIFE IS THE PERFECT CHOICE.)
C'mon people, is it really that hard to expect some raw information when it comes time to make a decision? Especially since the being we are talking about can supposedly do anything?
God is real and the only way to eternal life.
A lot of modes of spirituality make claims such as these. None can make an objective claim properly identifying them as being more true than the others.
Seriously, whoever chose "NO" should re-evaluate what they chose.
Seriously, whoever chose "YES" should be able to easily and convincingly provide answers to those who chose "NO", without having to resort to a singular, questionable source (the Bible) or their own emotional pleas.
Do you want eternal life, or the other?
Assuming there is no boredom in Heaven, sure I would take eternal life there if offered. But my emotions don't dictate truth. My emotions don't help me find truth. Evidence does. Without proper evidence, I am not inclined to think that desire is any more likely than my desire to become invisible at will.
Gosh! You only need faith to know that God exists!
A Muslim could say the same thing. Or a Hindu, or a wiccan, or a Sikh. So are they all right, at least as long as you have faith? And if so, how to you deal with the discrepancies?
Here's a neat little trick to life, if something is true you don't need faith in it, the evidence ends up being right there for all to see.
But you are right, I don't have blind faith in anything. I like to have as realistic a view on things as I can.
Faith is incapable of distinguishing what is true from what is false. Thus the numerous often conflicting faiths, which cannot all be true. So on what basis should we trust what is accepted on faith?
"What has your God done for you that you couldn't have done for yourself?" -Jordan T. McQueen
You need to understand something: YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!
You don't believe in Zeus, Acuecucyoicihuati, Centeotl, Poseidon, or Brahma.
Why don't you believe in these perfectly legitimate religions? Why did you choose yours out of the MILLIONS to choose from?
I'll tell you why: because you're mommy and daddy told you to believe in your god, or you happened to have been at the right place at the right time and now you believe in your god. There is no logical reason to believe that your god is good and everyone else's god is illegitimate.
I didn't used to believe in God because I didn't understand what it could be. I started to learn about philosophy and realised I'd spent my entire life being so ignorant about it -- the answer was obvious all along.
God is our human understanding of the Universe. God is basically life and existence itself. Life, the Universe...- it is omnipotent (in the sense that it can do anything within the realm of possibility), omnipresent (it is everywhere and everything), omniscient (because it IS everything there is to know), the 'creator' (in the sense that it is the source of everything), it's perfect (in the way that it is perfectly complete), it is eternal (even if restricted to a tiny atom, it's still existing), it is good (in the way that it is good AT existing and good FOR existing). A Barbie doll, for instance, is not life -- but it's a product of life. A stone is a product of the Earth. We, as humans, are the only rational AND sentient component of God's nature. To talk of God being rational and good and evil, we are talking about ourselves. If there is evil in the world, it is the fault of people. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God (one who has human characteristics). That's why I personally prefer to refer to God as 'It' not 'He'. I believe God is only anthropomorphic through us.
I say it's our 'human understanding' of the Universe/life, because without humans, the concept of God would disappear, but God would still continue to exist -- but just as a stone would continue to exist, only it would not have the name of 'stone'. We call life/the Universe 'God', because it is the meaning of life/the Universe, just as being a 'stone' is the meaning of the stone. It is faith and morality and recognition of what is there -- and in ways it is a product of us, yes, but also our perception of what pre-exists us.
I accept athiesm in the sense that people choose not to have this faith. But these people do still believe in 'God', only they call it beauty, love, chocolate, beer, family, friends, trees, xbox, passion, work, books, art, cinema...whatever they want. Everything that adds an aspect of meaning to your life is essentially what believers are doing with the Universe -- they are seeing it as an overwhelmingly wonderful reason to live.
PS. I am not religious, but do accept religions... I basically accept any belief -- relativism exists because of a fundamental source: people, culture...etc, - all the result of evolution, which is a result of the Universe.
You just have to see it differently and not judge too quickly. If you find yourself still disagreeing, I'd recommend to just try looking at life this way and thinking about the world this way for a month and see how fulfilling it can be. And read yourself some Spinoza.
PS (again). I think there are so many sceptics in the world because of the common misunderstanding that God is some giant guy with a beard, or some invisible creator far beyond the Universe... people start to see how ridiculous it is and don't look for a logical answer. Others think 'we have no proof', but they say this because they are, again, trying to find proof of the interventionist bearded man, or the celestial teapot. Of course we're not going to find that. If we did...then...bloomin' 'eck, forget all I've said! But I really don't think that exists and what DOES exist is what is here and now and gone and soon to be. You are God! I am God! Your pet is God. Your coach is God. But don't call it 'God' if you want to avoid the confusion ... just call it life, nature... Bill...Bob...your reflection. Whatever YOU want.
I never had a word for it. But you just plainly defined it in one comment.
I never thought it would even have a word... I thought it was just me being me. But considering there are 6 billion people on this planet, mathematical probability would show that there are probably thousands of people exactly like me. Silly me, abandoning logic.
So thank you, now I know what to call myself. Dunno if that's good or bad. Dunno if I'll remember the word 24/7, but... it was still delightful having an epiphany.
Myself and most pantheists do call it nature. When I have the choice I refer to God as 'It' (not He) or 'the Universe'. I dislike using the term 'God' because it causes confusion and people think you're referring to the traditional Christian idea (which I would say is mythical/analogous of the Universe)... In this particular argument we were discussing the existence of God, so I was making it clear that by nature I meant God. I even advised that people don't call it God! It can be whatever you want it to be, since it is everything!
But at the end of the day, it is what God is (we believe) and if people want to call it God they can. Apparently 'God' traditionally meant 'I am', so it is the same concept (that I am God, you are God...and so on). God is a synonym for nature, the Universe, life, matter... If nature is never referred to as 'God', people won't begin to realise they are the same thing.
I am a panthiest but i also refer to the universe as God, especially when i am trying to convery my beliefs to others, i don't like being categorised but if i had to define my beliefs panthiestism is definitely the closest match. I use the term God and unvierse as i know no matter what religion a person is they immediately recognise the signiirficance of word God.
Well that's why I also said I think it's good to refer to it as God so people know there's no shame in seeing God this way - it's a good thing. I refer to it as God and Nature and whatever I want to really. Most of the ancient Greeks were pantheists - so God was sorta meant to be Nature in the first place, until all the confusion.
Umm. Studying philosophy -- the arguments for the existence of God, etc. Nothing in particular I don't think. It just clicked one day and I realised how obvious it was... Then I reviewed the arguments for the existence of God and realised the pantheistic belief fits in to every one of them. In ways, I think everyone's a pantheist without even realising it. Every philosopher seems to allude to the same idea essentially, even if with fundamentally different beliefs. It's hard to explain what I mean!, since I know they all argue starkly unique things... yet I believe their arguments all derive from the same 'whole' thing, with merely different experiences within it... Like Nietzsche, for example - thinks God is merely a concept, yet speaks of 'eternal recurrence' and everything belonging to one 'infinite whole'. The infinite whole is what most would say IS God. This is why I think 'God' is a concept applied to the whole... as I said in another comment, it's just another, more meaningful, word for the Universe! (I understand Nietzsche is saying that, since God is a concept, when it dies out 'life is meaningless'...but what I mean to say is that 'God' is a concept perceived from something physical -- thus the physical 'God' exists too.... as you may agree, since I read somewhere you hold pantheistic beliefs also)
I support the pantheist effort to redefine god. But what do you think about the nature of worship and it's seemingly inexorable relationship with the word god and non-pantheistic or ordinary theism?
Well, religion and worship (as we know) is something that derives from a fundamental concept of God... whether people choose to create a system of ethics AND worship this concept (as Christians do, for example) is up to them and has nothing to do with God itself -- religion and worship is just a way of choosing how to live. Therefore, I think people are entitled to live in what way they choose when it comes to religion/worship, as long as it causes no harm and doesn't enforce its beliefs on others, as some churches do... but I myself don't think public worship is necessary... I think God is personal and the best way to 'worship' is just to live in relation to what we think we know is good for the planet and good for people. Worship should be about appreciation and regard for life itself.
In terms of 'redefining' God, it's more 're-re-defining' God, since this initially was the concept of God anyway, until people mythologised it!
People may choose to worship a non-pantheistic concept of God, but I think if a religion were to worship this concept, or any concept of God... they would need to be open to the possibilities of perhaps being wrong... I don't think it's ever fair to say 'this is absolute fact, so you must live your life this way and believe that god is this' -- in other words, religion shouldn't take an authoritative role in people's lives, as it's merely a way of living, not the absolute way of living... I would say. It's not necessary and it should be there out of choice, not force.
My perspective differs from yours in that I see religion as deriving from a desire to better understand events and convey what's been learned to new generations. Worship derives from a tendency to over focus on one perceived "supreme authority"
This is not how religion in general operates or how faith operates. Religion is not about better understanding, it is just about understanding. That is to say, religion attempts to explain what isn't or wasn't known. But once there, there is no means by which to improve that understanding or adjust it to newly discovered facts. Religion is more about teaching than it is about learning.
This is not how religion in general operates or how faith operates.
Or rather it doesn't comport with generalizations you make.
Religion is not about better understanding, it is just about understanding.
Request: Please share some of your thoughts about the relationship between the human tradition of record keeping and religion?
there is no means by which to improve that understanding or adjust it to newly discovered facts.
To claim that religion is traditionally too change resistant is an observation I can agree with. To claim there is no means by which to improve or adjust it in light of new discoveries is false on it's face.
Religion is more about teaching than it is about learning.
I think of it as an inheritance of which each individual must decide what to preserve and hand on to successive generations.
And yet two sentences later you agree with my "generalization".
While I do agree that a vast majority of SECTS are too change resistant, I don't agree that the practice of religion itself is necessarily so. Take Open Source Religion or Unitarian Universalism as examples.
Early human records(histories) were inseparable from early myths, fables and legends.
OK. And now would you claim that modern human records (histories) ARE somehow only now separable from myths fables and and legends?
Do you generally agree or disagree with:
1. “History is fables agreed upon.” ~Voltaire
2. "History is more or less bunk" ~Ford
Within religion. Individuals acting in defiance of established dogma have created change. Such is not within the means provided by religion.
This is admitting that individuals "within religion" can act in defiance of established orthodoxies and dogmas and over time change them. Your argument is one against overly dogmatic religious institutions but not one against religion itself.
I do not disagree with that sentiment.
What do you think of the concept of Open Source Religion?
Isn't that basically what I said? At least that's what I meant to imply, sorry. I know religion itself is THAT, but I was saying that religions are centralised around some belief in a God/gods...which are all similar concepts, which I therefore believe all derive from the same thing - human experiences of the Universe.
And that's what I meant by arguing 'worship' should be something else, since it's not healthy for people to focus on one 'supreme authority', which might not even be correct in its teachings. I think worship should be shifted to mean 'appreciation' for life/God, rather than merely a way of forcing yourself to depend on God.
The only way people will have a truly good life is by doing good themselves, thus experiencing good consequences. If people merely 'worship' then many are forced to feel good will come to them JUST by worshipping. (not everyone, but some...most don't even know why they are worshipping, they've just had a list of reasons indoctrinated into them without question)
It's like getting a bowl of ice-cream, enjoying the ice-cream and then thinking you deserved it because you were able to appreciate it. People need to earn the ice-cream, rather than just enjoying it, begging for more of it. In other words, people need to earn good and actively appreciate good... as opposed to just hoping for it all the time through worship.
This is obviously a generalisation, but this is one other reason I personally don't worship.... I just think the concept of it is unnecessary and it doesn't have as much use as actively living and learning. I don't mean to say worship is harmful - I understand why some people might participate in it - but I believe it deprives people of true self-enjoyment of life/appreciation for what an individual personally loves... Instead it restricts people and inflicts 'cans' and 'can't dos' - when these 'cant dos' aren't necessarily even wrong... but they don't always get to experience the consequences and make these decisions for themselves.
PS. Just to clarify, I AM only very generally referring to people who merely rely on worship. I know most religious people do actively do good AND worship, which is fine if that's what they CHOOSE to do. My concern is that some people (a) don't have the choice and (b) only worship, rely on God and don't do good themselves (thinking that "loving God" is enough to have a good life)
Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"
Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
I can't expect everybody to have original thoughts but at the very least you could cite your sources.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.
See my post above, which addresses this issue.
The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
And without the proven existence of God, why should we trust what the bible has to say about the matter?
If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists.
All the more reason we should doubt his existence.
But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.
So?
There is not a single advantage of Faith over evidenced belief, not one. The only reason Faith is considered important because it is the only way "holy men" could convince us to believe their unproven nonsense.
A Benevolent God would value human life above faith.
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence.
This is Christians wanting it both ways. If you have evidence, then you don't have faith. If you have Faith, then you don't have evidence. Faith by definition is belief without evidence or proof. So you cannot claim to have both faith and evidence, you would be contradicting yourself.
The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
The bible says it, so it must be true, right? With arguments like this, you don't need counter-arguments.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument.
The ontological argument is bullocks and philosophers have known this for hundreds of years. Using the concept of something as proof that the concept is true, just smells like fishy logic. The argument just falls apart when you remove all the elements of equivocation that's going on.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.
This is even worse than the ontological argument. To even call what we see in nature "design" you must first prove a designer. You can't prove there is a designer by assuming there is one. This is what is called "begging the question".
Furthermore if the complexity of the universe requires a designer, then surely the complexity of the designer must require yet another designer and so on.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Evolution by means of natural selection.
Societies that cooperated survived, and those didn't, didn't survive.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause.
This is laughably easy to refute. If every effect requires a cause, then what is God's cause? If God has no cause, then not every effect requires a cause thus your statement is untrue.
Arguments for the existence of God are generally very weak arguments.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence
With what other sense? Sense of taste? Sense of touch? Sense of sight? Sense of smell?
The God I believe in is a universal spirit. I also believe that man is divine and immortal and is rencarnated until he perfects himself into a loving, limitless and spiritual creature, which is what he is supposed to be. jesus was not divine, he discovered this truth and worked tirelessly to teach it. He said " He that has seen me hath seen the father" Of course! It's that way with everyone. God is Life and wisdom! Anything living has God, "the father", in it! Affirm yourself to be divine and claim your power and infinite wisdom that comes with it.
It is all good advice. Indeed, you are verging on sounding like a Buddhist, which is one of the religions I tend to have no qualms with (indeed I was a Buddhist for a couple years)...but I have a question...
Why does it have to be God? God implies...something...existing beyond observable means...why does the beauty of the universe have to be that? What is your evidence/rationale for such a thing...why can't the beauty and majesty that exists around us simply be..that which has happened...? Why imply that it has a consciousness...?
I have to take issue with this, every person is as much a projection of God as another regardless of their class, religion, ethnicity, nationality, the ideology(or lack thereof) they subsribe to, their gender, their sexuality,their level of education, level of intelligence, their behaviour, their age etc. etc. We are all one, no one can be considered less in anyway despite what you may want to beleive. This trancends whatever petty beliefs led you to dispute thuis claim, and i felt obligated to inform you.
First of all I said this somewhat facetiously, in other words it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious comment.. Second of all, are you suggesting that behavior which involves lying stealing, and murdering is a "projection of love"?
Something I know and something I feel. jesus was a historical figure and the gist of his teachings as written in the gospel, original text, word for word, fit in with my views. The church has distorted and misunderstood his teacings. He was a man, a Great one and a role model and teacher and a wayshower, but a man nonetheless. I know it because it is the only form of God that makes sense, and I know there is a God because, well... I can't guarantee it. You got me. I will never except that we are here to reproduce and die, though. I believe the universe has no beginning and no end, we cannot comprehend it though, and God has always been there and will always be there. I do not believe God created the universe, nothing "craeted it" beause it has no beginning. Few people throughout history have realized the truth I posted in another comment, including Jesus, Buddha, Thomas, Thoreau and many in that line. I have felt the presence through meditation, have experienced the law of compensation (karma basically) and have gone through every kind of religious belief level from fanatic, reformed, new age, moderate, fundementalist and so on and have experienced the feelings of each. So, in conclusion, you will not find proof through tuition, but through intuition.
First, let me say that I appreciate your thoughtfulness and am proud to be your ally on this site.
Also, I do agree that what you propose is indeed more logical and sensible than the more commonly seen depictions of God, and that I agree and/or emphasize with several of your statements. But there is one than I strongly disagree with. Your very last one:
you will not find proof through tuition, but through intuition.
I propose that you have this exactly backwards.
What, really, is intuition? Well, it varies heavily from one usage to the next, but the general idea is that it is rooted in feeling as opposed to rationality. And feeling implies emotions. Now I'm not knocking emotions, they serve us and shape us. Fear can save lives, anger can give you the strength to overcome fear. Happiness can serve as beacon to move towards when the decision has no easy answers. But they can harm us too: fear can lead to not doing anything that involves risk, anger can lead to destruction, happiness can lead to complacency. And none of these things really lead to truth.
But there are other intuitions, too. I myself always seem to just know when two people who have never been romantically involved want each other, even if one claims they don't have those feelings. I am rarely wrong about those things, and other people have noticed this too. But is it really a "gut feeling" that has no use for knowledge, or is it a subconscious manifestation of my other skills, such as my ability to read body language or my knowledge of sociology, or my keen observational skills? Just because I can't easily identify why I thought John and Sue loved each other even when Sue claimed otherwise, doesn't mean my brain wasn't running the math behind the scenes. But I have noticed I see these things more clearly when the girl involved isn't someone that I want to be with. The only times I have been wrong were times when I didn't want to admit that the Sue liked John more than she liked me. We are drawn to positive emotions and shy away from negative ones. Therefore intuition tends to lead us towards what we want to be true. Faith, a form of intuition, is notorious for this.
