RE: Arguments against the existence of God

RE: Arguments against the existence of God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith

Message

Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 10:49:31 AM)
quote: But really, if I thought all Christians were ninnies I probably wouldn't come here. Many atheists do believe that, but it really is an unfortunate stereotypes. Delusional maybe, but certainly not stupid. I suppose that I didn't explain my theory very well. Man's ego comes in to play with the Western Religions because people want to believe that they are the reason for the universe and that it was all created for them to rule. Humans have a need to be special, and separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. And we also have a need to explain things we do not understand. I am curious; why would evolution give us this unique 'need'?

CalRed -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 12:21:01 PM)
When any atheist or evolutionist can answer this question, then maybe someone will listen. Until then, it's all just stupidity! How did it all begin?

atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 3:24:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalRed When any atheist or evolutionist can answer this question, then maybe someone will listen. Until then, it's all just stupidity! How did it all begin? A very relevant question - one I feel is overlooked too often. Neither the atheist nor the evolutionist can answer that - and the intellectually honest will freely admit that. What the neither the atheist nor the evolutionist will ever do is make a leap from that uncertainity to (and I'll select from an array of theisms here) demand that contraception not be used; or to oppose abortion; or to believe that man was created from a clot of blood; or that Xenu abducted aliens trillions of years ago and planted them in volcanoes on earth; or believe that God promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean coast; or believe that failing to rest one day in seven is a sin worthy of death; or fly planes into skyscrapers in the belief that the creator of universe wants them to do that; or believe that one of the creators of the universe takes the form of an elephant; or decree that shaving is sinful; or grant men far superior divorce rights to women... the list goes on. I sincerely hope this doesn't come across as offensive. And it's not a critique of religious practices either: it's a critique of the leap from uncertainity to cultural and moral practices that are adopted because of a need to replace that uncertainity. AiP

Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 4:01:24 PM)
quote: What the neither the atheist nor the evolutionist will ever do is make a leap from that uncertainity to (and I'll select from an array of theisms here) demand that contraception not be used; or to oppose abortion; or to believe that man was created from a clot of blood; or that Xenu abducted aliens trillions of years ago and planted them in volcanoes on earth; or believe that God promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean coast; or believe that failing to rest one day in seven is a sin worthy of death; or fly planes into skyscrapers in the belief that the creator of universe wants them to do that; or believe that one of the creators of the universe takes the form of an elephant; or decree that shaving is sinful; or grant men far superior divorce rights to women... the list goes on. Well, first off neither atheism nor evolution prevents one from believing in Xenu or some alien overlord like him. [&:] Secondly, while an atheistic/evolutionist (interesting that you associate them that way) might not succumb to those particular flaws, they might very well decide to sterilize and or eliminate millions of people in an effort to better humanity, or subjugate millions of people to murderous totalitarian regimes in an effort to create economic and social equality, or systematically eradicate cultures and spiritual traditions in an effort to promote rationalism, leading to general despair. Come to think of it, the predominance of atheist ideologies in the late 20th century was probably more deadly than anything that had come before, or since. People are sinful, and atheism doesn't change that reality in the least.

atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 4:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Actually, these are a few of Dawkins weakest arguments; Agreed. And let me state now that I agree with a recent post I saw commending you (Jhud) for engaging with the theory of evolution, rather than just invoking scripture. I remain bothered by the fact that, in my estimation, your objection to evolution is grounded first in Christianity, and second in examining the theory from an explicitly Christian viewpoint - this is more a criticism of widely used challenges to evolution than yours personally. My guess is that you were a Christian first and a skeptic of evolution second - based on the fact that you were raised in America (I presume...) and are likely to have encountered Christianity before Darwin's theory. But nonetheless... quote: evolution doesn’t at all explain 90% of life on earth. Indeed, most of the major forms of life appeared during the Cambrian explosion, and evolution fails to explain that all together. Indeed, evolution is best at explaining the smaller changes we see within established forms, but not how those forms got there to begin with. And of course, naturalism absolutely fails to explain the origin of life all together. Combine that with the utter failure to explain the origin of the universe, the failure to explain self-awareness and the moral and spiritual aspects of humanity, and naturalism leaves most of the major concerns of humanity completely unanswered. I'll respond the points I feel best able to answer (I'm no expert on the Cambrian explosion (though scientists who are entirely confident that the Cambrian is fully compatible with the theory of evolution are experts on this)). The origin of the universe is indeed unexplained. But before the work of astronomers and physicists, our best understand of the universe was - in regions were Christianity was prevalent - that God created the whole lot in 6 days. A literal reading of Genesis is demonstrably wrong. So however weak science's understanding of the origin of the universe is, it's quite a bit better - and less replete with errors - than the accounts given in the Koran and the Old Testament. And further, our uncertainity is surely as lousy a case as any for making moral demands of others - i.e., imposing religion, or even living by it. Morality is debated too often on these boards, and I don't think I'd add anything by repeating all of the humanist arguments here. Suffice it to say that a wealth of evidence suggests that the same moral standards are to be found among believers, non-believers and remote cultures lacking a concept of God. quote: And I find it interesting that Dawkins finds God, whom he assumes to be complex (despite the fact that most theists claim Him to be essentially simple) to be ‘improbable’ but he considers the multiverse, which is an infinite collection of universes being created and destroyed, and obviously extremely complex, to be likely. I'm not sure Dawkins states that a multiverse is likely... but he acknowledges the astrophysical theory that an evolved multiverse would have the capacity to be complex, being as it is evolved from simplicity. But I'm not sure either of us are sufficiently qualified to comment on this further. And how can an omnipotent and omniscient being be simple? Could be worth a thread by itself. quote: Dawkins is no longer a scientist, and a very, very poor philosopher. Come on... firstly, I don't think Dawkins makes any pretension to philosophical expertise, and to dismiss him as 'no longer a scientist', despite his formidable body of work on biology and zoology, is as sweeping and naive as it is misguided and just plain wrong. quote: So every atheist is forced to have as much faith as the most devout Christian, without any of the explanatory benefits. No. Atheism is not a faith, and nor does it require faith. It is, at heart, a rejection of claims made by faith - i.e. beliefs held because of a lack of evidence. Schools of thought enabled by atheism (e.g. evolutionism) do have explanatory power. And I repeat my point that the time of Christianity - or any religion - representing our best understanding and explanation for the origin or the universe or the existence of mankind has long since passed. Really enjoyed giving this response - this is a good debate to have. Eagerly wait your reply. AiP

atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 4:28:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: What the neither the atheist nor the evolutionist will ever do is make a leap from that uncertainity to (and I'll select from an array of theisms here) demand that contraception not be used; or to oppose abortion; or to believe that man was created from a clot of blood; or that Xenu abducted aliens trillions of years ago and planted them in volcanoes on earth; or believe that God promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean coast; or believe that failing to rest one day in seven is a sin worthy of death; or fly planes into skyscrapers in the belief that the creator of universe wants them to do that; or believe that one of the creators of the universe takes the form of an elephant; or decree that shaving is sinful; or grant men far superior divorce rights to women... the list goes on. Well, first off neither atheism nor evolution prevents one from believing in Xenu or some alien overlord like him. [&:] Secondly, while an atheistic/evolutionist (interesting that you associate them that way) might not succumb to those particular flaws, they might very well decide to sterilize and or eliminate millions of people in an effort to better humanity, or subjugate millions of people to murderous totalitarian regimes in an effort to create economic and social equality, or systematically eradicate cultures and spiritual traditions in an effort to promote rationalism, leading to general despair. Come to think of it, the predominance of atheist ideologies in the late 20th century was probably more deadly than anything that had come before, or since. People are sinful, and atheism doesn't change that reality in the least. Quick response to this one - my reply just now to your other post is more thorough: - I only associated atheism and evolution as the question I was answering did exactly this (see a post above - can't remember who posted it) - Atheism is not, as is widely argued, responsible for the crimes of, e.g., Stalinism - that was Stalin's utter contempt for humanity, which I don't believe was rooted in his atheism. He was undeniably an atheist, and his misdeeds are a grotesquely ugly blot on the rich tradition of secularism. Hitler, on the other hand, and his Nazi regime were allies of the Catholic church - but I wouldn't go as far to say that his genocide against the Jews was rooted in Christianity. Nonetheless, he was no atheist. I could now list the crimes of the church that have had distastrous consequences (in terms of loss of life) that were rooted directly in religion - some of which continue to this day - but this argument has been had a thousand times, so I'll stop here. Feel free to reply, but I'm personally not intent on pressing this matter any further. AiP

Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 5:06:58 PM)
quote: Agreed. And let me state now that I agree with a recent post I saw commending you (Jhud) for engaging with the theory of evolution, rather than just invoking scripture. I remain bothered by the fact that, in my estimation, your objection to evolution is grounded first in Christianity, and second in examining the theory from an explicitly Christian viewpoint - this is more a criticism of widely used challenges to evolution than yours personally. My guess is that you were a Christian first and a skeptic of evolution second - based on the fact that you were raised in America (I presume...) and are likely to have encountered Christianity before Darwin's theory. But nonetheless... Actually, I was raised in America, but I was an evolutionist, agnostic, and biology major (in that order) before I was a Christian. My criticisms of evolution are almost wholly scientific, though I have criticized it as being unduly intertwined with metaphysical and social issues as well. quote: I'll respond the points I feel best able to answer (I'm no expert on the Cambrian explosion (though scientists who are entirely confident that the Cambrian is fully compatible with the theory of evolution are experts on this)). Being ‘confident’ isn’t of course evidence for such a thing, but the reality of the fact is that the Cambrian is just one of many explosive biological events that defy the typical gradualism and incidental change evolution suggests. quote: The origin of the universe is indeed unexplained. But before the work of astronomers and physicists, our best understand of the universe was - in regions were Christianity was prevalent - that God created the whole lot in 6 days. A literal reading of Genesis is demonstrably wrong. So however weak science's understanding of the origin of the universe is, it's quite a bit better - and less replete with errors - than the accounts given in the Koran and the Old Testament. Actually, an interesting thing about that. The Big Bang, which is the prevailing idea about the beginning of the universe is a theory first proposed and worked out by a Catholic Priest. It was criticized at first by other scientists (Einstein among them) as bearing too strong a resemblance to religious ideas about the origin of the universe – up until that point the prevailing theories were ether that the universe was unchanging, or continually being created. Indeed, one could not have guessed that science would propose that all extant matter would come into being not in a matter of days, but in a matter of incredibly small fractions of a second. quote: And further, our uncertainity is surely as lousy a case as any for making moral demands of others - i.e., imposing religion, or even living by it. Well, I agree if you are uncertain you shouldn’t make such demands, but as I don’t share that uncertainty, I feel perfectly comfortable suggesting that morals and truths actually exist, and that we should live according to them. quote: Morality is debated too often on these boards, and I don't think I'd add anything by repeating all of the humanist arguments here. Suffice it to say that a wealth of evidence suggests that the same moral standards are to be found among believers, non-believers and remote cultures lacking a concept of God. Well, yes, if morals have an objective reality, we would expect that this reality would impact us all, much like gravity, whether we ‘believed’ in gravity or not. The problem of course is that when some come along and suggest that those morals have no basis in reality, only those who have a foundation for morality can dispute this notion. quote: I'm not sure Dawkins states that a multiverse is likely... but he acknowledges the astrophysical theory that an evolved multiverse would have the capacity to be complex, being as it is evolved from simplicity. But I'm not sure either of us are sufficiently qualified to comment on this further. Dawkins uses a multiverse as a basis for explaining why the universe is specifically attuned to the existence of life, and why it is likely that life came about by chance events. He is required to do so because to believe that a unique universe just happened to fall together in exactly the specific way it did so we could exist and contemplate it is so improbable that even Dawkins can’t swallow it. As there is no actual evidence that multiple universes exist (or indeed, even one other universe) we are as qualified to comment on their existence as we are on the existence of fairies. quote: Come on... firstly, I don't think Dawkins makes any pretension to philosophical expertise, and to dismiss him as 'no longer a scientist', despite his formidable body of work on biology and zoology, is as sweeping and naive as it is misguided and just plain wrong. Actaully, his published work isn’t all that ‘formidable’, and his most well known works are popular science tomes. He no longer does research or field work, and devotes most of his time to advocating for atheism. He is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a practicing scientist, and a poorly assessed philosopher. quote: No. Atheism is not a faith, and nor does it require faith. It is, at heart, a rejection of claims made by faith - i.e. beliefs held because of a lack of evidence. Schools of thought enabled by atheism (e.g. evolutionism) do have explanatory power. And I repeat my point that the time of Christianity - or any religion - representing our best understanding and explanation for the origin or the universe or the existence of mankind has long since passed. Well, no. First off, as I have detailed, to believe there is no intentional constructive purpose behind the origin of the universe, life, and unique human capabilities, requires faith because there is no demonstrable scientific or natural explanation of these phenomena. The theistic view is certainly as powerful an explanation, and has the added benefit of being consistent with human history, character, and experience, which are largely outside of sciences pervue. And while evolution if the currently proffered scientific explanation of the changes that occurred in life’s history, you are attempting to make it a metaphysical basis for belief, something a good scientist would never do, because scientific notions must be ever available to modification, lest they cease being science. So you are left with as much faith as any itinerant preacher.

Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 5:16:35 PM)
quote: Quick response to this one - my reply just now to your other post is more thorough: - I only associated atheism and evolution as the question I was answering did exactly this (see a post above - can't remember who posted it) Actually, you brought up evolution earlier to shore up your beliefs as an atheist. I mean, this is no surprise, many atheists do this – but it undermines the claim that evolution is just science. quote: - Atheism is not, as is widely argued, responsible for the crimes of, e.g., Stalinism - that was Stalin's utter contempt for humanity, which I don't believe was rooted in his atheism. He was undeniably an atheist, and his misdeeds are a grotesquely ugly blot on the rich tradition of secularism. Well, the problem is, it’s not just Stalin – it’s Mao, it’s Kim Jong Il, it’s Pol Pot, it’s Mengistu, as far back as the atheist underpinnings of the bloody French Revolution. Overtly atheistic societies invariably devalue human life – which is completely consistent with the idea that humans are merely the incidental product of natural events like any other organism. quote: Hitler, on the other hand, and his Nazi regime were allies of the Catholic church - but I wouldn't go as far to say that his genocide against the Jews was rooted in Christianity. Nonetheless, he was no atheist. I could now list the crimes of the church that have had distastrous consequences (in terms of loss of life) that were rooted directly in religion - some of which continue to this day - but this argument has been had a thousand times, so I'll stop here. Feel free to reply, but I'm personally not intent on pressing this matter any further. Well, had it started with Hitler you might have a point, but the reality is the efforts of eugenicists were worldwide; in fact, had it not been for the atrocities of Hitler, it would still be more overtly practiced than it currently is.

oldmethuselah -> Adolf the Chameleon (4/25/2008 6:27:47 PM)
Actually, whatever else you want to say about Hitler, he was an ACCOMPLISHED CAMELEON. When addressing certain Christian groups he would intone "As a practising Christian, I ....", When with other groups, or alone, he might dabble in the occult... Point being - a brilliant politician! Having lived in Germany, we got an opportunity to see how well he was able to capture the hearts of the Germans (in the earlier days before terror was his weapon of choice)... Hitler was A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS!

oldmethuselah -> The Lion, The Ape and The Logical Atheist (4/27/2008 3:35:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedcoatMello lol OldMethuselah... Alternate universe indeed. My thesis is going to be on how to use statistical analysis on music so I can combine music theory and mathematics. But really, if I thought all Christians were ninnies I probably wouldn't come here. Many atheists do believe that, but it really is an unfortunate stereotypes. Delusional maybe, but certainly not stupid.[;)] I suppose that I didn't explain my theory very well. Man's ego comes in to play with the Western Religions because people want to believe that they are the reason for the universe and that it was all created for them to rule. Humans have a need to be special, and separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. And we also have a need to explain things we do not understand. Anyways, I don't really care what people choose to use to explain those things that we don't fully understand, as long as it doesn't hinder the beliefs of others. I come here more to understand what the "other side" thinks than to argue my point of view. As a weak atheist, I'm very much an agnostic. Perhaps my resources on Christianity were not the best, as you say. I've never heard of Ravi Zacharias, but have read works by Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel and found them wanting. They never used an alternate hypothesis and ignored evidence that did not support their beliefs in my opinion. Yes, I have seen atheist arguments use those techniques that you have stated. However, Christians also use those techniques. Strawman arguments and circular logic are also used by both groups RedCoat, if you will allow a rather long winded reply which MOSTLY consists of your queries with a few sprinklings from atheistinpeace, my OTHER former "thought buddy" when I prowled the corridors of atheism [:D]... For background please consider the following two "National Geographic" synopses (note the plural :) ) A) The African lion sleeps most of the day basking under trees, is pretty much the top of the food chain, has his meals brought to him by his mate and, when the pro-genitive mood takes him has been observed to span some ten hours in the diversion... B) The Coastal Apes (sorry can't remember which locale) living a fairly wretched existence windswept wet conditions, where infighting and survival takes up almost all of their sorry existence... Now the actions of NEITHER the "Happy" lions nor the "Sad" apes can be considered in anyway immoral whether resting or disemboweling an enemy or a prey, and, other than their momentary pleasure, it would be extremely anthropomorphic of us to attribute to them any noble or higher thoughts of "the greater good" or an actual "larger knowledge" of their actions... in fact, in the vernacular, as I am sure you are aware... they are call "AMORAL" Now, an atheistic human, observing he is part of a group of creatures - many of which are deluded into thinking their lives have some sort of lasting significance - really only has to make decisions to maximize his personal pleasure, and if it is useful to exploit these weaknesses in others, then so be it. The clinical definition of a "sociopath" includes the notion of a chameleon like creature who adopts whatever survival methods work best. IF caught in something others call "illegal", he becomes the model prisoner until released, and then asap reverts to a behavior which is best described as "amoral" I submit to you that sociopathy is the most logical philosophy for an atheist. There really is no "after me", as indeed, there really was no "before me". (Like our lion and ape friends) Now you and I both know atheists who are self-sacrificing and noble, but - unless it can be proven that they have some ulterior self-serving motive - I would have to tell them that they are being "illogical" AND that brings us to "LOGIC" - there really is NO NEED for an atheist to follow a trained argument, IF by other means, such as Foul Language, Ad Hominem Attacks and Deviations, the atheist can WIN his point. Indeed the whole concept of a "trained argument" is a construct and a conceit that some other humans have devised. NOW, I come to my POINT...! (thanks for your patience)... you observed, and rightfully so, quote: Christians also use those techniques. Strawman arguments and circular logic are also used by both groups THOSE Christians, are, by definition, denying their beliefs...since, Christians believe there is such a thing as Truth, Right and Wrong and a whole set of other values blah blah blah.. Thus, it should not even be necessary for atheists to point out the christians are doing wrong, fellow Christians (and even the internal belief system of the individual) should do that for him. Likewise you mentioned, quote: but have read works by Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel and found them wanting within the framework of atheism, you can "find them wanting" merely because they displease you, BUT, within the framework of a system that believes in meaning and logic, if McDowell's or Strobel's work are ill-researched or incomplete, CHRISTIANS should join you in decrying them, since Christians believe in things like "right" and "wrong" or "accurate" and "inaccurate"... of course you would have to be a little more specific about WHICH parts of McDowell or Strobel writings fail with respect to truth... Finally, you mentioned that you had not heard of Ravi Zacharias I have imbedded a web page - I have met some of his staff and found them pretty cohesive, they mostly do the university circuit... one word though, about the two different branches of "apologetics"... I think McDowell is more into amassing facts and data... Zacharias (and years ago C.S. Lewis) are more about thinking things through logically... As I say though, there is NO CONSTRAINT on a true atheist to think logically, only "WINNINGly" (pragmatically - whatever works) Thus my LAST comment is actually with regard to a quote by atheistinpeace, he said, quote: No. Atheism is not a faith, and nor does it require faith. It is, at heart, a rejection of claims made by faith - i.e. beliefs held because of a lack of evidence. Schools of thought enabled by atheism (e.g. evolutionism) do have explanatory power. Actually, atheistinpeace, by reason of the illustrations above, atheism does not have to be about anything involving evidence at all... it is only necessary to win, survive, go forward as long as possible, till death takes you - or another stronger lion takes your pride, or a bigger ape takes your harem or favorite feeding spot - this is NOT meant to be perjorative, only factual - as I said to redcoat, many atheists acted in illogically noble ways, self-sacrificing even, after all not ALL my old buddies were self-absorbed egomaniacs ROFL Just Kidding! OH, I almost forgot gentlemen... The Great Atheist Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, insisted that his SERVANTS never overhear the atheistic theories he discussed with his buddies... "For if my servants were to hear and believe them, they would slit my throat and steal my goods" Sartre admitted, what many of us atheists were afraid to... SOCIOPATHY is the way to go! (for an atheist!)

