- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
When God made us, he gave us free will. This free will can be used to make good or bad choices. By removing sin completely, God is removing our free will to do as we chose. So to answer your question, yes, God does have the power to remove sin from the world, but that doesn't mean He is going to. God commands us to make the right choice, but that doesn't mean that we will. Sin plagues our world but there is a way to conquer it. God sent His Son to die on the cross for us to save us from our sin.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
As long as you believe from your heart that God is who He says He is, and that He died on the cross for you, me, and everyone else on this earth, then you will be saved from your sin. You will also live in heaven for eternity in with God, as the verse states: "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
I never claimed in this thread of arguments yay or nay about whether God existed, but Miocene did. Miocene made the nay claim about God existing. As you said in an earlier argument, "The burden of proof always rests with the accuser". Miocene is the accuser. Plain and simple.
I always wonder why people hold onto such a belief with such flimsy evidence. When I was religious it was due to indoctrination and it just being part of my life. When I would make arguments to bolster my point I would always, in a sense, hope the other person wasn't too smart.
That's because there isn't flimsy evidence. Most people don't know about it because many churches don't teach apologetics. Many Christians hope that the Atheists they are arguing against aren't too smart because they don't know how to defend the faith.
Don't trick yourself into belief, demand at least a logical argument.
Almost everyone has their own belief about how the universe came about. Whether it be Supernatural Creation or Naturalistic Evolution. No matter what it is, it's all based on belief. There are arguments and evidence to help support that belief, but unless one knows about the evidence or arguments and is ready to defend his/her faith (whatever it be, doesn't have to be Christianity necessarily), all you are going to hear is belief, belief, belief.
Ok, Consider this:
1. There must be a universal moral law or else—
a. Disagreements would make no sense.
b. All criticisms are meaningless (e.g., the Nazis are wrong)
c. Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary.
d. We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law.
2. This moral law cannot be just herd instinct or herd mentality.
3. This moral law cannot be simply convention.
4. This moral law cannot be identified with the law of nature.
5. This moral law cannot be mere fancy.
6. Man is the key to understanding this moral law because:
a. He knows that moral oughts (prescriptions-what I ought to do)
cannot simply be derived from what morally is (descriptions-what
b. The source of this moral law must be more like man (mind) than
nature (matter). Moral laws come from minds, not matter.
c. The source of the moral law cannot merely be part of the
7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of mankind
which more like mind than anything we know:
a. It gives us moral commands.
b. It is very much interested in our behavior (in keeping the
commands it gives).
c. If it were not absolutely good, then all moral effort would be
futile in the long run.
d. This source of morality must be absolutely good (for the
standard for good cannot be less than good himself).
e. This kind of source for morality is God.
I know that this is not an argument but since this is the only way I can communicate with you here it goes...
Aside from those times you actually make good arguments, all you do is call people "stupid" and "idiot" for not believing what you believe or what you think is obvious. This is not just coming from my experience, I have seen more than a couple of your debates with other people on this site, and they sing the same song. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sure as heck looks that way.
I mean, man, sometimes I wonder about you. I wonder if you either 1) are doing this because you can and it's fun, or 2) you are actually getting heated. If it's door number 1, then you need to buzz off. If it's door number two you need to take a serious chill pill. I'm leaning more toward door number two because some of your arguments are actually good.
It's not just me, everyone that you do this too has to put up with you almost every time you dispute them. I'm honestly sick of it. I'm sure it's not just me. I'm sure that multiple other people who debate you on this site wish you were not so rude.
The last time I called you out on it, you apologized, but what has that done? Absolutely nothing since you still do it. I try to be nice when I debate people, even if I get a little heated on the inside. With you, it seems that you just let it all out.
I am going to be brutally honest with you, I have had thoughts of banning you from my debates because of this. The only thing that has held me back was the fact that there is no point banning someone who has some good arguments. I mean, it's almost gotten to the point where it's not a debate anymore, it's just you calling me an "idiot" or "stupid" for what I believe and argue to be true or false. From my experience, it's almost like you can't take the sight of losing, so you just throw whatever you have at me. Now I'm not saying that you are losing every time, but I am just saying that when you do, that happens.
So please stop. And I don't want a simple apology from you this time, I want it to actually stop. All I ask is that we can continue to debate in a civilized manner rather than one or both of us throwing insults at each other. Please...
God is an assertion
God is not an assertion. The only place that I can assert that God exists is the affirmative side of this debate but as you already know I have presented an argument.
Assertions don't need to be disproved. They need to be proved.
You are absolutely correct that assertions need to be proved. Miocene made an assertion, an unjustified assertion that God does not exist. This assertion needs to be proved just like any other assertion.
Nobody needs to disprove God because the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that only the affirmative side of this debate has to prove their standing. This is a for/against debate. Does it make sense to start a for/against debate and then say only the affirmative side has to prove their standing? Absolutely not! If I go out in public and tell someone that God exists and they ask me to prove it, then yes, the burden of proof is on me because I made the claim. Our friend Miocene here made the claim that God does not exist when he said: but not in the form as depicted by the mumbo jumbo of the various man-made Gods. Because Miocene made a claim, he needs to prove it. Both sides are making claims so that means both sides need to prove their claims.
There are inconsistencies that occur when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge. Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself. The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.
However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!
No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.
How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense in the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all!
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!