This is why rationality, tuition as you say, is a better tool for discerning truth. As long as you respond to what you see and learn and ignore what you feel, you have a better chance of getting the big picture.
And one of the first rules of rationality is that you need to have a good reason to believe what you believe. Not that you want to believe it, but that is can be shown and proven to people who may not have the same desires as yourself. Which is the gist of what I have been saying.
Until someone can explain how the chicken came first or where the egg is positioned, there is an order to the multi-verse. Big bang, M theory.. what came first...we are all star dust, created out of a super nova billions of years ago, thats provable but what contained the original bang or what houses the membranes. I side with consciousness, we are all god, hence from god and will return to god because we are all unique, yet completely the same!
What happens to your computer programs when you destroy your computer? The programs are the result of the processes of the computer. Consciousness is the result of the processes of the brain. The brain is essentially a biological computer. End the computer and you end it's processes.
Yes God does exist. When you die you go to Heaven. It's simple logic! I mean where else do you go? We wouldn't be here if it weren't for God! Of course this is just my view, and you can feel absolutely free to choose your own religion and beliefs.
You say others can feel free to choose their own religion and beliefs yet you claim that simple logic means you go to heaven and that God certainly exists. To respect others views you must only view this as a personal belief and not the absolute truth until proven other wise.
Ok honestly srom I don't even disagree with you but you aren't debating you just keep spouting out scripture and ignoring any arguments people bring up, unless you decide to spout more scripture disguised as an argument. Either way this entire argument is pointless, virtually no headway has ever been made on it because whatever their belief on this topic, there is not enough evidence to overturn either side. I really wish people would stop making these...
This world is waaaay too beautiful to be created by anything other than a Divine Being. And only Someone with powers beyond our belief could design and create something as complex as the human body.
Beauty is not inherent, you see things as beautiful because that is what you perceive them to be. Does the repulsiveness of maggots, cow feces, or vultures disprove God? So why would beauty prove him/it? It's a nonsense argument.
In my opinion God lives in us, rather in every, who believes in him. Faith in God gives us the confident and strength.Each thing has its creator, each house has its own architect, each book has its own author, each person has their own parents: his father and mother. Please show me a thing, which itself was formed? Tha is why I think that Creator of our universe is God. And why the belief in God exist in human consciousness?
In the Word of God the Bible it says in John 3:16 it says that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that who ever belives in him shall not die but have eternal life.
I will agree that a place called Egypt did in fact exist, that this place was ruled by a pharaoh, that a man referred to as Chrestus had a small following of Jews, that there was a Roman empire and they did execute practitioners of non-roman religions. The rest is bullocks.
There is no corroborating evidence that anyone was spoken to by a bush or a snake. There is no evidence that anyone rose from the dead. There is no evidence anyone walked on water or was born of a virgin birth. There is no evidence that the ancestors of all life co-existed on a single wooden boat.
However there is strong evidence that people thousands of years ago liked to tell tall tales.
It's more probable than not that a man named Jesus lived. My problem with him being more than a man is the fact that he did not know how to write. It seems to run in the family. We gods can create everything... but don't know how to write.
Jesus also said I am the Way the Truth and the Light. Jesus is the only God and there is none like him. God already proved himself that He is really by coming down on this earth to die for our sins because we were all dead in sin. So He proved himself by dying on the cross for our sins and by raising from dead after 3 days. There you go He proved that God exists
A statement of faith, not fact. That you believe something does not constitute evidence that it is true.
God already proved himself that He is really by coming down on this earth
We don't know that he ever did this. You must trust that the written accounts of this are true. What most likely happened is a man claimed to be the incarnation of God. People make such claims all the time. You simply assume that in this case it is true.
Perhaps it would be simplistic to point out that 'cavemen' fossils have been dated to hundreds of thousands of years old, while the story of Adam and Eve is supposed to have taken place around six thousand years ago. Let's seperate science from religion; a scientist would say that Adam and Eve never existed and the cave men really exist, and some theologians may say that the world is only 6000 years old, and therefore Adam and Eve were the first cave dwellers (although this conflicts with the biblical story of their son, Cain, building a great city in the land of Nod).
So your logic is: Because you live in an area where Christianity is the dominant religion, it must be right?
So somebody who lives in country where Buddhism is the most common religion can say that Buddhism must be right because they don't see as many Christian churches as Buddhist temples?
Or a person in Saudi Arabia, noting there are dozens of mosques but only 1 church in their community can say that obviously Islam is correct?
None of these statements are very useful, because truth isn't a popularity contest.
Still, I'm guessing that most of you are americans, so that doesn't mean you live in India. You see churches all the time. About 3/4ths of my town goes to church. How do I know that? Over 2000 people go to my church every day. And that's just 1/42 churches. My town population has only around 10,000 People.
Truth is not a popularity contest. Once upon a time almost everybody thought the world was flat and that sun revolved around us. Turns out they were wrong.....
Believe in the Bible all you want. But don't for a minute think you know everything or that nothing else is possible other than what is written in scripture. Don't impose your beliefs on others.Answer questions when asked. But don't tell everyone they're going to hell. Jesus didn't walk around pointing at people, going "You're going to hell, you're going to hell, you're going to hell... you're cool... and you're going to hell". So why do a lot of Christians do that? What the hell to do they think can be gained by condemning
other people? It's certainly not going to make me want to listen to your beliefs, let alone accept them. All it breeds is hatred and negativity. And if telling someone about hell gets them to convert, then they're converting for all the wrong reasons, and they are spiritually dead anyway.
The heaven and hell concept breeds self-righteousness and arrogance (I'm going to heaven and you're not). It also leads to badgering and hurting other people (You're going to hell). Shouldn't following the path of Jesus and having faith change your life for the better now, on earth? Shouldn't it fill you with joy and love and acceptance so that you can be a good person? That should be reward enough in itself. Yet there are
so many Christians who are hypocritical and treat others like dirt! But I guess it doesn't matter how horrible they are to people on earth, because they're saved and going to heaven. And then if you don't believe in Jesus (whether or not you're the most loving, self-sacrificing person on the planet) you're going to burn in hell for all eternity. What kind of cosmic justice is that? If God is going to rule his universe like that, then
I'd rather be an atheist (I'm not an atheist, but you get my point)
This is the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. The existence of God cannot be true in one area and false in another. How many people believe in something has zero bearing on whether it is actually true or not.
@imrigone There is a hell because people died and came back on this earth. There is a book called "A Divine Revelation of Hell" by Mary K. Baxter. She goes with Jesus to hell and explores it with him. He talks about what someother people did that was wrong like people who like darkness more than the light and served Satan more than Jesus and also there was servants of God or belivers and then they didnt believe in him and then they went to hell. Jesus also said in the book that she wrote "My Word is true" He also said repent of your sins and He will cleanse you even if the sin is really bad or a mistake. If you dont repent you will be in a place of suffering for eternity and there is no escape!
Srom1883, I will give you credit for your passion and tenacity. However I must take away some of that credit for your tendency to ignore my points and just move on to something else. I try to respond to your points, but you keep avoiding mine. That being said:
There is a book called "A Divine Revelation of Hell" by Mary K. Baxter. She goes with Jesus to hell and explores it with him.
There is a huge problem with "divine revelations" and personal testimony. A few problems, actually. One is, we can never know whether to trust someone when they are the only ones with access to that specific experience. They could be lying, they could be deluded, they could be misunderstanding what they are being exposed to, etc. That is why objective evidence is better. If I had an incredible experience that is unbelievable, it would go a lot farther to convincing people if I could show them, recreate the event, provide incontrovertible evidence, and so on; than if all I could do was tell them about it. Which leads us to the next problem: an omniscient being would understand this. And an omnipotent being could do something about it. Why not give a dream of heaven and hell, one that could not be refuted in any way, to every person on the planet, whether they had read the Bible or not? Why not have a one-way gate to hell, say in Death Valley, where every person could go in once in their lives and see it for themselves, know exactly what it would be like? You could have one for Heaven in the Himalayas too. These wouldn't have to be true passageways, mind you. Just a quick tour, and every one would get only one chance to see each destination, and continue on with life after. And people who didn't want to go wouldn't have to, but people who did would always find a way, no matter how poor or unhealthy they are. Doing it this way would simultaneously allow us to have free will AND have irrefutable, objective evidence. Why is God so intent on not letting us make a truly informed choice, if he is omnibenevloent and wants us to love him?
He also said repent of your sins and He will cleanse you even if the sin is really bad or a mistake.
And yet we are told that repenting doesn't just mean learning your lesson and striving to make up for it, trying to make the world a better place after. It also means casting aside your rational judgment and giving yourself to something that does not choose to reveal itself fully in ways that would convince anyone. That doesn't sound like something that an all-powerful/all-knowing/all-compassionate being would do. It does, however, sound like something that people who wanted power and control over nations of superstitious folk would come up with...
The person is not lying Jesus told her in the book to write a book about so that people coul understand that there is hell and to prevent people going there and have people go to heaven with God.
An atheist says they do not believe in God and an agnostic says that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. The positions are not mutually exclusive.
I don't like the bible, too much violence, twice as much as the Quran in fact. Care to explain why what I read in the Quran is any less credible then your ridiculous bible? And I mean an explanation outside of what you read in the bible. One source does not a valid argument make.
"Bible is evidence that it says that God exists. Read the Bible sometime and you will see"
Sorry I tend not to rely on fiction books as evidence. And I have one, however im willing to bet you have never read any book from another faith in its entirety. You are ignorant and biased and you have absolutely no evidence to support any of the bullshit you try to preach. The bible is not a viable piece of evidence.The Earth is not a couple thousand years old. The universe was not created for humanity. Mary was not a virgin. You are however, a dumbass.
Then why in my Bible does it say when the book is written. Just like when you read an autobiography it has a date on it on what the person did and when the book is written so when you read a autobiography you think its true. But you think the Bible is fiction when actually it isnt fiction there are a lot of things happened. We have a rainbow and the reason why we have a rainbow is because God promised Noah that he would never flood the whole earth again and he kept his promise so the Bible is not fiction. And if i were you i would watch what you are saying because you will regret those words you said against the Bible
"Then why in my Bible does it say when the book is written"
What the hell does that mean? You should pay attention in English class, you appear to have a very weak grasp on correct sentence structure.
" Just like when you read an autobiography it has a date on it on what the person did"
So your saying that because it has a date on it, it must be true? Several fiction books have dates in them. In fact some use events in real life to advance a fictional story plot. The bible is a load of man made garbage. Whenever I go to a library or book store, I always remember to put the bible in its correct place: mythical fiction.
" But you think the Bible is fiction when actually it isnt fiction there are a lot of things happened"
If the story lacked any real events, then nobody would have frames of reference. Of course the bible has some events that happened, but most didn't. Like the story of jesus's birth, which was used by the greeks for a mythological tale way before the apparent birth of jesus.
"We have a rainbow and the reason why we have a rainbow is because God promised Noah that he would never flood the whole earth again and he kept his promise so the Bible is not fiction. "
Wow you are one idiotic individual. The world never flooded, if you like I will post a humorous video that goes over statistics that proof the story of the ark is false. And a rainbow is a reflection of light from water. You need to stop taking words from a fiction book as fact, your current method makes you look quite lacking in intelligence.
"And if i were you i would watch what you are saying because you will regret those words you said against the Bible"
I am not afraid of your fiction book and im certainly not afraid of your non existent god.
I am done with agruing with you this argument could last days. Therefore I am going to pray for to know God and accecpt him and realize that there is a God. If you do not want to believe in God its ok its your descision on what to believe in. But all i have to say to you is this im done with you and this debate this situation is now in Gods hands He will take care of you when you die. If you die and still think that there is no God then you are going to hell where a place of suffering is awaiting you. Enough said!
i believe in God because how can we explain why we even exist, how can we explain the scriptures, how can we explain why people are people, why would you deny that something if that something really doesn't exist
Thorough investigative inquiry is generally quite useful. "Why we even exist" is a pretty big question with lots of individual questions wrapped inside of it. A significant amount of these questions have already been well answered and are available for your perusal online, in libraries or any good college. Of course there are several questions left unanswered, but why just jump to a conclusion that was formed thousands of years ago by people with virtually no understanding of science?
The thing is, we do exist, and we will continue to do so just fine without knowing the "why", or even if there is a "why". There is no race here. We doing things thoroughly and methodically and allow technology and other investigations pull it all together. There is no reason to give our sense of curiosity a false answer just because we are impatient.
how can we explain the scriptures
Again, you have a broad topic here, but there are plenty of explanations. Be more specific, and I bet I have an answer to your question.
how can we explain why people are people
The simple answer is because we aren't something else. Yet again, if you would like a specific answer, you need to ask a specific question.
why would you deny that something if that something really doesn't exist
The same way we deny unicorns, leprechauns, the X-Men, etc. It is actually very easy.
Science tells us to accept all possibilities and analyze each. Because it has never been ruled out as impossible, it must be left in the pool of the possible.
You know you guys just because you dont see God doesnt mean he is there. Todays society you have to see to believe. We can feel God's presence. How? We sometimes feel like we are light headed and also we feel dizzy. Its faith that determines God exists. Stop bringing evoultion into this debate it had nothing to do with God. There are some flaws in evoultion. Jesus said to his disciples you have seen me and yet you believe but bless it are those who didnt see me and yet have believed. You guys are all angry about this situation and you dont want to know the Truth. Sorry guys but sometimes the truth hurts whether you like it or not. And the truth can set you free. You guys think that the Bible is a man made thing but actually Jesus told the people to write it through the Holy Spirit. In the Bible it also says that a fool one says in his heart that God doesnt exist.
You know you guys just because you dont see God doesnt mean he is there. Todays society you have to see to believe
Then do you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, the Loch Ness monster? There is logic behind 'seeing is believing'.
We can feel God's presence. How? We sometimes feel like we are light headed and also we feel dizzy
How is being light headed or dizzy God's presence? Dizziness can be caused by a mass amount of things to list a few: stress, low blood sugar, standing up to quickly, being on a round a bout.
Its faith that determines God exists. Stop bringing evoultion into this debate it had nothing to do with God. There are some flaws in evoultion. Jesus said to his disciples you have seen me and yet you believe but bless it are those who didnt see me and yet have believed
Obviously an opposition argument is going to bring evolution to the table as evidence since it has more proven credibility than an higher being. There are flaws in religion too you know. You don't know Jesus said that. It's not proven.
You guys are all angry about this situation and you dont want to know the Truth. Sorry guys but sometimes the truth hurts whether you like it or not
There is no evidence to suggest that Christianity or any other religion is the truth. It could be the truth but it's by no means definite. Perhaps the truth may hurt you when you die and there is no heaven. Or maybe you'll just cease to exist and will never find out.
And the truth can set you free. You guys think that the Bible is a man made thing but actually Jesus told the people to write it through the Holy Spirit
There is no proof that Jesus told people to write the Bible especially through a supernatural entity. Regardless it is man made even if it is Jesus' word he is a man and made it and thus the Bible is man made. Even if it was Jesus' word there is no proof that Jesus' word is the truth.
In the Bible it also says that a fool one says in his heart that God doesnt exist
Well it would say that, it still doesn't prove anything. If I wrote about the life and times of a giant rubber duck who traveled the world in a hot air balloon and said you'd be a fool not to believe it since it adds up historically would you think it was the ultimate truth?
You know you guys just because you dont see God doesnt mean he is there. Todays society you have to see to believe. We can feel God's presence. How? We sometimes feel like we are light headed and also we feel dizzy.
If you are feeling light-headed and dizzy, that's not God it's severe dehydration. Although I can see how you might confuse the two.
You guys are all angry about this situation and you dont want to know the Truth.
You are not in a position to even know what "The Truth" is, nonetheless to dictate who desires it.
We may only ever have a close approximation of truth. A semblance of truth. Anyone who claims to have "The truth" is nearly always full of shit.
You guys think that the Bible is a man made thing but actually Jesus told the people to write it through the Holy Spirit.
And those people who wrote the bible, did they happen to be men? If Jesus wanted people to write the bible, why didn't he write it himself? Am I to believe the son of God is illiterate?
b) God exist in our minds and so he exists .- If you've even heard of the Transformers or the X-Men, or leprechauns or tooth fairies, they exist in your mind. Do any of these things exist in reality? To the best of my knowledge, no
I philosophically and scientifically agree with you that all things are related, but that does not mean that two statements automatically support each other within the constraints of an argument, at least unless you provide some architecture to bind them.
"I think therefore I am" refers to the fairly straightforward notion that if you can comprehend things, and comprehend that you comprehend things, well then, its fairly safe to assume that you exist. However, this doesn't mean that everything you comprehend also exists, it simply means that you, the one guaranteed existing entity you know of, has the capacity to conceive of things.
As far as reality, if something truly exists, it is part of reality. Its pretty simple.
Posting a similar definition, does not negate the definition I gave. You're implying that such a word does not mean X because it also means Y. Words have multiple ofter inter-related definitions. You are either ignorant of such a simple fact or you willfully ignore it.
A question of existence is a question of actuality, thus your statement is nonsensical.
NOTE:What I am about to tell you is true. I did not copy and paste this off a website this is my speech. This is proof that God exists.
Question: Why cant I see God? How Do we knw He is real? Answer:There are a number of things that we cant see yet,know theryre real. We know the the wind is real because we can feel it in our skin and see it blowing leaves off a tree. Because God is a Spirit, He's invisible ,but unless he chooses to reveal himself. In some way for some special occasion(look at theses examples God revealing himself in special ways in the Bible, Exodus 3:4-6 says When the Lord saw Moses take a closer God called to him from the middle bush "Moses!,Moses!" "Here I am!" Moses replied. verse 5: "Do not come any closer", the Lord warned. "Take off your sandals for you are on holy ground. verse 6: "For I am the God of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob.