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/27/2008 10:24:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace To address your last point, I feel that it's not so much an attack on Christianity - science is far more concerned with the pursuit of truth than discrediting religion. AiP To be honest, I think most scientists are more concerned with the pursuit of the truth that they think is there, and not actual truth. They have personal agendas, and need funding to do their research, and at times may force their own ideas as truth. Perfect example being the afore mentioned Lucy. Just a greedy scientist trying to pass off his finds as something they were not.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/27/2008 11:01:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace Nonetheless, interesting arguments suggest that the existence of a God is highly improbable - this is the closest science can tread to showing there is no God. Dawkins's one is the '747 Gambit' (which I won't describe here in detail), which simply shows that, given that all complexity we observe has evolved from simplicity, and that a god is necessarily complex, it's highly improbable that a complex God figure can exist without roots in simplicity (which runs counter to the nature of a hypothesised God; further, there is no evidence of the roots of a simple God). AiP Dawkins 747 gambit where he is poking fun at Hoyles fallacy is ridiculous. Note how the title of the 4th chapter in his book is "Why there almost certainly is no God". Almost, almost, come on man. Is that not preposterous. Why didn't he just say "come buy my book and i will be your friend". This is just 1 of many supposed reasons for not believing in God. One more attempt to discredit the God of creation so men can sleep at night. Over the years, they have come and they have gone, but not one of these morons has actually given us proof that there is no God. They still attempt to try to explain it away, but they can not explain the unexplainable. Lets go back billions of years and watch as out of the primordial ooze steps Lucy, and next to her is the walking banana and the talking fish. Now fast forward to when the banana stops walking and Lucy catches it and eats it and gets scolded by the talking fish. Fast forward again and now the fish does not talk, but gets eaten by the woman formerly known as Lucy. This is my new theory on how life began. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/27/2008 11:20:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace quote: The origin of the universe is indeed unexplained. But before the work of astronomers and physicists, our best understand of the universe was - in regions were Christianity was prevalent - that God created the whole lot in 6 days. A literal reading of Genesis is demonstrably wrong. So however weak science's understanding of the origin of the universe is, it's quite a bit better - and less replete with errors - than the accounts given in the Koran and the Old Testament. Where are the errors that have been found in the OT, and who supposedly found them. I hope it wasn't another scientist. Because we know they can only speak truth. Why is it that we are excepting the words of scientists about things they are trying to prove, which happened thousands of years ago. They weren't there, we can't see these things happen, they can;t figure out how they happen, but they do have their theories, and they must be right since they got a $1000000 grant. quote: And further, our uncertainity is surely as lousy a case as any for making moral demands of others - i.e., imposing religion, or even living by it. We don't impose our religion, hey, most of us don't even practice it. There are many so called Christians like the 2 dopes running for president, who claim to be Christian, but really aren't. But I pose this question, say there is no God, but we actually all lived a Christian life anyway. Wouldn't that inherently make this world a better place. If we all practiced the Ten Commandments, and lived accordingly. In the least this would be a better world. When we stop making moral demands of others, I am afraid we will really see what man is capable of.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/28/2008 7:59:27 AM)
Let me first say that by no means am I trying to speak for God, because he speaks for himself. But humor me for a minute: The Lord says: I am disappointed, but not surprised. I want you with me, but I won't beg. You ask for proof, and I already gave it to you. All you need to do is look to your right, and look to your left. Look up, and look down, and you will find your proof. Behold the splendor and majesty of my creation. From the twinkling stars in the nighttime sky, to the majestic sun that rises in the east. From the snow capped mountains in Colorado, to the perfection of the Amazonian rain forest. From the rivers Nile and Mississippi, to the Saharan desert and Tundra of the Arctic. From the birds soaring through the air, to the fish swimming in the deep. From the smallest insect, to the largest mammal, I have created it all. Everything for a reason, everything has it's purpose. But this was not enough. So to show my power, I parted the Red Sea. To show my worthiness, I went along side you into battle. To gain your friendship, I wrapped myself in flesh. To gain your respect, I let them nail me to a cross. To gain your praise, I rose from the dead. Still this is not enough. You want answers, and you want proof. Yet you live amongst what you seek. I gave you my word, and you pass it off as some story. What more can I do other than come back down there and slap you upside your head. Even if I did, you would find a way to explain that. Seek with an open mind, an open heart and a hungering soul, and you will find me. Knock and the door will be opened. Why? Because I love you. Is that not enough. Before time began, I knew you. In the beginning, I AM.

jmjphe -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 2:28:11 AM)
Id say that in "glamorous" mainstream media which seems to love vanity, even youtube, for exmaple, is being used by certain evil forces to outright attack. I know "evil forces" sounds outdated but i think we know what im talking about. If you can stomach it, type Our lords name in the search bar at youtube, and scroll through the comments, most of the individuals (although some are neutral or supportive) choose to type out destructive comments which do no one anyone good what so ever and simply fuel outright hatred to some extent. Its interesting, its been made to seem as though "science" is a one minded entity. What many of us dont see portrayed are the numerous, Dr.s, graduates, researchers, scientists, from all fields of research who are in support of God, Christ, and validity of the bible because of data and findings. Nor, do we see the totally open minded, once lost educated minds who through research and study, found God, C.S. Lewis (author of the Chronicals of Narnia) was just one of many. A little food for thought there

atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 3:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD Dawkins 747 gambit where he is poking fun at Hoyles fallacy is ridiculous. Note how the title of the 4th chapter in his book is "Why there almost certainly is no God". Almost, almost, come on man. Is that not preposterous. Why didn't he just say "come buy my book and i will be your friend". This is just 1 of many supposed reasons for not believing in God. One more attempt to discredit the God of creation so men can sleep at night. Over the years, they have come and they have gone, but not one of these morons has actually given us proof that there is no God. They still attempt to try to explain it away, but they can not explain the unexplainable. If you don't mind me saying so, this is a very depressing post to read. I'll take your points one by one: - Dawkins says there is 'almost certainly no God' because he is intellectually honest. He cannot prove this is no God - no one can prove there is/isn't a god/gods - so he's just freely admitting that. What's wrong with that? - Why do you call atheists morons? Proper discourse has no place for the ad hominem. - Scientists are able to explain the universe as we know it without the need for a God hypothesis. Further, they often demonstrate why the conditions required for the existence of a God are extremely unlikely to have arisen. Above all though - and I keep having to make this point - atheism is, by and large, a rejection of religion, rather than an assertion that God does not exist. I don't understand why the use of modern science to question theories formed in an illiterate Middle East over 2000 years ago attract so much derision from you. quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD Lets go back billions of years and watch as out of the primordial ooze steps Lucy, and next to her is the walking banana and the talking fish. Now fast forward to when the banana stops walking and Lucy catches it and eats it and gets scolded by the talking fish. Fast forward again and now the fish does not talk, but gets eaten by the woman formerly known as Lucy. This is the depressing bit. Do you honestly believe that this is what evolutionists claim? quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD This is my new theory on how life began. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Be honest on this one: If you were born in a non-Christian country, or to not Christian parents, would you not make entirely different claims about the origins of life or the universe? Apologies if the tone of this post is harsh, but there are some gross inaccuracies in your post that needed addressing. AiP