Matthew 3:16-17 says After his baptism as Jesus came out of the water,the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. Verse 17: And a voice from Heaven said,"This is my dearly beloved Son, who brings me great joy.)
Only a few people in history have met God in these ways. For the rest of us,there are ways we can "know" God exists even though we dont see him.
First we know by faith that God exist the Bible says hes real. So people who believe in the Bible believe God is real. Hebrews 11:6 says And it is impossible to please God without faith.Anyone who wants to come to hom must believe that God exists and rewards those who seek him. Second, we know God exists because of the impact he has on our lives. Just like we know the wind is real because we can see what it does ,we know God is real because he changes our lives. He lets us know when we do wrong. He comforts us when we are sad. He answers our prayers and list goes on and on. Those who have faith know that God is real because he really is active in our lives.
Question: Why cant I see God? How Do we knw He is real? Answer:There are a number of things that we cant see yet,know theryre real. We know the the wind is real because we can feel it in our skin and see it blowing leaves off a tree. Because God is a Spirit, He's invisible ,but unless he chooses to reveal himself. In some way for some special occasion(look at theses examples God revealing himself in special ways in the Bible, Exodus 3:4-6
And your proof rests upon uncorroborated anecdotal stories written thousands of years ago?
First we know by faith that God exist the Bible says hes real.
You can never "Know" anything by faith. Faith is belief not knowledge. I don't expect that I must explain the difference between knowledge and belief.
The is no relationship between what is believed upon faith and what is actually true, none at all.
Second, we know God exists because of the impact he has on our lives.
Something mustn't be true to have an impact on people's lives. Deception can affect lives just as well as truth.
Those who have faith know that God is real because he really is active in our lives.
Is he? What events you attribute to divine intervention can just as easily be attributed to the normal occurrences of life.
Am I to take it Srom, that you believe downvoting is an alternative to an actual counter-argument? It isn't. This only tells me that your arguments are too weak to withstand critical thinking.
Answer:Absoulutely! The Bible is the very Word of God and God cant lie. He cant make mistakes ethier. You and I might be tempted to lie sometimes ,but God never does. God is perfect,which means he never did anything wrong. He's given us the Word because he wants us to know the truth about some important stuff-like who he is,how muche he loves us,and how to get to heaven.
Question: Who wrote the Bible
Answer: The Bible is inspired by God. He inspired Moses for example to write the first 5 books of the Bible. That means Moses was guided along so that he wrote exactly what God told him to write.
Answer:Absoulutely! The Bible is the very Word of God and God cant lie. He cant make mistakes ethier. You and I might be tempted to lie sometimes ,but God never does.
"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not." ~Thomas Paine
You realize this video is a satire, correct? I must question the authenticity and sincerity of your beliefs. You are either very naive or a troll. Due to Poe's law I cannot determine which.
I started to believe becasue of personal experiences in my life. At one point you really hit a certain rock bottom point when you're really forced to look at life, and think about it. Anyway, I DO believe in God, and nothing can really shake my belief in that. (Beliefs on other stuff like biblical interpretation of morals and stuff I'm still developing opinions of)
How about this: If God DOES exist, then he does and all these happy Christians can go to heaven and live with Jesus in peace and happiness forever, while those who don't believe in him will be sad.
And if he doesn't then at least we Christians died happily thinking we were going to heaven, while those who don't believe will also be happy. --> if there is nothing else after our death then ah well for both.
Not if you were a Jew. Should you not accept Judaism just to play it safe? If God knew you chose a religion on the basis of "playing it safe", do you think he would grant you admittance into heaven anyway? What about the thousands of other religions that could also be true? Choosing a religion because it has a desirable afterlife is indicative of shaky reasoning.
If Judaism is the real religion, then I would go to hell. If Buddhism or Hinduisim is correct then I'll just come back again, and I'm sure I'll still be well off because. of trying to be good in 'this life'. If Islam is correct: I'm going to hell seeing as I'll be an infidel to them. If Janism is true, I'm sure I'll be fine as I'm a relatively peaceful soul in real life. If Bahai is true, I'm sure I'll be fine, and if Confucianism, Daoisim, and the like are correct I will still be fine.
And XD I didn't say I choose the religion because of the afterlife: I'm asking why it matters in the end for people to argue about the beliefs being deemed wrong in their eyes.
Precisely the point. We should not choose religion on basis of what might be true, or what afterlife a religion promises. What matters is what is most likely to be true. Argue on basis of evidence not on basis of speculation.
go ahead guys believe in atheism and all that nonsense. i am done with this debate because u r brain washing me with all this stuff . i did my part to persuade u guys and all u did was say it wasnt true. i pray for u athiests to believe in God. Hopefully i will see u in heaven 1 day. if u dont believe in God u will go 2 a place of suffering . AKA hell
I find it unlikely that Reuters would misspell the name of their own website. I searched Reuters and could not find any such article. I'm inclined to think this is a fake.
I will believe god doesn’t exist when you guys can prove to me that we walked on the moon and the Holocaust really did take place…… MAKE ‘ME’ BELIEVE!!!.....it takes nothing to dismiss something as untrue....... it takes a lot to really believe in something..... it is very easy to not accept evidence..... just try me....
The things that I listed below was on a book called What if Jesus has never been born? by Dr. James Kennedy
These are the positive contributions Christanity has made through the centuries:
-Hospitals,which essentially began during the Middle Ages
-Universities,which began during the Middle Ages.In addition, most of the worlds greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
-Literacy and education for the masses
-Capitalism and free enterprise.
-Representative government,particulary as it been seen in the American experiment
-The seperation of political powers
-Civil liberties
-The abolition of slavery,both in antiquity and in more modern times
-Modern science
-The discovery of the new world by Columbus
-The elevation of a women
-Benevolence and charity;the good Samaritan ethic.
-The elevation of a common man
-The condemnation of adultery,homosexuality,and other sexual perversions.This has helped to preserve the human race,and it has spared many from heartache
-High regard of human life
-The civilizing of many barbarian and primate cultures.
-The codifying and setting to writing of many of the worlds languages.
-Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
-The countless lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel
-The eternal salvation of countless souls
The last note is a primary goal for Christanity
This is what we have today. This proves the God exists. If Jesus Christ the Son of God was never born or didnt exist then we would not have the all of those things I listed above.
Did you know that are Founding Fathers believed in God too.
I am going to read a couple of quotes of what they said from Americas God and Country by William J. Federer
"I have examined all religions,as well as my narrow sphere,my straightened means,and my busy life,would allow;and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." -John Adams
"I believe in Jesus Christ as the great Helper,Comforter and the Saviour of humanity,and the Holy Bible as bearing to us the story of his mission,the rules of duty, the revelation of Ethernal Life,and and also the conditions under which the attainment of that life are possible. No Book contains more truths,or is more worthy of confidence then the Bible;none brings more joy to the sorrowing,more strength to the weak,or more stimulus to the nobly ambitious;none makes life sweeter,or death easier or less sad." -David Josiah Brewer
"If you love,you will suffer,and if you do not love,you do not know the meaning of a Christian life." -Agatha Christie
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown ups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." -Professor Louis Bounoure
Studies show that 94% of our Founding Fathers quotes are derived from the Bible
Before you start talking about evolution this is what Hank Hanegraff (AKA Bible Answer Man) said in the The Complete Bible Answer Book he said this: Dr Louis Bounoure former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research calls evolution " a fairy tale for grown ups" I call it a cruel hoax . In fact the arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishly weak. First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evoluionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse ;in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce. Today, however we have an abundance of fossils. Still we have yet to find one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Furthermore in Darwin's day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple-for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized,complex structures in the the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance. Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science including the laws of effects and their causes -energy conversation and ethropy-undergird the creation model for origins and undermine the evoutionary hypothesis. While I would fight for a persons right to have faith in science fiction we must resist evouluionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evoultion is science.
Most of the invention we have today like the lightbulb by Thomas Edison and the techology we have would not be here because if God never existed then some of things i just mentioned would not be here today.
God does exist. Look we have rainbows and the reason why we have rainbow is because God promised Noah that He would not flood the entire earth ever again. Did God ever flood the whole earth again? No because God kept is promise and that means that He exists. Also if God didnt exist the United States would not be here today because our Founding Fathers were Christians and they thought that this was a Christian nation. And if God never existed you could kiss the United States and all the inventions good bye. Thats why we have on our dollor bills in God We Trust because one of our Founding Fathers put that.
Before you reply to this I suggest you read all of this because this is detailed information about how God exists
The things that I listed below was on a book called What if Jesus has never been born? by Dr. James Kennedy
These are the positive contributions Christanity has made through the centuries:
Most of these examples are exaggerated and oversimplified. The influence of many of these 'contributions' were neither here nor there. Some of them are downright false or moot.
I also find it somewhat amusing that 'Modern science' is even listed here considering the Christian church has been the principal opponent of science since Galileo was excommunicated for insisting that the Earth Revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.
This is what we have today. This proves the God exists.
I find this to be insulting to my intelligence.
>Christians have done good things
...Therefore
>God exists
This is fallacious logic. Firstly it ignores all of the negative contributions of Christianity, secondly it blatantly disregards the Gods of other religions. If God exists who is to say it's not the God of some other religion, why do you assume it must be YOUR God? Most importantly, there is absolutely no link between how many good deeds a person or persons has done and the veracity of their beliefs.
You could list a thousand more positive contributions of Christianity and you would still be no closer to proving the existence of God. The probable truth of a proposition rests on the strength of it's evidence, not on the good deeds of it's advocates.
On another note I find it interesting that you dedicate a substantial amount of your post attempting to refute Evolutionary Theory, as if to say that God could only exist if he possessed the particular characteristics ascribed to him by your Doctrine.
No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found.
God does exist. Look we have rainbows and the reason why we have rainbow is because God promised Noah that He would not flood the entire earth ever again.
This bears more resemblance to myth than to historical reality. Especially considering that there is no evidence of any Global Flood ever. Entire civilizations have flourished uninterrupted during the period for which the deluge is said to have occurred, nor do we find a universal layer of silt across the world within the geologic record which we would expect if there we to be a global flood. The physical evidence renders such stories as mere myths, a proposition unlikely to be accepted by those who consider the bible to be an infallibly true literal record of past events.
Most of the invention we have today like the lightbulb by Thomas Edison and the techology we have would not be here because if God never existed then some of things i just mentioned would not be here today.
Interestingly enough, nothing has been invented via divine revelation, or through any supernatural means. Inventions are made using critical thinking.
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science including the laws of effects and their causes -energy conversation and ethropy
Entropy has nothing to do with Evolutionary theory. Entropy is the movement of heat in a closed thermodynamic system. Please elucidate how in anyway that would disprove evolutionary theory, I would love to know.
Nor does causation in any way refute Evolutionary theory. Natural selection, Sexual selection, Artificial selection, Genetic drift....that is your causation.
Science doesn't dispute Evolutionary theory, it supports it. The scientific evidence for the Theory of evolution is so overwhelming the vast majority of scientists and especially biologists are forced to accept it. Most of the vocal advocates of Evolution come from the scientific community, whereas most of those who oppose it come from the religious community.
I can tell you didnt read the whole thing about what I said because you just skimed my argument and fixed the things that were wrong. What about the quotes of our founding fathers? They were serving the Christian God. That is how we became a nation so if you think God doesnt exist then you mine as well kiss the USA goodbye because thanks to Columbus we are here and our Founding Fathers too. If God didnt exist then we shouldnt have Christmas holiday to celebrate Jesus's Birth. We shouldnt have Easter if God didnt exist, or Thanksgiving if God didnt exist. Most of those holidays we celebrate today. So there is a God now please read carefully to what i had to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can tell you didnt read the whole thing about what I said because you just skimed my argument and fixed the things that were wrong.
So then they were wrong, yes?
I read your argument but rather than refute every detail, as there were quite a lot of them, I decided to argue your central point. You listed a number of contributions of Christians (some valid and some not) implying that such a list constituted evidence of God's existence. My point was that there is no relationship between how many positive contributions people make and how true their beliefs are. None whatsoever.
What about the quotes of our founding fathers? They were serving the Christian God.
Most of them, yes. Many of them also had slaves. The founding fathers were fallible. Their opinions on the existence of God were no more likely to be true than yours or mine.
because thanks to Columbus we are here and our Founding Fathers too.
Well, that certainly may be true, but what does it have to do with the existence of God? Are you insisting that because Columbus discovered the Americas (actually he didn't) that all of his beliefs must be true...or only the ones you agree with?
If God didnt exist then we shouldnt have Christmas holiday to celebrate Jesus's Birth.
Yes, and we shouldn't be celebrating St.Patrick's day if Saint Patrick didn't really drive the snakes out of Ireland by waving a wooden stick. Lots of holidays are based on fictional events. If you're placing your hope that people wouldn't be celebrating a holiday if the story about it wasn't true...then I hate to disappoint you. People like to celebrate, they don't care if the stories are true and that's assuming most people are smart enough to recognize a fictional story in the first place.
During Columbus's time Columbus read his Bible and found in the book of Isaiah where it says that the world was round and so he went out on a voyage and found the the New World. And if God didnt exist then the discovery of the new world would not be here today if thats the case. So that proves that God exists
The bible says the earth is circular, not spherical.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
I am done with this debate because who know how long this debate might last but I did my part and all you athiests do is reject my stuff and say we dont know he did and that. And you try to brain wash me with false teachings but I am not going to fall for those stuff you say. In the Bible its says ignore the false teachers(you athiests) I will pray for each and everyone of you to know God and believe in God. If you still dont accept him then you are going to a place of suffering and you will not like it thats what i am trying to do is save you from going to hell. But you reject it so there is no point of saying any stuff anymore. Enough said IM DONE! Jesus will decide where your going to go but looks like most of you athiests are going to hell while im in Heaven.
We Evolved from a single cell organism to this stage, before that all i can say is i don't know yet. More research is needed to answer this question. Now with that said it doesn't mean if we don't know an answer to a question it is just to make up stories and fabricate your own groundless answers.
I would say yes. Let my list of reasons start. First one if the earth was any closer or farther away from the sun we would all die that points to intelligent design which points to God. How come the bible is yet to be proven wrong? How come the bible goes along history book so well? The bible that have been found from when the bible was still being written ( some time in ad) match up with new translation almost word for word in ones being printed today. If science is so great how come we font Evan understand are own bodies. Yesterday another proven for intelligent design. How come the great flood that is written in the bible is also found in many other religions? For those of u who say that the bible is contradicting I vet u haven't read the bible from cover to cover yet u still claim to be all knowing on it.
First one if the earth was any closer or farther away from the sun we would all die that points to intelligent design which points to God.
This is a nonsense argument for a number of reasons:
1) The habitability zone within our universe is about 211.575 million miles wide and it is growing.
2) There are 70 sextilllion stars or about 7.0x10^22 stars that we know of so far. And each of these stars have it's own habitability zone (some larger and some smaller). When you look at it that way, one water-bearing planet is bound to fall within one of those zones.
3) This is all assuming all potential life would require the same conditions that earth-based life requires.
How come the bible is yet to be proven wrong?
It has:
Bats are not birds.
The sun is older than the earth.
The moon is not a light nor does it produce light.
How come the bible goes along history book so well?
Perhaps for the reason the film Saving Private Ryan goes along with history so well.
If science is so great how come we font Evan understand are own bodies.
Science is a process, it is not a cognizant thing, it does not understand things but it helps us to understand things. Through science we have been able to learn a great deal about our bodies and the bodies of many other living things. Science has made modern medicine possible.
Yesterday another proven for intelligent design.
What? This is not even a complete sentence.
How come the great flood that is written in the bible is also found in many other religions?
Many cultures have a flood story because many cultures have at one time or another experienced excessive flooding. It may very well be a fictionalization of flooding which occurred at the end of the last glacial period.
I will give u the earth one. The sun is older than the earth it says do in the bible. What is this about the bats not being birds where did that come from? The moon being a light who said any thing about that we all know it's not. Some if the Bible was written before to tell of things to come and those things that we written a hundred years before came true. It was supposed to say yet another prove of intelligent design but it should have said yet more prove of intelligent design. I was talking about the great flood as in the whole earth. And tell me have u even read the bible from cover to cover?
The sun is older than the earth it says do in the bible.
It most certainly does not. The order within Genesis clearly shows the earth being created before the sun. According to the Bible the earth was created on day 1 and the sun was created on day 4.
DAY 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1
DAY 4: "God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." -Genesis 1:16
The moon being a light who said any thing about that we all know it's not.
See the verse above. The bible describes the moon as a light to govern the night. Yet the moon is not a light.
What is this about the bats not being birds where did that come from?
Leviticus 11:11-19
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
every raven in its kind,
and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,
and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,
and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,
and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
I was talking about the great flood as in the whole earth.
I know what you were talking about, but the flood myth is precisely that...a myth. There is no geologic evidence of a global flood. If there was a global flood we would expect to see a universal layer of silt within the geologic column, precisely what we do not find.
And tell me have u even read the bible from cover to cover?
Yes, I have. And based on your responses above, I am more knowledgeable of the bible than you are. I have found that many Christians only reiterate the verses within the Bible that re-affirm their faith, without actually understanding the contents of the book itself. How many Christians are aware that the bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery? Read Exodus 21:7. Not surprisingly we don't see Christians quoting that part of the bible.
I sorry don't know what I was think. The sun was after the earth. And please tell me hoe u think u can date the sun? It never Sayers the moon makes light. Yes a bat is not a bird but during the time when the bible was written the did not have a clear definition of what was a bird so to them any thing that flies is a bird. Yes I have read the bible. I continue to do so.