oldmethuselah -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 5:05:34 PM)
AtheistInPeace Since you were featured in post #35, I had, sort of hoped you might respond since, as long as it is, it does address the sort of statements you continue to make... for example the latest... quote: Be honest on this one: If you were born in a non-Christian country, or to not Christian parents, would you not make entirely different claims about the origins of life or the universe? Apologies if the tone of this post is harsh, but there are some gross inaccuracies in your post that needed addressing. AiP the two MAIN things to be gleaned from this, as I have mentioned to you several OTHER places, it that, IF a CHRISTIAN is anything LESS than honest, he/she is militating against his/her own belief system, whereas, as an atheist you need not adhere to any code of logic whatsoever (ESPECIALLY for reasons cited in post #35)... secondarily, the whole "different country different claims" scenario, as mentioned above, continue to assume there is not such thing as objective truths... AGAIN, this is a perfectly acceptable assumption for an atheist, but the Christian - quite apart from he/she would LIKE to believe - would be bound to examine claims in a more reasoned way. to summarize, as an ATHEIST you neither need, nor are capable of, demanding any scientific rigour whatsoever... as a CHRISTIAN your "opponents" must demand this of themselves and all their arguments now please don't think there is any NEGATIVE inference here about atheism, you need only thoroughly examine those premises, (which you and I once shared), to realize the tremendous FREEDOM from logic or reasoned argument they imply - for, WHO or WHAT is the arbitrer? Nothing really... what is good for me is good for me, and what is good for you is good for you... as you have said so many times yourself in these threads and others... and, remember, there is NO GRAND set of "rules" of Vulcan logic weighing over us... the only criteria is to survive and win as long as possible in this ultimately meaningless universe remember the quote by Jean Paul Sartre at the end post #35? do you agree with him if not why not?

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 7:07:58 PM)
Atheistinpeace, sorry I have too many quotes in here and it is not coming out correctly. I tried to answer you in order. quote: ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace quote: - Dawkins says there is 'almost certainly no God' because he is intellectually honest. He cannot prove this is no God - no one can prove there is/isn't a god/gods - so he's just freely admitting that. What's wrong with that? I have a problem with that because there is no such thing as an almost certainty. You are either certain, or you are not. If you are not, don't make claims on your uncertainty. quote: - Why do you call atheists morons? Proper discourse has no place for the ad hominem. Again, going back to the fact that they make claims on other claims, to none of which can be proven. They talk with their egos, to get their names in the journals, and I could care less. If you have no proof, don't make claims. quote: - Scientists are able to explain the universe as we know it without the need for a God hypothesis. Further, they often demonstrate why the conditions required for the existence of a God are extremely unlikely to have arisen. Above all though - and I keep having to make this point - atheism is, by and large, a rejection of religion, rather than an assertion that God does not exist. I don't understand why the use of modern science to question theories formed in an illiterate Middle East over 2000 years ago attract so much derision from you. Really. What about the universe has been explained regarding its beginning, how it was created, why there is no God, and what in the world are we even doing here. Again, facts please, not theses, or theories, or bright ideas, that have never been proven. quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD Lets go back billions of years and watch as out of the primordial ooze steps Lucy, and next to her is the walking banana and the talking fish. Now fast forward to when the banana stops walking and Lucy catches it and eats it and gets scolded by the talking fish. Fast forward again and now the fish does not talk, but gets eaten by the woman formerly known as Lucy. quote: This is the depressing bit. Do you honestly believe that this is what evolutionists claim? No. But as stupid as this sounded to you, is exactly how stupid evolution and the idea behind it sounds to me. quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD This is my new theory on how life began. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. quote: Be honest on this one: If you were born in a non-Christian country, or to not Christian parents, would you not make entirely different claims about the origins of life or the universe? To be honest I can not answer hypothetical questions. But so you know, I was not born to Christian parents. At least at that time. My mother actually started as a Jehovah's witness, when I was a child, later becoming a Christian. My father has had, and does not want to have anything to do with religion. The fact is, I was born in a Christian country(or so we claim to be), I was exposed to the catholic church as a child, and I have always believed in something bigger than us. There is a reason we are here. To love God is that reason. quote: Apologies if the tone of this post is harsh, but there are some gross inaccuracies in your post that needed addressing. This was not harsh, and I am cool with you asking. I actually expected you to tear me apart with science, but you didn't do that, and I respect that. You almost certainly(HAHA) know more about the evolution argument than I do, and I may have come off as dududumb, but I am not. I just get a little emotional regarding this topic. My main quarrel with what you have to say, is that you are on a Christian sight, and what you say may cause someone who is searching to be lead astray. I understand that you my atheist friend are those we Christians need to reach, even if you say there is no chance you will ever turn back. But I can almost certainly say, there is always a chance. I did not mean to call you a moron, and hope you didn't take it that way. Take care and God bless.