I sorry don't know what I was think. The sun was after the earth
No it wasn't. The sun is older than the earth. The earth orbits the sun, without the sun there are no days. Without the sun there is no light, and without light there can be no life.
The story that you read within the bible is just that-- a story. It does not reflect our physical reality. People invent myths to explain what they do not understand.
And please tell me hoe u think u can date the sun?
I cannot, but astronomers can. The age of the sun is determined by it's stage in stellar evolution, by knowing how much fuel (Helium & Hydrogen) remains and how quickly it is burning this fuel.
So yes, we do know that the Sun is older than the earth.
Yes a bat is not a bird but during the time when the bible was written the did not have a clear definition of what was a bird so to them any thing that flies is a bird.
Assuming there was no word for flying animals, nor a word for feathered animals, how can you possibly consider the bible inerrant if it is so crippled by the limitations of ancient human language? What else might be incorrect due to linguistic limitations?
Yes with out the sun there is no way that life would exist on earth that'd why man was after the sun. These Astronomers are the same people who thought the earth was the center of the universe. These scientist also thought the earth was flat for thousands of years, thing scientist say and have been excepted has fact have change multiple times over the course of time. read on this website if u read a little u see where it explains the bats, it also explains about the sun/earth which was first argument. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/contradict.htm
If you take the time to understand history you will find that it was primarily the catholic church that taught that the earth was the center of the universe, and Galileo was persecuted for 'blasphemous teachings' for contradicting the church.
The flat earth view while certainly may have been held by some early scientists, it isn't in and of itself a scientific belief. The notion of a flat earth was not the conclusion of any empirical research. The belief in a flat earth, like the belief in God, while it was held by some scientists is not itself a scientific belief.
All scientific evidence overwhelmingly points towards an older sun.
As for the statement about bats, your source actually refutes your previous argument that the issue rises out of the uncertainty of the term for bird, the author of this states that in no uncertain terms it means "birds" and instead argues against the meaning of the word for Bat. This tells me first of all that your response was hastily contrived and secondly, that your author is in denial even knowing this. However you might want to translate it atallêph (bat) will not become a bird, and no translation will render it as such.
If a single word is so uncertain that bats can become birds by translation alone, how can you possibly insist on it's inerrancy? Your mental gymnastics becomes more apparent by the minute.
look GUYS,First, this topic is irritating me, Second, what is the religion of person, who created this debate? If he believed to religion, he wouldn't write this issue, and it is impossible to get conclusion from this site. I advise to him to discuss this kind of issue seriously. If he really wants to know about God, he should ask this question from experts, which are involved in this issue. My point of view to this issue: I believe, believed, and will believe to the existence of God. I am a Muslim. I believe, because something inside of me is telling this. Atheists and materialists think that human is created by chance. But, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions. For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life. This is one of billion reasons, which shows that God exists!!!
look GUYS,First, this topic is irritating me, Second, what is the religion of person, who created this debate?
The creator of this debate, does not submit to any religion. I posit that no religion adequately explains reality. Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism, are comprised of various archaic texts containing numerous myths, parables, and fables. The issue of the existence of God has been discussed innumerable times both formally and informally. Nor is there any way to establish who is or isn't an expert on the existence of God, we have only experts on various dogmas.
I believe, believed, and will believe to the existence of God. I am a Muslim. I believe, because something inside of me is telling this.
You interpret this 'something' as confirming your conviction because you want it to. The same religious experience can result in different interpretations to different people, which is influenced by whatever socialization one has undergone.
Atheists and materialists think that human is created by chance.
There are both probabilistic as well as deterministic causes to nearly everything including the origin of mankind.
But, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions.
There is no such thing as 'proof' in science, at least not in the sense lay people understand the term 'proof'. Science instead relies on evidence. Chance and probability play a role at nearly every level of science.
Scientists have already observed the formation of self-replicating organic molecules under controlled conditions, in the lab. Conditions which are believed to be present on early earth.
For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life.
The complexity of even one skin cell is the result of billions of years of trial and error thus there is no reason to posit the existence of God to explain what can already be explained without invoking the supernatural.
The creator of this debate, does not submit to any religion. I posit that no religion adequately explains reality.
I would argue that Christianity best explains reality. With the Bible you get a comprehensive historical account, a lot of it standing up to archaeological scrutiny. I've seen a lot of confirmations for the information that exists in the Bible but I don't recall seeing any refutations. Keep in mind, "There is no evidence for that" is not a refutation. I have not heard says/teachings from anyone else that are still applicable 2000+ years after they were first said. Jesus truly knew what made up human hearts and how to communicate that message.
The same religious experience can result in different interpretations to different people, which is influenced by whatever socialization one has undergone.
Your link to the God Helmet is very misleading, considering Nature News of December 2004 updated the story and found that a double blind study using Persinger's experiment was not able to reproduce his results.
There are both probabilistic as well as deterministic causes to nearly everything including the origin of mankind.
Actually if you take into account the argument for fine-tuning then the probability of life springing up basically becomes 0.
Scientists have already observed the formation of self-replicating organic molecules under controlled conditions, in the lab. Conditions which are believed to be present on early earth.
Your link here is misleading as well. The article itself says that this is not life as these things do not gain novel, new functions.
The complexity of even one skin cell is the result of billions of years of trial and error thus there is no reason to posit the existence of God to explain what can already be explained without invoking the supernatural.
That is not fact, that is currently an opinion. There is still no evidence that life can spring from non-life. More importantly, one needs to explain where the complex information in DNA came from. DNA is a code that contains instructions telling the cell how to make all of its proteins.
I would argue that Christianity best explains reality.
If that is the case, then why does Christianity require faith?
With the Bible you get a comprehensive historical account
The historical components of the bible are juxtaposed to the mythical, allegorical, and metaphorical components. Can any of the supernatural elements be corroborated? No. The parts of the Bible that can be corroborated are not being disputed here.
I've seen a lot of confirmations for the information that exists in the Bible
And do these happen to be anecdotal confirmations?
I don't recall seeing any refutations.
I'm sure you don't.
Keep in mind, "There is no evidence for that" is not a refutation.
What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I have not heard says/teachings from anyone else that are still applicable 2000+ years after they were first said.
Never hear of Aristotle then have you? Should we conclude that Aristotle's teachings are the result of divine inspiration?
Nature News of December 2004 updated the story and found that a double blind study using Persinger's experiment was not able to reproduce his results.
The original study was double blind, but even assuming that the results are completely bunk, it isn't a stretch in the least to say that the things people have faith in varies from one culture to another culture.
Actually if you take into account the argument for fine-tuning then the probability of life springing up basically becomes 0.
This is merely conjecture, no one has found any such mathematical formula that can calculate the probability of the universe arising naturally, nonetheless one that would indicate that probability to be zero. Who is to say a universe with different constants wouldn't produce life attuned to those constants? Some theoretical physicists have suggested many parallel universe of which we would expect to find ourselves in the ones that support life.
The fine-tuning argument, is nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument.
Your link here is misleading as well. The article itself says that this is not life as these things do not gain novel, new functions.
It's not misleading if you read the article. I never claimed that it was life, I said that it was organic self-replicating molecules which is 50% of what life is anyway. The other 50% is metabolism, which is why these molecules won't develop any new novel functions. However metabolism can be accounted for.
At the very least, the rise of life from inorganic material is entirely possible, and many aspects of this are demonstrable.
That is not fact, that is currently an opinion.
That organic complexity can be explained naturally is a fact. That you don't accept the explanation is a different matter.
There is still no evidence that life can spring from non-life.
Urey and Miller showed that Organic Material can rise from inorganic material
Scripps researchers showed that self-replicating organic Material can rise from ordinary organic material.
It seems to me that the evidence is mounting quite verily against you.
More importantly, one needs to explain where the complex information in DNA came from.
Ignorance of current scientific literature is not an argument. This has already been explained.
If that is the case, then why does Christianity require faith?
Everything requires faith. If you come across a bridge that you've never traveled on before, you need to have faith that it is going to support you. You can examine the aspects of the bridge and make a conclusion, but you still need faith. Christianity requires faith because if you accept God to be true, you accept that he has given man the free will to choose. In order to have free will to choose you cannot have incontrovertible evidence of God's existence otherwise your free-will to choose is now taken away from you.
The historical components of the bible are juxtaposed to the mythical, allegorical, and metaphorical components. Can any of the supernatural elements be corroborated? No. The parts of the Bible that can be corroborated are not being disputed here.
You can accept that the writer of Luke was so diligent that he correctly makes note of the direction of the wind in specific places and the depth of the water in others but then say anything he wrote regarding the super-natural is false. I would argue that because these writers were so meticulous in there recording of facts that the Bible should receive the benefit of the doubt in this regard.
And do these happen to be anecdotal confirmations?
Feel free to do your own research. There's a lot of archaeological confirmation of many of the people and places.
I'm sure you don't.
Hence the inability to provide one? I'm an open-minded person and generally respond well to examples.
What is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I do like Christopher Hitchens, although he often seems so angry! A very clever guy.
Never hear of Aristotle then have you? Should we conclude that Aristotle's teachings are the result of divine inspiration?
I've heard of Aristotle. I hope you're not claiming that his writings are more influential than the sayings of Jesus?
The original study was double blind, but even assuming that the results are completely bunk, it isn't a stretch in the least to say that the things people have faith in varies from one culture to another culture.
That's the beauty of science, you should be able to recreate such an experiment, however if you read the link I attached it definitely was not a double blind study. At least the accounts that got to the media anyways.
The fine-tuning argument, is nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument.
How is that God of the Gaps? It is making the reasonable assumption that in order for ALL of these constants, some of which if they were of by one part in 10^120 would mean we would not exist. I would call these multi-verse theories "Naturalism of the Gaps" because it seems anything will be proposed before scientists accept that there is only one universe and it was created by the big bang, which has theological implications.
At the very least, the rise of life from inorganic material is entirely possible, and many aspects of this are demonstrable.
I think you're over-estimating the amount of evidence here. If that were true they'd be able to do it right now, right?
Urey and Miller showed that Organic Material can rise from inorganic material
In an atmosphere that was no where near what the Earth would have been like. At that point you still need to have the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up and create a protein molecule. And that would still be a long way from being a living cell!
Scripps researchers showed that self-replicating organic Material can rise from ordinary organic material.
As I mentioned above, creating organic material is not creating life. There is still no evidence that LIFE can spring from non-life.
Ignorance of current scientific literature is not an argument. This has already been explained.
Arrogantly posting science articles from 2000 which have been basically refuted is no better.
"As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones."
- John Horgan, science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology
"This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."
- G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel Professor, Departments of Molecular Biology and Chemistry @ Scripps
If you want to insist that religious faith is the same thing as simply having trust in something, it's not. This is an equivocation of the word faith. Faith as it applies to religion is much more than than simply having trust in something.
Having faith in numerous unevidenced uncorroborated supernatural events which defies the laws of physics, is not equivalent to having trust that a bridge won't give out. I have a good understanding of how much weight wood or steel can support with a given thickness. Furthermore if we apply some basic reasoning we can conclude that if a bridge cannot support my weight it probably won't support the weight of others and if the bridge has been recently traveled across it is probably safe. I have traveled across many bridges and none of them have given out, this is at the very least evidence that the next one probably won't give out.
I do not require irrefutable proof, to not have faith in something.
You can accept that the writer of Luke was so diligent that he correctly makes note of the direction of the wind in specific places
Specificity does not equal veracity.
but then say anything he wrote regarding the super-natural is false.
So because the author of Luke sometimes mentions wind direction and water depth, the supernatural elements of the bible must be true?
I would argue that because these writers were so meticulous in there recording of facts that the Bible should receive the benefit of the doubt in this regard.
Well, considering the fact that the bible was written by numerous authors over such a long period of time it really isn't that meticulous, but even so:
Specificity does not equal veracity.
Feel free to do your own research. There's a lot of archaeological confirmation of many of the people and places.
Ancient literature is notorious for combining historical events with mythological events. Ancient Jewish texts were no different. That somethings mentioned therein are true is not a particularly compelling argument for why we should believe that all of it is true.
Hence the inability to provide one? I'm an open-minded person and generally respond well to examples.
Shintoism in Japan. Hinduism in India. Islam in Saudi Arabia. Christianity in the United States. Judaism in Israel. Sikhs in Punjab. Mormons in Utah. Catholicism in Brazil.
Geo-cultural influences are a much better predictor of one's religious faith than anything else.
I've heard of Aristotle. I hope you're not claiming that his writings are more influential than the sayings of Jesus?
Influential? No. Useful and relevant? Yes.
Aristotle's teachings comprise some of the earliest scientific thought, and much of it is still applicable today. Muhammad is much more influential today than Aristotle ever was, but that's simply because we are talking about a revered religious figure.
....
I will get to your other points when I have more time.
If you want to insist that religious faith is the same thing as simply having trust in something
I will insist on that yes. As you mention, its having trust that Jesus is who he says he is and did what he said he was going to do. The bridge was merely an example, obviously you don't need to have a ton of faith in the bridge but you do need to have some. Let's not pretend like bridges have never failed before.
I do not require irrefutable proof, to not have faith in something.
All of your arguments make it seem like you do. For me personally, if you take into account all of the evidence I'm much more compelled to believe in a creator than to believe the big bang happened for no reason. I'll defer to the Kalām cosmological argument.
So because the author of Luke sometimes mentions wind direction and water depth, the supernatural elements of the bible must be true?
Well that's a gross misinterpretation. I'm merely saying that there are over 80 historically confirmed details associated to Luke (there might be more now actually). It isn't just a couple things, he was a meticulous historian and thus I think should be given the benefit of the doubt. Let's be honest, your disbelief in the super natural stems from you not believing in God. If you don't believe in God, of course the supernatural makes no sense. I will only point out that science is not the only way to absolute truth. I have an issue with science making these kinds of philosophical truth claims. If you insist on it, I would ask that you empirically prove the argument that "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true."
Well, considering the fact that the bible was written by numerous authors over such a long period of time it really isn't that meticulous, but even so:
Specificity does not equal veracity.
Actually I believe currently, there is a good case for many of the documents compiled into the Bible to have been written within 30 years of Jesus' death. That is certainly not enough time to be legendary as many historians would point out.
Ancient literature is notorious for combining historical events with mythological events. Ancient Jewish texts were no different. That somethings mentioned therein are true is not a particularly compelling argument for why we should believe that all of it is true.
Its not just "somethings" there is a great deal that has been verified. We're not just talking about one or two things, in general when people, places, and things are named by the Bible there is a good chance there's evidence supporting their existence.
Shintoism in Japan. Hinduism in India. Islam in Saudi Arabia. Christianity in the United States. Judaism in Israel. Sikhs in Punjab. Mormons in Utah. Catholicism in Brazil.
Geo-cultural influences are a much better predictor of one's religious faith than anything else.
I was asking for an example of a historical fact in the Bible being wrong as I don't know any off the top of my head and haven't come into contact with any during my reading. However I would point out that those are not the only religions in those places. And, Catholicism = Christianity, in theory anyways.
To believe the totality of a religious dogma is in no way equivalent to having trust that a bridge won't collapse upon crossing it. The later is trust based on evidence, the former is not.
All of your arguments make it seem like you do. For me personally, if you take into account all of the evidence I'm much more compelled to believe in a creator than to believe the big bang happened for no reason.
Who says it didn't happen for a reason?
I'll defer to the Kalām cosmological argument
If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Any argument for the existence of God which includes the phrase "...then that cause is God" in the premise, is an invalid argument.
Well that's a gross misinterpretation. I'm merely saying that there are over 80 historically confirmed details associated to Luke (there might be more now actually). It isn't just a couple things, he was a meticulous historian and thus I think should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Once again, writers back then juxtaposed historical events with mythological ones, one cannot conclude complete veracity based solely upon the appearance of some factual details.
Nor can you properly call these writers historians.
Let's be honest, your disbelief in the super natural stems from you not believing in God.
I will only point out that science is not the only way to absolute truth.
There is no such thing as 'Absolute truth' and even if there was humans would not be capable of grasping it. However I will say that science historically has been the most reliable source of truth. Revealed Religion on the other hand has been the most reliable source of false promises and exaggerated claims.
Actually I believe currently, there is a good case for many of the documents compiled into the Bible to have been written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Are we to believe the son of God is not capable of writing? Many of the details of Jesus' life were not written until 60 or 70 years later.
That is certainly not enough time to be legendary as many historians would point out.
The emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie I, was and still is believed to be the messiah by Rastafarians WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE, even after he explicitly told them that he wasn't.
Its not just "somethings" there is a great deal that has been verified.
Do any of these verified events include rising from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, talking bushes, angels, or stopping the sun in the sky?
I was asking for an example of a historical fact in the Bible being wrong as I don't know any off the top of my head and haven't come into contact with any during my reading.
Depending on how literally or metaphorically you take the Bible, I would argue that no Global flood ever occurred.
To believe the totality of a religious dogma is in no way equivalent to having trust that a bridge won't collapse upon crossing it. The later is trust based on evidence, the former is not.
I would disagree. My faith in Christianity and Jesus is based on a foundation of evidence that I have found to be credible. A lot of that evidence is more scientific than ever.
Any argument for the existence of God which includes the phrase "...then that cause is God" in the premise, is an invalid argument.
The argument goes like this:
1.) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.) The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It does not say the Christian God is that cause. If you take the argument to be true then a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being with the unimaginable power and knowledge created the universe.
There is no such thing as 'Absolute truth' and even if there was humans would not be capable of grasping it. However I will say that science historically has been the most reliable source of truth. Revealed Religion on the other hand has been the most reliable source of false promises and exaggerated claims.
Well that's self-defeating isn't it? Is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truths? 2 + 2 = 4. I would think you would agree that is an absolute truth? Science is not the only way to truth, after all you can't empirically prove a historical event for that would require being able to repeat the experiment or to otherwise witness the event for oneself.
Are we to believe the son of God is not capable of writing? Many of the details of Jesus' life were not written until 60 or 70 years later.
I don't really think this is relevant. Should we not believe that Alexander the Great existed because he was not writing journals about each event that happened?
The emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie I, was and still is believed to be the messiah by Rastafarians WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE, even after he explicitly told them that he wasn't.
Kind of a misleading example. What biblical historians mean by legendary is that the documents were written so closely to the actual events that it is highly unlikely that the activities associated with Jesus are of a legendary quality because there would have been people who were still alive that could have disputed them. This emperor of Ethiopia never claimed or demonstrated any sort of super natural ability and thus is not a valid counter example.
Do any of these verified events include rising from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, talking bushes, angels, or stopping the sun in the sky?
How would one archaeologically prove this happened? All of the historically confirmed events are only confirmed because they found ancient cities and tablets talking about the same people the Bible describes. Could you please provide me concrete evidence that Socrates actually existed and actually said the things attributed to him?
Depending on how literally or metaphorically you take the Bible, I would argue that no Global flood ever occurred.
You can't take the Bible as ALL one or the other. Some parts are literal and some parts are metaphorical. You can argue that no flood occurred, but do you have proof that it didn't? Remember, "There is no evidence of that" is not a refutation of what the Bible says. One could fall back on the, "Well I'll just wait until archaeology proves it to be true at a later date" just like you heard from Darwin in regards to common ancestry.
I would disagree. My faith in Christianity and Jesus is based on a foundation of evidence that I have found to be credible.
You cannot have it both ways. Faith is belief not based on proof or evidence. If you have faith, then you do not have evidence and if you have evidence then you do not have faith. If you want to say that you have faith in something, that's fine but don't turn around and say you also have evidence.
The argument goes like this:
1.) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.) The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Assuming the premises are correct this argument only goes to demonstrate that things which are caused have a cause. Obviously. This is nothing more than a redundancy. You need to show that this 'cause' must be God. The Kalam argument just assumes it is.
Is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truths?
No.
2 + 2 = 4. I would think you would agree that is an absolute truth?
It is a mathematical truth, but math is an invention of man.
Science is not the only way to truth
I agree.
you can't empirically prove a historical event
True, but you can corroborate it with independent written sources, and with archaeological evidence. Even so, there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
I don't really think this is relevant. Should we not believe that Alexander the Great existed because he was not writing journals about each event that happened?
I'm not saying Jesus (Yeshua) didn't exist, I'm saying that many of the things written about him are false or exaggerated. In particular the miracles he was said to have performed. There probably are things written about Alexander the Great which are false, but because he was never said to have performed any miracles then that isn't an issue.
What biblical historians mean by legendary is that the documents were written so closely to the actual events that it is highly unlikely that the activities associated with Jesus are of a legendary quality
If by legendary you mean "a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits" I believe this would describe Jesus quite well.
there would have been people who were still alive that could have disputed them.
There were, I believe they were called "Jews".
This emperor of Ethiopia never claimed or demonstrated any sort of super natural ability
Precisely, and yet people still see him as a messiah. Imagine if he claimed to have supernatural powers. Imagine if he had made that claim several thousand years ago, to a group of gullible nomadic herdsmen. See where I am going with this?
How would one archaeologically prove this happened?
That's up to you to figure out. The burden of proof rest upon you, when you say that these events happened. I think the question is "If they can't be archaeologically proven, how did you come to believe in them?"
You can't take the Bible as ALL one or the other. Some parts are literal and some parts are metaphorical.
And what qualifies one to determine which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical?
You can argue that no flood occurred, but do you have proof that it didn't?
The absence of a universe layer of silt within the geologic column. The fact that there isn't enough water on earth.
Even so, the burden of proof rests upon those who say it did happen.
Remember, "There is no evidence of that" is not a refutation of what the Bible says.
Yes it is. It's a refutation of what anybody or anything says, the Bible included. If no evidence, then on what basis do you maintain your belief?
One could fall back on the, "Well I'll just wait until archaeology proves it to be true at a later date"
No, this is fallacious. If no evidence is currently present, then you have no reason to assume that it will become present. It could just as easily be refuted by future evidence as supported by it. We can only make judgements based on what is currently available.
What you are talking about it just wishful thinking.
You cannot have it both ways. Faith is belief not based on proof or evidence. If you have faith, then you do not have evidence and if you have evidence then you do not have faith. If you want to say that you have faith in something, that's fine but don't turn around and say you also have evidence.
Right, faith is required. As I explained previously, any evidence I've come across points towards a creator and starting with that assumption the Christian God makes the most sense. If you had absolute proof you would be removing the faith aspect of it which I don't believe will ever happen.
Assuming the premises are correct this argument only goes to demonstrate that things which are caused have a cause. Obviously. This is nothing more than a redundancy. You need to show that this 'cause' must be God. The Kalam argument just assumes it is.
I never said the argument proved the existence of the Christian God, merely that it is a powerful argument for a creator.
Is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truths?
No.
You just told me there are no absolute truths. I'm merely pointing out that is a logically fallacious argument to make. I think we can then assume that there is such thing as absolute truth, yes? Besides it sounds like you would like to keep making an absolute truth claim, merely "There is no God." Or better yet, "You're wrong" which would imply that you know what is right.
It is a mathematical truth, but math is an invention of man.
I believe that issue is still up for debate. It is either an invention of man or a discovery. Philosophers are still struggling with this one, so I would kindly ask that you don't treat your above statement as an absolute truth :)
True, but you can corroborate it with independent written sources, and with archaeological evidence. Even so, there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
Bingo. There is a TON of externally corroborated evidence that confirms many of the historical events regarding the Bible.
'm not saying Jesus (Yeshua) didn't exist, I'm saying that many of the things written about him are false or exaggerated. In particular the miracles he was said to have performed. There probably are things written about Alexander the Great which are false, but because he was never said to have performed any miracles then that isn't an issue.
Ah and there-in lies a problem. You call them false or exaggerated because you don't accept them, not because of any sort of evidence.
If by legendary you mean "a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits" I believe this would describe Jesus quite well.
Same comment as above.
There were, I believe they were called "Jews".
There is a distinction however. These people lived alongside Jesus. You would think somewhere in there, because the writings happened so close to his death that someone would have said... "Hey, I was there and THAT didn't happen!" Now I haven't heard of anything like that before, which is my point. Theoretically any Jews that saw Jesus performing miracles would probably be Christians would they not?
Precisely, and yet people still see him as a messiah. Imagine if he claimed to have supernatural powers. Imagine if he had made that claim several thousand years ago, to a group of gullible nomadic herdsmen. See where I am going with this?
I see you trying to force some sort of hypothetical situation as truth. If he claimed to have supernatural powers he would have to demonstrate them. Jesus didn't say, "Oh I can perform all sorts of cool magic tricks, but you can't see!" Unlike your hypothetical situation, Jesus supposedly traveled the country doing them so there would have been opportunities to refute them had they not actually happened.
That's up to you to figure out. The burden of proof rest upon you, when you say that these events happened. I think the question is "If they can't be archaeologically proven, how did you come to believe in them?"
The burden of proof doesn't rest on me, it rests on you. You can see this all the time in courts of law. If a witness were to have confirmation time and time again that he was telling the truth and then told you about something crazy that happened, should you at that point immediately disregard what he says? You have to take in all the evidence as a whole, which we can both agree will not absolutely prove one way or the other, which is where the faith aspect comes into play. I have faith that there is a God and you have faith that there isn't.
And what qualifies one to determine which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical?
One who studies the Bible as a profession. I would consider them an expert witness. Granted a lot of the time it is difficult to tell but that's why you have to preform your own research before you take something at face value.
The absence of a universe layer of silt within the geologic column. The fact that there isn't enough water on earth.
Even so, the burden of proof rests upon those who say it did happen.
Could be an argument for disbelieving that a global flood happened yes. Could also mean that it wasn't a global flood and just the flood of a particular region which would have seemed like a global flood to the writer. Now granted the below article won't go as far to say that this is the event the Bible describes, it does talk of an event that might be similar:
No, this is fallacious. If no evidence is currently present, then you have no reason to assume that it will become present. It could just as easily be refuted by future evidence as supported by it. We can only make judgements based on what is currently available.
What you are talking about it just wishful thinking.
So I assume we can stop believing in this multi-verse non-sense then? Can we also throw out common decent and many of Darwin's theories that are still waiting to be "confirmed" by archaeology? I wish everyone engaging in scientism would make judgement based solely on the current evidence as well.
Right, faith is required. As I explained previously, any evidence I've come across points towards a creator and starting with that assumption the Christian God makes the most sense.
"The christian God makes the most sense" What is your justification for this statement? Makes the most sense to whom? You maybe. Perhaps it might make the most sense to a christian who has been socialized within the Christian Religion and has had limited exposure to other religions. Outside of that, the Christian God makes no more or less sense than any other proposed deity.
If you had absolute proof you would be removing the faith aspect
Any evidence, would remove the faith aspect, not just absolute proof. Thus you cannot claim to have both faith and evidence. You want to have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways.
Do not pretend to have evidence for a faith proposition, you are only deluding yourself.
I never said the argument proved the existence of the Christian God, merely that it is a powerful argument for a creator.
No it's not. It's not even a mediocre argument. It's a tautology that simply states "If it's caused then it has a cause" and you just assume the cause is God without proper justification.
You just told me there are no absolute truths. I'm merely pointing out that is a logically fallacious argument to make.
Only if we take "there are no absolute truths" as itself an absolute truth, which I do not nor do you. It that sense it's only an apparent paradoxical statement.
There is a TON of externally corroborated evidence that confirms many of the historical events regarding the Bible
And do any of those corroborated events include, rising from the dead, turning water into wine, talking bushes, talking animals, sun stopping in the sky, or parting of the red sea?
Can any of the supernatural elements be corroborated? If we are being honest with ourselves the answer is No.
Ah and there-in lies a problem. You call them false or exaggerated because you don't accept them, not because of any sort of evidence.
So is evidence a requirement to disbelieve uncorroborated supernatural claims, or just when they are Christian? Do I need to present evidence that Goblins aren't real as well?
There is a distinction however. These people lived alongside Jesus.
Thus, why I said "The Jews" who also lived alongside Jesus and still did not believe and don't believe the things claimed about him.
You would think somewhere in there, because the writings happened so close to his death that someone would have said... "Hey, I was there and THAT didn't happen!"
Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. As I stated earlier, there were no written records of Jesus' life until 70 years after he died, and the average lifespan back then was about 30 years. So it's pretty unlikely that anyone would say that, and even more unlikely that they were also literate for their objections to have lasted over time.
I see you trying to force some sort of hypothetical situation as truth.
The very fact that I stated it as a hypothetical means I acknowledge that it isn't true. You just don't like the apparent implication that I am making. I am drawing a picture here to show how easy it would be to convince people back then that one was the messiah. Jesus and his flock were just one of many cult followings, and if not for Constantine it probably would have been largely forgotten by history. It's not hard, even today to convince people that you have supernatural powers.
The burden of proof doesn't rest on me, it rests on you.
Bullshit it doesn't. When you say that such and such positively did happen, the burden of proof rests upon you.
You can see this all the time in courts of law. If a witness were to have confirmation time and time again that he was telling the truth and then told you about something crazy that happened, should you at that point immediately disregard what he says?
This is actually not how courts work at all, and it certainly isn't how logic works. In the Court of Law, there is this concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" which means that the person making the accusation (or the claim) is the one who needs to provide compelling evidence. In other words, if you say something happened, then you are the one who needs to prove it. The person who says "That's not true" doesn't need to prove a damn thing. In the legal system, eyewitness testimony is actually the most unreliable form of evidence there is, and regularly leads to wrongful convictions. Now, if compelling proof were provided, then and only then would the negative claim need to provide some counter-proof.
In logic, it is the person who makes the affirmative claim who bears the burden of proof. A negation does not require evidence, and to invalidate a negation one only needs to prove the positive.
I have faith that there is a God and you have faith that there isn't.
No, I don't. Disbelief doesn't require faith. Faith is a form of belief. You are essentially saying "You believe in your disbelief" which is a contradiction of terms.
One who studies the Bible as a profession.
Are you a biblical scholar?
Could be an argument for disbelieving that a global flood happened yes. Could also mean that it wasn't a global flood and just the flood of a particular region which would have seemed like a global flood to the writer.
So the bible is speaking about something which 'seemed' to be the case but wasn't. I would argue that this is quite common within the bible. Things which seemed to be true to the biblical authors, but weren't.
So I assume we can stop believing in this multi-verse non-sense then?
As soon as we can stop believing God. There is no more evidence for God than there is for a multi-verse. I have only said that a multi-verse is a possibility but you've said that not only is there absolutely a God, but that it is the Christian one.
Are you willing to downgrade God to just a possibility?
Can we also throw out common decent and many of Darwin's theories that are still waiting to be "confirmed" by archaeology?
Archaeology? You mean Paleontology? Common descent is as about as 'confirmed' as things in science can get. Biologists may still argue over the details, but that common descent holds true is not in doubt by biologists and is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence. The only doubt stems from those who have religious objections.
That's the beauty of science, you should be able to recreate such an experiment, however if you read the link I attached it definitely was not a double blind study.
As I said before, even if the study is completely bunk, we know that religious faith varies Geo-culturally, we know this. How people interpret spiritual experiences likewise also varies Geo-culturally.
It's culture wide confirmation bias. People will interpret experiences in a way to confirm their prior convictions.
How is that God of the Gaps?
You cannot account for the acuity of universal constants, thus God did it. This is a God of the gaps argument. You can do nothing more than to suppose that God is responsible.
anything will be proposed before scientists accept that there
1. By proposing hypotheses, this is how scientific understanding is advanced.
2. You seem to already be pretty confident that only 1 universe is possible.
there is only one universe and it was created by the big bang, which has theological implications.
Indeed it does, which is precisely why the strongest opposition to the Big Bang theory has always come from the religious communities.
If that were true they'd be able to do it right now, right?
We can. The Urey-Miller experiment has been repeated.
In an atmosphere that was no where near what the Earth would have been like.
This is an irrelevant contention. The experiment showed that it is possible for inorganic material to become organic material.
As I mentioned above, creating organic material is not creating life
No, it is creating the building blocks of life.
There is still no evidence that LIFE can spring from non-life.
Well, certainly if inorganic material can become organic, then certainly organic material can become living material. All of the steps are theoretically possible and a few of the have actually been demonstrated in the lab. To say there is no evidence is denial.
Arrogantly posting science articles
How does one arrogantly post articles?
"As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones."
- John Horgan, science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology
Do you have a source for this? When this quote is only found on creationist apologetic websites, a quote that appears that someone is arguing against a belief we know them to hold, I'm inclined to say this is a quote mine. Can you show me the paragraph in which this quote appears?
"This discussion… has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential." G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel Professor, Departments of Molecular Biology and Chemistry
This in fact is a quote mine. Joyce does believe in the RNA world hypothesis. The argument isn't one against self-replicating RNA leading to DNA, but against De Novo Synthesis.
Quote mines are the favorite tool of creationists. Any quote from someone arguing against what we know them to believe, is going to be a quote mine 99% of the time.
That being said do you have an actual rebuttal to the article I posted?
You cannot account for the acuity of universal constants, thus God did it. This is a God of the gaps argument. You can do nothing more than to suppose that God is responsible.
This is not that. Seeing lightning happen and then saying... Ah, God did that! That's God of the Gaps. This is an argument that in order for us to exist, certain constants needed to be set at a specific value for our universe to occur the way that it has. If you come across a watch which has been meticulously designed to tell time you don't assume it got there naturally do you? If you take those constants as important to the existence of our universe then its an argument for a designer. This argument is based on that same intuition that would lead you to believe the watch was designed.
2. You seem to already be pretty confident that only 1 universe is possible.
Is there any proof otherwise? It seems the multi-verse hypothesis comes from a place where you can then avoid what the Big Bang means. You would never be able to prove a multi-verse because it would be completely separate from us and thus you would require a lot of faith to believe that without being able to confirm it even exists.
Indeed it does, which is precisely why the strongest opposition to the Big Bang theory has always come from the religious communities.
Oh I won't argue that certain Christians seem to be afraid of every single scientific discovery. I happen to believe that Christianity and Science can co-exist very well together.
This is an irrelevant contention. The experiment showed that it is possible for inorganic material to become organic material.
How is it irrelevant? If you can't prove that such a thing actually happened in an environment that actually would have been like Earth's then this really doesn't prove much. Remember, creating organic material is not the same as creating life.
No, it is creating the building blocks of life.
Which have to be assembled in a very meticulous way which current probability is not in favor of it happening naturally.
Well, certainly if inorganic material can become organic, then certainly organic material can become living material. All of the steps are theoretically possible and a few of the have actually been demonstrated in the lab. To say there is no evidence is denial.
Ah there in lies the problem. How? Could you please show me the step that creates the information necessary for this to happen?
Do you have a source for this? When this quote is only found on creationist apologetic websites, a quote that appears that someone is arguing against a belief we know them to hold, I'm inclined to say this is a quote mine. Can you show me the paragraph in which this quote appears?
John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
That being said do you have an actual rebuttal to the article I posted
I don't mean to post quotes out of context although I do get the same things when people quote out of the Bible improperly so I apologize about the second quote :) However as early as May 2011 it would seem this idea needs a lot more research and that you can't make the claim that this RNA World is actually what happened until it becomes verifiable. You can offer it as a hypothesis but that's about it.
"Although many scientists have provided great insights into the possibility of RNA as the origin of life, there is still no unified opinion about RNA World theory. Some argue that it was an intermediate molecule, between the first molecule and DNA. Research continues of course, as it is a tantalizing dilemma, a challenge for scientists to solve, keen to find out once and for all where we came from."
This is an argument that in order for us to exist, certain constants needed to be set at a specific value for our universe to occur the way that it has.
For life to exist, the constants, mustn't be nearly as precise as you might suppose. The universe is large enough and old enough to where the conditions necessary for life are bound to coincide somewhere.
99.9999% of the universe is completely uninhabitable, so if indeed the universe was designed for life, then it is apparently a very poor design. That life was able to thrive somewhere is not so much a result of divine intervention as it was a result of basic probability. I am not of the opinion that life HAD to be on earth, life could have been anywhere, but it happened on earth because the conditions were right for it, and that hasn't always been the case. The atmosphere of the early earth would have been quite poisonous to us and nearly all other non-microbial life.
Is there any proof otherwise?
In the colloquial sense proof does not exist in science. Nothing is truly ever proven, only in mathematics. I'm not making the argument that there is a multiverse, but certainly at least it seems plausible and it would lay the anthropic argument to rest. There is no more evidence for God than there is for a Mutiverse.
How is it irrelevant?
Because the experiment was repeated by another chemist with conditions much more similar to those of early earth, and got largely the same results.
John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
Don't bother giving me a citation that I know you got from a website, unless you physically posses this particular issue of Scientific American from 1991 which I highly doubt. What I want to know is what website you got this information from.
it would seem this idea needs a lot more research
I agree.
you can't make the claim that this RNA World is actually what happened until it becomes verifiable.
It is verifiable. It has not yet been elevated to full-fledged theory yet, it has however undergone significant scientific testing and is much more scientifically supported than Intelligent Design. It is by no means the only hypothesis out there, but currently it is the most well supported explanation.
99.9999% of the universe is completely uninhabitable, so if indeed the universe was designed for life, then it is apparently a very poor design.
The universe wasn't designed for life. The argument is that the universe was designed for life here and the fact that we exist is something that needs to be explained BECAUSE the universe is so inhospitable to life.
somewhere is not so much a result of divine intervention as it was a result of basic probability.
Basic probability in this regards would put the emergence of life on naturalistic means at basically 0 if you accept the prior argument.
I'm not making the argument that there is a multiverse, but certainly at least it seems plausible and it would lay the anthropic argument to rest. There is no more evidence for God than there is for a Mutiverse.
A Multi-verse of the Gaps argument then eh? Science can't explain why the big bang would have a cause and since they don't like what it would mean they have to try to force a different theory that has no evidence to support it.
Because the experiment was repeated by another chemist with conditions much more similar to those of early earth, and got largely the same results.
Once again this is not proof of anything. Another, "It could have happened this way!" Can we just be honest with one and other and say based on the evidence no one knows how life came to be on Earth?
According to?
Biochemists
If you wish to know, please visit this video which explores the process step by step.
Don't bother giving me a citation that I know you got from a website, unless you physically posses this particular issue of Scientific American from 1991 which I highly doubt. What I want to know is what website you got this information from.
You have a library near by, use it?
It is verifiable. It has not yet been elevated to full-fledged theory yet, it has however undergone significant scientific testing and is much more scientifically supported than Intelligent Design. It is by no means the only hypothesis out there, but currently it is the most well supported explanation.
If by well supported you mean virtually no evidence to suggest it could actually happen, then sure.
edit
I apologize also about the perceived tone above as well. I was answering your other dispute and didn't see this one and attempted to go through it quickly. As I read through this again it sounds a bit sarcastic and dismissive on my end. I'll have to properly address this at some point but I've run out of time for today :)
The universe wasn't designed for life. The argument is that the universe was designed for life here and the fact that we exist is something that needs to be explained BECAUSE the universe is so inhospitable to life.
Even earth was inhospitable to life, to begin with. The early earth's atmosphere would be very poisonous to us. The earth was not created as haven for life, it became that way over billions of years. Dinosaurs would have great difficulty living today because the atmosphere is so much different. Understanding this fact, we see that earth wasn't designed for life, but rather life adapted itself for survival on earth.
The universe is so old and so massive, eventually the conditions necessary for life will coincide somewhere. Looking at the big picture, the universe is so incredibly vast, to believe the universe was created to support the existence of the earth is absolutely insane. The earth is like a single pore on a single grain of sand, in the ocean, and human life has only existed on that pore for such a miniscule amount of time, equivalent to the last 2 seconds on a clock.
I don't buy the argument that "Life is rare, therefore it was created". It is a poor argument.
Basic probability in this regards would put the emergence of life on naturalistic means at basically 0 if you accept the prior argument.
The chance of getting a Royal Flush your first hand in a game of poker is pretty rare, the chance of getting it every hand in a single game of Poker is even rarer, but play poker every second of every day for 1 million years, 10 million years, 500 million years, 1 billion years, 14 billion years, and eventually it will happen. If you accept the that the Universe is of an infinite age, then that probability essentially becomes 100%
A Multi-verse of the Gaps argument then eh?
So you saying "God absolutely is the cause" ISN'T a God of the Gaps argument, but me saying a "Multiverse is plausible" IS a multiverse of the Gaps argument?
I'm beginning to see the bias in your argument.
;)
Science can't explain why the big bang would have a cause
This is awkward phrasing. Why would something have a cause? Because cause precedes effect as we generally understand it. Assuming there even is precedence, if the big bang is the beginning of time, nothing can precede it, not even cause, and on a Planck level of time and a quantum level of space, causality is regularly broken. Particles flicker in and out of existence. If we are to go by the Big Bounce theory, the collapse of a previous universe would cause the inflation of the next.
Even if we were to accept that science has no explanation, "God did it" isn't itself not an explanation of HOW the universe came to be. It only provides a WHO, the HOW is still unanswered. Now we must explain both the WHO and the HOW, rather than just the HOW. You are multiplying entities needlessly.
Once again this is not proof of anything.
It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.
Another, "It could have happened this way!"
I'm sorry to disappoint but this is the majority of what science is anyway. Science avoids absolute certainty, rather it operates on probabilistic cause. No matter how plausible any scientific explanation of a past event is, until we can time travel we cannot be absolutely certain, this is by no measure a reason to resort to less developed less supported pseudo-scientific explanations. Which is what you are trying to convince us to do.
Biochemists
This made me laugh. I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to speak on behalf of all biochemists, but you are quite literally wrong.
Many biochemists believe in naturalistic evolution, and in fact the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution and common descent. The figure is actually quite staggering.
You say it's not possible; You ask me to explain the steps; I explain the steps; Then you criticize my source. Why am I not surprised?
Do you have a refutation or not? Is there anything within the video that is incorrect? I'm inclined to think you prefer denial.
You have a library near by, use it?
No, don't Bullshit me. You didn't read this from a library, and you don't own the issue. Stop being dishonest. I asked for a source and your refused to give it to me. Unfortunately for you, I do not ask questions that I do not already know the answer to. I know where you got these quotes from. I know the website you found them on. You insist upon being dishonest and your argument will suffer for it.
The source which you copied and pasted from, without giving credit to your source. There is a reason I asked for the website. Creationist websites are notorious for quote mining. This is why I needed to know where YOU got the quotes from, not where your source claims to have gotten them from. They use quotes out of context so it appears the quoted person is arguing against something, when in fact they are not. It is a lie by omission.
If by well supported you mean virtually no evidence to suggest it could actually happen
The earth is like a single pore on a single grain of sand, in the ocean, and human life has only existed on that pore for such a miniscule amount of time, equivalent to the last 2 seconds on a clock.
Oh I'm quite aware of how large space is. That's why I think it is incredible. As per your earlier post about God being a poor designer for "wasting space" I've heard the argument that in order for there to be enough Iron and etc. to even create planets then the universe needs to be the size that it is.
I don't buy the argument that "Life is rare, therefore it was created". It is a poor argument.
I don't buy the argument that Life is abundant and therefore it was created by naturalistic means. It is a poor argument as well.
If you accept the that the Universe is of an infinite age, then that probability essentially becomes 100%
I think that is the main problem here. I do not accept the Universe is of an infinite age. I think the fact that the universe is still expanding and the second law of thermal dynamics implies the ultimate fate of the universe would be "heat death" or basically that all of the energy in the universe will spread itself out evenly. When that happens the universe becomes such that no life is possible. The reason that is important is that if the universe is infinitely old then this would have already happened and we would not be here... yet here we are. Therefore the probability that we got here through naturalistic means is basically nil.
So you saying "God absolutely is the cause" ISN'T a God of the Gaps argument, but me saying a "Multiverse is plausible" IS a multiverse of the Gaps argument?
No, I'm saying that there is a FIRST cause. And in order for there to be a first cause it has to have all the attributes that I mentioned before, timeless, immaterial and etc. That says nothing about whether or not that is the Christian God.
if the big bang is the beginning of time, nothing can precede it
You can have simultaneous causes however. For example, CS Lewis describes the following situation as an example of simultaneous causation: Imagine two books on a table where one is stacked on top of the other. The bottom book is book A, and the top book is book B. What is the cause of book B residing a few inches above the table? The presence of book A of course. And Book A cannot cause Book B to be above the table until it is placed on top of it. The cause (book A exerting a force on Book B) is simultaneous to the effect (book B being upheld by book A).
It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.
At what point does that show that molecules can self-organize? That's highly misleading. Creating amino acids does not imply self-organization.
Which is what you are trying to convince us to do.
No, all I'm pointing out is that you keep posting these ideas and passing them off as fact.
I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to speak on behalf of all biochemists, but you are quite literally wrong.
I'm not speaking on behalf of biochemists, I would never dare to do so as they are by far well more versed in that area than I.
Many biochemists believe in naturalistic evolution.
Many of them have faith in naturalistic evolution, this is true.
In fact the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution and common descent.
Again, yes they do have faith in evolution and common descent. Notice here that in order to have faith you must believe in something when there is not enough scientific evidence to support it. You can argue that you believe the evidence points in a certain direction but at this point it is a belief. I believe this is the same reason you tell me that I should abandon my belief in Jesus is it not, because its not scientifically proven?
It is proof that molecules can self-organize to form the building blocks of life.
I don't think it is the proof you are looking for however. A good analogy is that if bricks were created we can assume that natural forces would construct a house out of them.
"Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.
What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job."
- Charles McCombs, Ph.D. (Organic chemist)
I believe that there is research going on to try to solve this problem, but I couldn't find anything source that actually claim to have solved this problem.
Do you have a refutation or not? Is there anything within the video that is incorrect?
The fact that this video is using the "primordial soup" assumption is a big problem for me. No evidence for it and many scientists would argue that it would not be conducive towards creating life.
No, don't Bullshit me. You didn't read this from a library, and you don't own the issue. Stop being dishonest. I asked for a source and your refused to give it to me.
I gave you the citation as it was cited when I ran across it. I did some other searching on him too at the time to make sure he wasn't just some Creationist that you would immediately ignore. His wikipedia profile lists him as agnostic.
He's basically saying Science has absolutely no idea how life started. Of special note from the article:
"But the "RNA-world" hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. Overbye notes that "even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.""
I suppose I'll make the same charge of you.. did you actually buy each of these articles or are you just posting links? Once again, amino acids do not self order to proteins, as far as I can tell the only time amino acids become proteins is when DNA directs it into what protein it needs to be, so creating these "Building" blocks doesn't really prove much of anything regarding the origins of life because there was no DNA to cause them to become proteins.
It seems some kind of error happened, everything is inexplicably bolded.
Oh I'm quite aware of how large space is. That's why I think it is incredible. As per your earlier post about God being a poor designer for "wasting space" I've heard the argument that in order for there to be enough Iron and etc. to even create planets then the universe needs to be the size that it is.
Have we suddenly begun talking about some other sort of God? Why is it that a God that can speak the universe into existence needs pre-existing material of which to extract the necessary components for a life-bearing earth? If God can create the Universe from nothing why can he not just create whatever quantity of iron, salt, water etc that he needs? It's great that you heard this argument, but you don't seem compelled by it and for good reason.
I don't buy the argument that Life is abundant and therefore it was created by naturalistic means.
Strawman? Where have I ever said this?
I think that is the main problem here. I do not accept the Universe is of an infinite age.
I think the fact that the universe is still expanding and the second law of thermal dynamics implies the ultimate fate of the universe would be "heat death" or basically that all of the energy in the universe will spread itself out evenly. When that happens the universe becomes such that no life is possible. The reason that is important is that if the universe is infinitely old then this would have already happened
This largely depends on the quantity of dark matter in the universe, it also assumes linear time.
Other explanations that do not experience this problem:
Therefore the probability that we got here through naturalistic means is basically nil.
Only because you wish for there to be a God. You are essentially saying that the probability that you are wrong is basically nil. There are a number of very intelligent scientists that would strongly disagree with this statement here.
No, I'm saying that there is a FIRST cause.
"If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.
Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics."
-PAUL DAVIES theoretical physicist, at the University of Adelaide
And in order for there to be a first cause it has to have all the attributes that I mentioned before, timeless, immaterial and etc
Anything and everything that is timeless and immaterial is completely indistinguishable from that which is non-existent.
At what point does that show that molecules can self-organize?
At the point it was observed within a laboratory. Even outside the realm of abiogenesis, molecules self-organize all the time. Every snowflake you have ever seen is the product of self-organized molecules.
No, all I'm pointing out is that you keep posting these ideas and passing them off as fact.
You are grossly mistaken. You are the one presenting your belief as fact, and you have consistently asserted your belief as the only possible explanation while disregarding other explanations.
I have only ever said that there are many possible explanations, all with more evidence than your "God Did it" assumption. Unlike you I don't pretend to know how it all started.
Many of them have faith in naturalistic evolution, this is true.
So it requires faith to believe no more than what the evidence suggests?
Again, yes they do have faith in evolution and common descent. Notice here that in order to have faith you must believe in something when there is not enough scientific evidence to support it.
This seems to be a considerable flip-flop from your previous position that faith is having irrefutable proof that something won't happen. Now faith is simply having NOT ENOUGH evidence. What constitutes ENOUGH evidence is beyond me, but I will be willing to bet your idea of what constitutes enough evidence for evolution would be quite astronomical. This isn't to say that your beliefs are even dependent upon evidence. In a survey only 17% of who deny evolution cite "lack of evidence" as a reason he vast majority citing their belief in Jesus and the Bible as their reason for rejecting evolution, and whether you admit it or not I would argue that you too fall in this category.
You can argue that you believe the evidence points in a certain direction but at this point it is a belief.
Absolutely. I never denied it was a belief. It is an evidentially supported belief. You however conflate faith with belief. All faith is belief but not all belief is faith. You follow?
I believe this is the same reason you tell me that I should abandon my belief in Jesus
This is the interesting thing about religion, certain words and phrase contain hidden connotations.
Belief in Jesus, in Christianity doesn't mean belief in Jesus. Belief in Jesus actually means "Beliefs about Jesus". For that matter I believe in Jesus, but I don't share the same beliefs about Jesus that you do. I believe in Jesus in the sense that he probably existed. I however don't accept that he was the son of God, that he rose from the dead or turned water into wine. These to me are just myths, and to insist that they are anything else is silly.
I don't think it is the proof you are looking for however. A good analogy is that if bricks were created we can assume that natural forces would construct a house out of them.
And why is it that bricks won't arrange themselves to make a house? Because bricks are not self-replicating nor self-organizing, molecules are.
Analogies are not proof, they are not evidence. Analogies help to clarify ideas, not to prove them.
Chirality...
I fail to see how the fact that molecules mirror themselves in large multi-celluar organisms in any manner somehow disproves abiogensis. Perhaps you can elucidate? Are you just making shots in the dark hoping to get lucky?
The fact that this video is using the "primordial soup" assumption is a big problem for me.
Of course nit is, because it is not enough simply to deny evolution and abiogenesis, you must deny every detail of the process whether it is relevant to it's veracity or not. All of it presents a challenge to your religious faith.
The video uses a primordial soup scenario because that is the conditions the urey-miller experiments used and that is what the scripps researchers used, and both of them had succeeded. To call primordial soup an assumption at this point is just outright disingenuous.
I gave you the citation as it was cited when I ran across it.
That is precisely the problem, the whole purpose of a citation is to list where YOU found the information. If you found it on a website, list that website. Don't pretend you did the hard job of looking through actual magazines and print-and-paper articles, if you didn't. This is dishonest. The reason I'm making a big deal about this is because creationists websites are notorious for quote-mining, quoting evolutionists to appear as if they are arguing against what they actually believing by leaving out parts of their quote. In this instance my suspicion was correct.
I did some other searching on him too at the time to make sure he wasn't just some Creationist that you would immediately ignore.
This is the other problem I was talking about, If a well-known creationist is quoted as supporting creationism on a creationist website there is no reason to doubt this, but if a well known evolutionist is quoted as supporting creationism on a creationist website, I would treat that quote with a lot of skepticism.
He's basically saying Science has absolutely no idea how life started.
There is a lot we still don't know yet, but I will have to respectfully disagree that certainly science has some idea how life began even if there are a few dilemmas that have yet to be solved, and this in no way supports the creationist position by any means.
you cannot see wind or gravity..but you can detect them right? well you can detect god as well...every time a baby is born..every time a plant grows..every time a human dies..every time you breathe ask your self how am i alive? if there was no god then we would not exist..how do you think you are living every day?
how do you think we were brought to this life? if you think we used to be monkeys then who created those monkeys..if you say they were small organisms then i say who made those organisms? and i can keep going forever! the answer is simple...there is a god! ;)
If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
how do you think we were brought to this life? if you think we used to be monkeys then who created those monkeys..if you say they were small organisms then i say who made those organisms? and i can keep going forever! the answer is simple...there is a god! ;)
Then who created God? The proposition of infinite regress is of no advantage to your argument.
if there was no god then we would not exist
Human existence can be explained without positing any sort of Deity.
there is only one god...he created humanity...and you ask who created god? i dont think tht is the question he is god he created us...how could the one who created us be created? the creator of all! ;) that particular question is of no advantage to your argument ;)
If the universe needs to be created, why doesn't God? How do we explain the origin of God? The fact that you cannot answer my question tells me that my question is of advantage to my argument. If you say God has always been, then why can the universe not have always been? Does it not require fewer assumptions to say the Universe is infinite?
You're just trying to explain the unknown by calling the unknown "God", but this is not an explanation as we still don't know how the universe came about. To say "God did it" gives us no greater insight into the nature of things. It discourages exploration and inquiry into the matter.
well i have to say i haven't reached an age were i can specify how to give what i want to say and the way i say it..as a person who believes in god i decided to stick to my belief and defend it in anyway necessary but being in my age the amount of info and proves i can provide for my discussion is limited... but as for what you believe in i can say you are also trying to convince yourself that what you cant feel or see or sense does not exist...which gives us no greater insight into the nature of things just as you said... it discourages exploration and limits a person's desire to provide his own believes and standing up for them and as a closure i would like to state that i stand up on my belief and respect you for standing with yours in such a way..still you are free to believe what you want to believe and so am i...
While I like the enthusiasm.... there needs to be more substance to your arguments. Atheists don't respond well to... "Because God did it!" Personally I have found Lee Strobel's books, The Case For Faith and The Case For A Creator to be a pretty good starting point. I would also recommend anything that Dr. William Lane Craig has been a part of.
i do agree on tht matter...but my arguments are not yet started...hehe i can only promise you one thing...my arguments will be even more full of substance once i get started. i truly admire your opinion and im thankful to your statement my friend :) also i say...thank you for your recommendation ;)
No problem! I do like to see people attempting to seek and come up with arguments. There are a lot of very smart, capable atheists that will fight everything you have to say and the only thing they seem to respond to is well-reasoned and informative arguments. Good luck on your searching and reading!
I believe that anything in the universe will exist depending on our degree of belief therefore anyone who believes in god he exists there is no possible evidence against it. Think of this as a twist of I think therefor I am. I think therefore it is.
This is an utterly disgraceful misinterpretation of "I think therefore I am". When Rene Descartes proposed this idea, he was speaking of whether the "self" exists. This statement is simply saying "since I am able to think, therefore I must exist. And thus, I think therefore I am."
This is by no means a way to prove that another being other than the self exists.
Well, if you think that evolution was able to morph individual elements into life (single cell organisms, viruses, multi cell organisms, all the way to the most advanced life form of today), then I beleive you have to dig a little deeper.
Certainly evolution can take human life forms and over time selectively weed out undesireable traits, but I have a hard time believing that evolution could have caused single cell to human evolution.
Ok I am way too lazy to read this crap, so can I ask someone who is not lazy to sum up the best 10-15 arguments on each side and i will evaluate and correct both sides as best I can ^^.
Also to note I have no intention of ever 100% proving or disproving the existence of God, that is impossible. I believe in God because I believe that the probability of his existence is high enough to warrant belief ^_^.
May be but there is not a single way know, God is more of a figure that is known for the all knowing full potental and everything as the universe is all everything all knowing all prudocts miricles and all god is the universe god is all life death alive not alive elements and light the universe is all for god is are place
Well even though there is no phsyical evidence that a God exists. And even though I have previously made a statement on a similar debate about my opinion on whether Gods exist, I like to think he does because then everything doesn't seem pointless. Besides the Bible says we have to believe. You cant believe everything you see. The mind plays tricks on you. But just as well you can not not believe everything you dont. I've never seen the most top secret Government base that has no evidence of it existing but i believe it exists. Theres no hard evidence it does but I believe its there. So i like to keep my faith the he does exists just like I know that base exists. Besides whatever is on the base is powerful so if we ever were attacked, im glad its there you know.
I believe God exists. I believe in evolution too. One of many reasons I believe in him is reproduction. It just seems too odd that life consists of reproduction, specially the first micro-organism. Did that tiny creature know it was going to die and had to reproduce so life can go on?
Yes of course. The mere fact that you printed the word gives life to the concept. Does beauty exists? Hatred? Love? Jealousy? Why is not god an equally believable entity. Atheism is facile and childish.
You know all the Athiests who say that that God doesnt exist is wrong. You can think all you want that God dosent exist but when you die you will be right in front of God and He will said you said on the Internet that God doesnt exist and He will say thats me. Then you will say I believe in you right now and then Jesus will say that its too late and He will send you to hell. Thats all I am going to say its your opion whether God exist. You will regret that you said God doesnt exist.
Do you actually have any arguments that aren't rooted in mindlessly rehearsing what you hear every week in church? Have you ever bothered to challenge your faith?
How did I guess you were going to say that? Now on the second point:
"Do you actually have any arguments that aren't rooted in mindlessly rehearsing what you hear every week in church? Have you ever bothered to challenge your faith?"
Any research, logic, any rational thinking and investigation at all? Any response to the points that Bohemian and I have made calling into question the veracity of the Bible? Anything to actually make this a decent debate?
Yes I have challenged my faith. That God is real if He wasnt then then we would be dead and also there would be no world. It would be nothing. Its your faith to decide if He is real. Also God spoke in the Bible about and afterlife there is a Heaven and a Hell. Heaven is for people who believe in Jesus and follow his ways and do his will. Hell is a place where people go when they did wrong stuff on this earth and that includes if say that God doesnt exist.
That God is real if He wasnt then then we would be dead and also there would be no world.
Why? Why could these things not happen as a response to the laws upon which matter and energy respond to, or as a result of some unseen events outside of our current knowledge base. Why the Christian God?
Also God spoke in the Bible about and afterlife there is a Heaven and a Hell. Heaven is for people who believe in Jesus and follow his ways and do his will.
I understand that these words are written in the Bible. I also understand that the Bible dictated a cure for leprosy that definitely does not work, that it dictated a method for making a spotted cow that definitely does not work, that it dictates a cosmological map that is not anything like what we see when we look through telescopes, that the OT was simply a hodge podge of different writers from different times and nations and ethnicity weaving together fables from throughout the Fertile Crescent region, that Christ's teachings had a lot in common with the Mystery Cults and Buddhism, both of which came first. I know that a lot of religions say a lot of things that conflict with each other, that conflict with non-faith based observations, that serve primarily as constructs to explain the formerly unexplainable, to act as an intellectual placeholder until we started observing things better, as well as to collect power into the hands of religious leaders and serve as societal control.
And why should an all knowing being care if we believe in him or not. I, personally, have a lot of love for the universe, and if God did exist, he would know that I respect his work, regardless if I believed he was responsible for it. And how are infinite punishments for finite transgressions moral, omnibenevolent?
This is a circular argument. When atheists say, "God does not exist", you simply cannot argue to the contrary by quoting the Bible. The Bible, though written by man, is written under the influence of God. If God does not exist, that means that whatever has been written is not written under "His" influence. It is therefore a subjective claim, which means that one cannot claim or conclude that the statement "Hell exists" is an objective truth.
If you cannot demonstrate that this even has the slightest possibility of being true, then why should I be afraid? I love when people threaten me with fiction...
@Bohemian In the Divine Revelation of Hell Jesus spoke to the person that He said my Word is true. I also have another question for you you said that everything in the Bible is wrong well I guess when Jesus is going to take his people away from this earth and leave the nonbelivers on this earth called the Rapture isnt true? And if the Bible wasnt true then there would be no earth and no humans and no God if the Bible wasnt true. And I guess when Jesus comes back on this earth to put his kingdom down its not true? All of these things will happen there is even signs happpening that its getting close to His coming.
@Bohemian In the Divine Revelation of Hell Jesus spoke to the person that He said my Word is true.
Divine revelation can only be considered true by the person receiving it, to everyone else it is hearsay. Because we were not there to see it, and because there is no evidence of it having ever occurred, we cannot be certain it is true. The more fantastical the event, the less likely it is true. In my experience, if someone is telling you of some amazing event that only they saw, there is a very good chance they are making it up or exaggerating.
I also have another question for you you said that everything in the Bible is wrong
I didn't say everything in the bible was wrong. Even a broken clock is right two times a day. I conceded that many of the places and some of the people in the Bible were real. I contend that all of the supernatural/magical aspects of the bible are false, if not complete misrepresentations of normal events.
when Jesus is going to take his people away from this earth and leave the nonbelivers on this earth called the Rapture isnt true? And I guess when Jesus comes back on this earth to put his kingdom down its not true?
If the rapture was/isn't true then the above described events wouldn't occur. You're essentially asking me if you're right, would you be wrong...this is a nonsense question.
All of these things will happen there is even signs happpening that its getting close to His coming.
People have been saying that we are "seeing the signs, we must be close" for over a thousand years. Everybody thinks End Times is going to occur in their lifetime, just like 80% of people think they are above average drivers. It's ego.
I hate to sound like a one-debate-topic-pony, but I must admit that the relative dearth of religious debates lately may have played a secondary contributing factor to my lower activity on this site. So I guess I must respond :)
My answer- unknown
The two best methodologies for objective inquiry I know of are science and logic. Modern naturalistic science has rules about accepting unfalsifiable claims and the supernatural as answers to inquiry. This is simply due to the fact that method cannot be used to verify such claims.
Logic? Well both sides have long presented logical attempts to verify their claims, but when we are talking about an all-everything being who is above and beyond every rule of the universe, it is difficult to ascertain if our understanding of logic is complete or accurate enough to make strong claims about such a being
I agree that it is logically difficult to prove a negative, but there are many facets of evidence that dispute the existence of god. Just because someone came up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it is hard to prove a negative, doesn't mean FSM exists.
You can look at the origins of the idea. Probably no one believes in the early gods man came up with. We take for granted that man has made up thousands of false gods for thousands of years.
You can look at the beliefs themselves. Man has used gods to enforce order and morality and to explain unknown phenomenon - lightning, asteroids, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, sickness, childbirth, etc. As humans have learned the truth behind these phenomena, the scope of god has always been diminished until we are now left with a near powerless god existing basically to kick off the big bang.
You can look at the material itself for contradictions. Not only does the bible contradict all science, right down to the speed of light and answers only by saying god doesn't care about physics; It also contradicts itself on what would seem to be important issues: the order of creation, Jesus' grandfather, Jesus' last words, etc.
-There is no evidence against the existence of God.
Due to the fact that there are an infinite number of false premises, and only a limited number of true premises, it is better to err on the side of skepticism. This is why the burden of proof rests on the believers. Until such time this burden of proof is satisfied, the logical position is the position of skepticism.
I cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist, but I will live my life as if that were the case until proven otherwise.
If I were being cynical, I could say that if you don't believe, and God doesn't exist, there's no benefit. If you don't believe, and God does exist, there's potentially a lot of consequence. If you believe and God doesn't exist, there's no harm. But if you believe and God does exist, there's great benefit.
But I'm not cynical. I believe in God because the universe is too beautiful and precise and harmonious to be an accident imo. I cannot say for certain. But there's this internal truth in my heart that tells me there is a higher power. And for that, I will believe until proof is given to the contrary.
If I were being cynical, I could say that if you don't believe, and God doesn't exist, there's no benefit. If you don't believe, and God does exist, there's potentially a lot of consequence. If you believe and God doesn't exist, there's no harm. But if you believe and God does exist, there's great benefit.
There are three major problems with Pascal's Wager.
1) This is only the case if Christianity were the the only religion, and the christian God the only God to consider. It's not. There are hundreds of religions and thousands of Gods. Which effectively turns your 50:50 wager into a 1-in-a-million wager. It is just as likely that you would burn for not accepting Ahura Mazda.
2) Even if we only considered the judeo-christian God, do you not think he would see through your facade of belief only for the sake of self-interest? Do you think he would grant you admittance into heaven if he knew this were the only reason you believed?
3) Is it even possible to choose belief? Do you not believe only what you've been convinced is true? If asked could you spontaneously change belief?
I believe in God because the universe is too beautiful and precise and harmonious to be an accident imo.
Beauty is not inherent, you see things as beautiful because that is what you perceive them to be. Does the repulsiveness of maggots, cow feces, or vultures disprove God? So why would beauty prove him/it? It's a nonsense argument.
Nor is the Universe as precise or as harmonious as you would like to think. 99.99999% of the universe is completely inhospitable to life and especially to humans. Stars are consumed on a regular basis, and entire planets are destroyed by such cosmic events. Radiation bombards space, sterilizing entire galaxies. Meteors reduce planets to unlivable wastelands. The vast majority of the universe we cannot even perceive. The amount of the universe we can actually see is like a single raindrop in the ocean.
To say that the Universe was created for our benefit would be akin to the flea living on your cat's left testicle thinking that your city was created for it's benefit.
If you'll note, I said "I'm not cynical." I, too, don't buy the initial argument for belief in God.
You'll also note I never said the universe existed for our benefit. Nor did I suggest that you should believe in God, or that anyone else should for that matter. But you asked why I did, and I answered.
Now, it's clear that you and I disagree. But don't tell me about my beliefs. It's extremely infuriating.
I have a question for you can you see the wind or gravity
No, but it is possible to perceive the effects of both.
One can feel and hear the passing of the wind, and occasionally smell any odours it may carry. It is also possible to see the effects of wind on treetops, flags and all manner of flexible bodies.
One may actually observe gravity, or rather, observe its effects, with eminent facility. If one were to grasp a small object, suspend it above the floor, and release it, an acceleration of ~9.8 metres per second squared would be observed.
If you cant see wind or gravity or wind then just because you dont think there is a God that you cant see doesnt mean that He dosent exist. When Jesus was alive Jesus asked someone and said who are you looking for and the people fell to the ground because of his voice. He is the Beginnning and the End. He is the Alpha and the Omega and the Everlasting God. He is the Truth and Light
If you cant see wind or gravity or wind then just because you dont think there is a God that you cant see doesnt mean that He dosent exist.
As I have explained, sir, it is possible for one to observe the effects of wind and gravity, and explain how they occur. Furthermore, neither phenomenon contravenes any scientific law whatever.
Your notional God, however, cannot be proven to exist by any means, logical or demonstrative. In addition, His "powers" do contravene scientific principles, such as Archimedes principle of flotation.
When Jesus was alive Jesus asked someone and said who are you looking for and the people fell to the ground because of his voice.
Boulderdash.
He is the Beginnning and the End. He is the Alpha and the Omega and the Everlasting God. He is the Truth and Light
Fanatical gibberish, sir, doth not an argument make.
Yes we can easily see wind and gravity, sir. Isac Newton showed us the way, as far as gravity is concerned. The wind is measured by any simple device that fluctuates when air is applied upon it, weather vain, balloon, streamer.
Can you see farther then 1,000 feet, yes as long as you use a telescope, which is only focused photons/light. This isn't an argument for the belief in God.
You can DETECT the wind and gravity, and there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence for both. Trying to pretend like that's not the case based on lack of direct visual observation of the forces themselves is ridiculous.
Problem is, us believers don't feel a need to try to prove the existence of god to you. We'll let you do that or not do that for yourself. Funny how that is....even though non believers DO want to try to dis-prove it so much. LOL
Problem is, us believers don't feel a need to try to prove the existence of god to you.
Really, you don't think that any theists in the world try to convert people to their religion? You are massively out of touch with almost every religion in the world.
Funny how that is....even though non believers DO want to try to dis-prove it so much. LOL
Actually, few atheists are actively trying to disprove God, as it's already happened (assuming you're talking about the Jeudo-Christianic God). The Problem of Evil proves that God cannot exist in the form that Christians claim him to be, among with other arguments.
I come from a family of Christians, and I go to catholic school and I am still Atheist. I have never prayed because i don't believe God exists. At my school, we are taught that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Surely, if he was real and omnipotent, he would use his power to overcome all the evil in the world. Surely, if he was real and omnibenevolent, he would insure the world was always as good as him. Surely, if he was real and omniscient, he would have been able to stop all this evil. A 'God' wouldn't allow people to suffer. I don't believe that god exists purely because science can explain most things, and in the future as science matures, there will be no room for God. At school, we seem to be expected to believe in something that we can't see. My friends talk about unanswered prayers and this only makes me more and more sure he doesn't exist. I respect that my friends at school are catholic and have the right to believe in God. They are aware that I don't believe in God, and never try to force me to believe in God. There is never any tension because in this society, I think people are becoming aware that this argument will always be a controversial one. No one can prove an answer so everyone should learn to respect each others views.
if god didn't exist...who do you think created us? do you think that humans were monkeys that evolved as well? well then if you do..then who created those monkeys?...if you say small organisms i'll say who created those organisms?..and so will we continue arguing.. you say why won't god heal amputees..ill say no one knows but if you that this is the reason you believe god does not exist...i'll have to say you have no reason at all...no proof..no evidence..but here is a thing...ever thought maybe..just maybe...why aren't you an amputee? huh? how come you are safe? how come do you wake up everyday breathing? how come are you capable of walking without dying in an instant...are you an amputee cause if you are then how come lots of others aren't? amputees are amputees for a reason...a reason only god knows...everything happens for a reason! and god does not leave anyone oppressed..they might be amputees but don't think they are oppressed...;) anyway take care fellow friend...:)
I don't think you understand. I'm simply curious, why do cancer victims get response to prayer and amputees don't? Because scientifically, amputees CANNOT regenerate limbs, not because god hates them. Your logic is so flawed and childlike I'm genuinely becoming depressed because you really show how mentally RETARDED a human can be.
Let me ask you this: What religion do you think you would practice if your were born in India? In Denmark in 1500? Exactly, your religion depends STRICTLY on where you were brought up.
i never said god hated them i dont think you understood my point..i said god gives justice to everyone..and by that i mean the amputees are not oppressed in everything..they might be diprived of a limb but they get alot of good things in life to replace what they lack..that is what i meant! ;)and to your other questions..the religion i would practice is what im practicing now no matter were im at...nd i know myself and am sure of that! ;) STRICTLY sure!
It is not percievable with the human senses to tell whether or not he exists.
So for the sake of taking a side, despite my nuetrality, I'm going to say no.
Every religion has sprouted from human imagination. All holy books were originally written by men and all prophets were imperfect men themselves.
I support people believing what they want, but to take the idea that there is an old muscular man in the sky with a beard who is older then the universe and who guides us all is... well, it sounds like a fairy tale, to be honest.
I know a posted this as a support to someones reply opposite a minute ago but I'd like to share it here too.
Believe in the Bible all you want. But don't for a minute think you know everything or that nothing else is possible other than what is written in scripture. Don't impose your beliefs on others.Answer questions when asked. But don't tell everyone they're going to hell. Jesus didn't walk around pointing at people, going "You're going to hell, you're going to hell, you're going to hell... you're cool... and you're going to hell". So why do a lot of Christians do that? What the hell to do they think can be gained by condemning
other people? It's certainly not going to make me want to listen to your beliefs, let alone accept them. All it breeds is hatred and negativity. And if telling someone about hell gets them to convert, then they're converting for all the wrong reasons, and they are spiritually dead anyway.
The heaven and hell concept breeds self-righteousness and arrogance (I'm going to heaven and you're not). It also leads to badgering and hurting other people (You're going to hell). Shouldn't following the path of Jesus and having faith change your life for the better now, on earth? Shouldn't it fill you with joy and love and acceptance so that you can be a good person? That should be reward enough in itself. Yet there are
so many Christians who are hypocritical and treat others like dirt! But I guess it doesn't matter how horrible they are to people on earth, because they're saved and going to heaven. And then if you don't believe in Jesus (whether or not you're the most loving, self-sacrificing person on the planet) you're going to burn in hell for all eternity. What kind of cosmic justice is that? If God is going to rule his universe like that, then
I'd rather be an atheist (I'm not an atheist, but you get my point)
1. The Christian job is to save souls and change peoples lives
2. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven
3.The reason why we say your going to hell is because since you didnt accecpt him and you say there is no such thing as God.
4. Satan is telling you that there is no God
5.I will pray for you so you can accecpt the truth about God.
6. If you rather be a athiest then rather serve the Christian God then go ahead I am done with this debate and everyone else athiests like you brain wash people into thinking that there is no God
7. If you dont change you ways you are going to be in a place of suffering that is hell for all eternity and you dont want to be in there it is horrifying and once people like you go to hell you will be screaming and saying I believe in God and then Jesus will say its too late because you decided that there is no God and now you had one chance and your chance was up. So if i were you i would start thinking about the descion you are making!
1. The Christian job is to save souls and change peoples lives
Apparently. You may just be instigating a lie.
2. Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven
If heaven is real, no proof.
3.The reason why we say your going to hell is because since you didnt accecpt him and you say there is no such thing as God
But as there is no proof hell exists you have no right to condemn someone. And for the record I never claimed God definitely did not exist.
4. Satan is telling you that there is no God
No proof for Satan, purely speculation. If God wanted me to believe in him he wouldn't have 'created' temptation or he would have at least revealed himself.
5.I will pray for you so you can accecpt the truth about God.
It might not even be true. Don't bother praying for me, even if it was proven true I still wouldn't accept it.
6. If you rather be a athiest then rather serve the Christian God then go ahead I am done with this debate and everyone else athiests like you brain wash people into thinking that there is no God
I'm not an Atheist I'm Agnostic but whatever. I brainwash people? No, it's people like you who claim that your truth is the only truth that brainwashes people. I suspect if you have children you force them into your religion. I won't force my daughter to do anything. If she wants to be a Christian fine. If she wants to be a Muslim, fine. If she wants to be an Atheist, fine.
7. If you dont change you ways you are going to be in a place of suffering that is hell for all eternity and you dont want to be in there it is horrifying and once people like you go to hell you will be screaming and saying I believe in God and then Jesus will say its too late because you decided that there is no God and now you had one chance and your chance was up. So if i were you i would start thinking about the descion you are making!
No, you think I will be in a place of suffering. I might be but logically probably not. You don't know it's horrifying, even if hell existed it might be okay. I started thinking about God's existence a long time ago which is why I am not a Christian.
Wouldn't be the first time nor the last time prayer failed to work. Even conceptually prayer is nonsensical. If you believe that God knows everything that will happen, and that God has a plan as most Christians do believe then what is the purpose of praying for something to happen?
I realized a long time ago that prayer is ineffectual. The only time prayer works is when you pray for something that is likely to happen anyway, such as praying for someone to get better and praying for someone to have a safe journey. Christians don't heal any faster or travel any safer than anyone else on the planet. Prayer doesn't work.
It doesnt work for you because you used to be a Christian and I pray everyday when I wake up in the morning I thank God for a new day and that I am healthy and alive on this earth and I pray for my enemies. If I pray some of my prayers are answered. I pray to God about a lot of things. In the evening right before I go to bed I pray for my needs. And did you know that the power of prayer can heal someone? This one guy this year was a Christian and his intestines got damaged and because there was this thing under his truck that fell on him. The doctors thought he would die and then theses two preachers came into his room and laid his hands on his intestines were and the guys intestines were healed!
It doesnt work for you because you used to be a Christian
And why is it that you think that I am not Christian anymore?
If I pray some of my prayers are answered.
I believe this is called PROBABILITY. You could pray to a tree or a jug of milk and get the same results.
Try this pray to God for something that cannot happen by chance, pray for an amputee to grow back their lost limbs.
This one guy this year was a Christian and his intestines got damaged and because there was this thing under his truck that fell on him. The doctors thought he would die and then theses two preachers came into his room and laid his hands on his intestines were and the guys intestines were healed!
The body heals itself. It is an entirely natural bio-chemical process that occurs. The skin cells regenerate, white blood cells stave off infection, and stem cells replace lost tissue.
There is something you need to know about doctors. They always give the worst case scenario even if it is unlikely, they are taught to do this and for a very good reason. If a doctor tells you that a patient is going to live and then they die, then doctor looks like an asshole, but if the doctor says the patient is going to die and he lives ...Hooray it's a miracle. Not really. The doctor knew the patient might recover but didn't want to get the family's hopes up. The fact that preachers came in and did some magic hand stuff, was nothing but an unrelated coincidence. If preachers where really able to heal patients then there wouldn't be a need for doctors.
So there really is nothing miraculous about it at all.
I pray without ceasing. So I pray at school,when i wake up,before I eat to thank God for this food,and before I go to bed. Look at how many times you didnt even notice that God was protecting you and you never prayed to him.
Protecting me from what? I have prayed to God, then I realized that it made no difference whatsoever. Events are going to unfold as they are, regardless. The things you pray for are most likely going to happen anyway.
Well God is not going to answer your prayer right away its His timing and His will whethe or not He wants to answer it or not. Right now I am praying for my grandma she is sick and has been for a lot of years and we continue to pray and we know that God has plans for her and we don't know she might die or she might be healed from her sickness.
Well God is not going to answer your prayer right away its His timing and His will whethe or not He wants to answer it or not.
It may happen now, it may happen later, it may not happen at all. What you have just described is CHANCE. It doesn't matter if you pray or not, the results will be the same regardless.
Who knows? That is the best response anyone can give to this debate. Nobody knows if God exists or not, at least nobody living. According to the bible, not even the deceased know if god exists yet. We just have to wait and find out.
but what if God exists and you go to hell because you chose not to believe in him because you wanted to wait until you died to find out the truth?If God doesn't exists and you believe in him nothing happens. if God exists and you don't believe in him you go to hell. but if God exists and you believe in him you go to heaven.
but what if God exists and you go to hell because you chose not to believe in him because you wanted to wait until you died to find out the truth?
Do you honestly think a benevolent god would operate in such a way? This is an invention of religion to scare people into accepting their dogma. If there is a God I very much doubt it/he will be anything like what is described by today's religions.
Yes I do believe their is a benevolent God that acts this way. He is also a just God and judges people fairly that's why people who don't believe and follow Him are sent to hell.
Yes I do believe their is a benevolent God that acts this way.
Then you believe in a petty and childish God. If you believe that sending people to suffer for all eternity merely for disbelief is the action of an all-loving God then you have a very funny idea of what love is. I for one do not submit myself to the archaic dogma written thousands of years ago by desert nomads, doing so could only result in a very primitive understanding of the universe.
This hardly makes up for the fact that according to your theology, your God sends people to be tormented for all eternity merely for disbelieving in something they cannot see. This is not the action of a loving god. These are the actions of a psychopath.
Read the Bible and you will see. Your God has two children ripped to shreds by bears because they teased a bald man. Your God asks a man to murder his own son. Your God commands the genocide of an entire kingdom, men, women and children. Your God commits infanticide against the firstborn of Egypt. Your god brings cruel misfortune after misfortune to one of his most devout followers as part of a bet. The God of the bible is a psychopath, he is a sexist and the worst kind of megalomaniac, but you must realize the God you believe in was written as part of a series of ancient cultural myths and parables. These cultural myths are no more likely to be true than any other series of cultural myths.
I would say that God does not exist as I have seen no evidence as to his existence. Faith is the only evidence I have seen provided, which I do not take as valid to proving his existence.
A logical examination of the origins and sources of religion, as well as the benefits and disadvantages of religion, is unlikely to change the mind of anyone who is afraid to examine these concepts objectively.
People who approach the subject of religion with apprehension or who cannot distinguish between reality and superstition, find it difficult to apply logic to their thought processes. It is much easier to believe in miracles and pseudo-science than to acquire facts and engage in incisive, rational thought. Many people of our society today that appear to be intelligent and rational in the pursuit of their daily life. However, on Sundays they go to their church or temple. There they participate in incomprehensible and irrational rituals involving magic, prayer and other activities demeaning to their rational minds. Their rational mind tells them that a god does not exist and yet, there they sit and pray to him. It has been suggested that religious people compartmentalize their thought processes in order to avoid otherwise inevitable and destructive conflicts. In this manner, rational and irrational thought processes can coexist in separate, locked compartments of the brain without connectivity. Yet, one wonders if there is some inevitable leakage from the irrational to the rational compartment, surreptitiously contaminating rationality.
The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:
If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.
Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.
Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.
Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent.
Life on Earth developed through billions of years of evolution. Evolution is a proven fact. We are all Children of the Earth. All life on this planet has a very similar DNA structure and we carry the DNA blueprint of our evolutionary heritage within our genetic code. I believe that religion and God evolved as a result of human evolution. As we began to talk and to wonder about our existence and the world we live in, we started to theorize about reality. In the beginning religion was an early attempt at science and to create order in society. Religions evolved into social institutions creating a conglomeration of ritual, science, law, and government. If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding
Throughout history, humankind has sought God. Sought to find some proof, some indication, some hope that God is or might be, and that search goes on today.
Humans seeks to find a trace of God in the vastness of eternal space, they seeks some indication throughout the far reaches of the universe within the very heart of nature itself that there is, or might be, some guiding intelligence however remote, that maybe that would, perhaps be God. They seeks, and continues to seek, a trace of God, but has not yet found that trace; and yet, while humans seek and searched in vain for a trace of God, human ignorance found God; or at least, believes it found God. Human ignorance not only found God, but also has direct knowledge as to what God said and did, what God wants, what God thinks, what God likes, and what God hates.
The human ignorance that found God has nothing to do with religious believers today. God, or the illusion of God, was found long ago in the childhood of the human race. Human ignorance found God long before humanity found science, long before the wheel was invented, or fire was captured and became mans friend. In that bleak cold, dangerous world stood our ancestors. Humankind was in its infancy, struggling to understand the forces of nature, to escape its enemies, to feed itself, and to reproduce its kind. The human mind was emerging from the darkness of animal instincts into the beginnings of reason. Their only thought was Survival! It was a dangerous world with enemies, everywhere; and so ignorance created faith in the face of necessity; and God was born!
This God that ignorance found, or formed, looks a great deal like a man. They tell us it has a face, hands, bowels, a foot (maybe two). They tell us it has nostrils and likes to smell the burnt offerings upon the primitive altar. This God, that ignorance found or formed, also has remarkably human desires and emotions. It hates, it loves, it feels anger, and it feels compassion. It has favorite individuals, and a chosen people. This God is definitely of the male sex, and has definite male tendencies. It is often angry, easily enraged, swears, destroys things, pouts, shouts, deceives, and often rests. The God that was found by a primitive and ignorant people some thousands of years ago, just happened to have the same world outlook, and the same beliefs about nature as the people who found him. This God thought the sun revolved around the earth, and that a day could be made longer by simply stopping the sun for a while. It is truly amazing, the number of similarities there are between the beliefs of God, and the beliefs of the people who discovered God.
The story that I’ve told about the discovery of God is not unique. It has happened many times, and in many different places all over the world. Whenever primitive people needed a God, they have always found a God, tailor-made. It was their own God, and always resembled them a great deal. The God always had the same enemies and the same morals, as the people who found him, and many of those Gods were authors who wrote books about their God.
The very fact of this debate, or any debate about the Bible, is irrefutable proof that the Bible cannot be "the word of God."
Why are some humans still a slave to such a primitive superstition and why are they afraid to think outside of the box, to question and to investigate? I say you should just set your mind free! Get up off your knees and stand upon your own two feet, raise your head, open your eyes and start to use your mind. The use of the human mind has raised us above all the other animals and has made us the master of the entire earth. The human mind and our ability to reason is the only hope we have of surviving in our modern, atomic, world. We must learn to use our minds. Once the mind is free, it will open up to reason.
Let “B” = logically credible (able to be held as a belief/knowledge consistently).
Let “T” = true
Let “F” = false
1. P has no proof (or otherwise justification) provided for itself.
2. If P has no proof/justification, P is ¬ (T, F).
3. If a statement ¬ T, then that statement ¬ B.
4. P is ¬ T. (from 1 & 2)
5. P is ¬ B. (from 3 & 4)
This syllogism needs a bit more explaining of each premise and clarification of possible misunderstandings. First, it's important to point out that the definition of “B” provided is not meant to be subjective/relative. Although the words “logically credible” seem vague, I'm referring to the consistency of the belief. Essentially, that the belief, being the conscious recognition of truth, for example, does not recognize something as true while recognizing it as false. Not only is this logically contradictory and thus void of meaning or truth due to the nature of what a belief is in the first place, but psychologically impossible except within unstable and unhealthy defence mechanisms such as compartmentalization, reaction formation, denial, etc. Hence the third premise.
Furthermore, while equally one could say ¬ F, it would not make sense for one to say “P is B” in the condition ¬ F. The reason for this is because P not being false does not necessarily mean P is true. And further reason for this is that some things are neither true nor false, i.e. not false, but also not true, because they can't be logically evaluated or because we cannot yet recognize them as either. Such as in this case where P is ¬ F and ¬ T. Thus, P remains ¬ B.
The reason, then, for the second premise is that lack of proof/justification does not necessarily make something false even if it doesn't make it true (another example why ¬ F does not necessarily mean T).
Despite all of this, because of the third premise, we must still consciously assume a lack of belief in P, or a disbelief in P. And there's your “proof” (or, more accurately stated, justification). The job of the negative atheist, therefore—the one that disbelieves P unlike the positive atheist—is just to constantly back up the first premise in the context of theism by refuting the attempted proofs/justifications of theists. And in this syllogism is summed up the “proof” (or, more accurately, justification for disbelief) reflected in these efforts of refutation. Hence why, while the burden of proof is on both of us, it is much more strongly on yours: in fact, by premise one, it is the theists ability or inability to cough up proof/justification that will determine the soundness of our second syllogism, by affecting the first premise. In other words, atheism or disbelief is the logical default position once the issue of God's existence is consciously recognized, and it is so because the justification of ¬ B is the absence of proof or absence of justification for P. Thus, negative atheism in that sense automatically fulfills the burden of proof, or burden of justification, insofar as theism does not.
There is no evidence to support it, so I don't see why anyone should believe in any deity. What with our advances in science and technology, I would have hoped us humans would have progressed farther than to believe in such things, but old habits die hard, I suppose.
I personally like the majority of debaters on here believe that god does not exist. My beliefs are stretched out over a expanse of life experiences. I tried going to all kinds of churches and the feeling of the "holy spirit" never came over me. For the longest time while I was exploring religion I tolerated all the little nooks and crannies i.e. no R rated movies, no caffeine. But when I finally stopped thinking about it I decided that I didn't want to be part of it and that there was in definition no higher power to speak of...
creation did not need a god but we did need the big bang theory god is just a believe nothing more now jesus facturally exsited he performed miracle's if You believe a bible buttttt there Can not possibly be a god and science can prove that Fact,
Technically you can't really PROVE either side, but there is enough logical evidence for the existence of the Christian God (if that is whom we are talking about) is fake.
God is nothing but a petty being with base human needs that turns into a psychotic mass murderer when he doesn't get what he wants.
God: Please love me! I want everyone to love me! Or I will send you to hell to suffer eternal pain!
Don't you think that is a little petty?
I don't like this "God" to define the universe and everything that exists because then the world and all of reality would be limited and boring. An Intelligent being that created the world? Geez, that is boring and shouldn't define our existence. Even I could think of something better than that! God. You are soo boring. Please make yourself interesting, because you are making reality not as infinitely brilliant as it's supposed to be.
ask a theist for evidence of god and you'll get fallacy or philosophy, but one thing you certainly will not get is logical justification for god belief. i guarantee it.