tracydolls -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 9:04:16 PM)
quote: Its pride. Religion is seen as the opiate of the masses by the intellectual elite. God's a farity tale for people who can't make good lives for themselves. Every scientific discovery that might support their pride just reinforce their egos. Amen. Pride. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 41:34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. Now let's look at evolution, when did it arise? and take off. Look again. What years was Darwin? And others? i forget? Europeans make it into Egypt about 1786?, With Napolen Bonaparte, Wow look at all this gold, look at all these statues, painting, reliefs, Pyramids. What's going on in 1786 in US. Slavery. Oh No, They can't be older than us, where have we been? we cant' be from them, they could not have built this! No way dude. How? G-D We'll then, we will deny Him. If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin. Charles Darwin .

uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 9:09:15 PM)
Hello all. I find it odd the direction this post has taken. There are some quite insightful thoughts and strong opinions, but I never meant it to turn into a debate about evolution vs. creation (which I honestly don't see the difference between. Everything was created somehow at sometime, otherwise things don't exist.) Everything in this universe is created somehow. Or atheism vs. belief. There has been a smattering of all sorts of opinions here from atheistic morality and logic to Genesis to a bit of conspiracy theory. If you are an atheist you choose to believe (which is a belief in itself) that there is no God and evolution or another theory will prove these claims or make this claim more robust. (If I read correctly). If you are a Christian who takes the Genesis story as the actual, factual, word of God and don't see how it may be a metaphor, you find claims of evolution abhorrent (again, if I read correctly). I find neither to be true nor false. If God chose evolution as His means of creation, so be it. If not, so be it as well. Here I will reiterate my point one more time. I don't care about evolution. I don't care if it is proven true or false. What I care about is this; Where is the difficulty in believing (that whatever is proven to be true or false) that these are the mechanisms God chose to do His work? Thanks all, have a great night.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 9:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uniteforlife I find neither to be true nor false. If God chose evolution as His means of creation, so be it. If not, so be it as well. Here I will reiterate my point one more time. I don't care about evolution. I don't care if it is proven true or false. What I care about is this; Where is the difficulty in believing (that whatever is proven to be true or false) that these are the mechanisms God chose to do His work? Thanks all, have a great night. First let me apologize, because I am partly responsible for this thread getting off track. The problem is this. When we stop taking Gods word literally where it is meant to be literal, and start accepting mans word as truth before we take Gods actual truth as the only truth, we have a real problem. Regarding creation he is pretty straight forward about how it happened. 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. I try not to add to his words. I take this in the literal meaning of he formed Adam like molded clay, and breathed the breath of life in his nose. Where does it say we evolved over billions of years out of the primordial ooze. The mechanism for the creation is explained right there in Gods word. So why do we need to find a new one because we don't want to believe that. I don't know, maybe it is just me and my opinion

uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 9:52:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I try not to add to his words. I take this in the literal meaning of he formed Adam like molded clay, and breathed the breath of life in his nose. Where does it say we evolved over billions of years out of the primordial ooze. The mechanism for the creation is explained right there in Gods word. So why do we need to find a new one because we don't want to believe that. I don't know, maybe it is just me and my opinion Thanks for your reply. I don't know where the literal and the metaphoric cross paths. Who could, yea? But, if we want to take the old testament as literal all the way through, and we all lived by these rules to this day, we would be a savage society. We'd be stoning women for adultery or men who don't agree with our beliefs , we'd be killing people for playing football, we'd punish people for planting different crops next to each other. Is there a new covenant or is there not? How are we to look at the old rules now? For all I know this was the best wisdom of their times, but does it still apply today? This is not rhetorical by the way. Which do you take as literal and which do you take as metaphorical? Thanks

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 10:56:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uniteforlife quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I try not to add to his words. I take this in the literal meaning of he formed Adam like molded clay, and breathed the breath of life in his nose. Where does it say we evolved over billions of years out of the primordial ooze. The mechanism for the creation is explained right there in Gods word. So why do we need to find a new one because we don't want to believe that. I don't know, maybe it is just me and my opinion Thanks for your reply. I don't know where the literal and the metaphoric cross paths. Who could, yea? But, if we want to take the old testament as literal all the way through, and we all lived by these rules to this day, we would be a savage society. We'd be stoning women for adultery or men who don't agree with our beliefs , we'd be killing people for playing football, we'd punish people for planting different crops next to each other. Is there a new covenant or is there not? How are we to look at the old rules now? For all I know this was the best wisdom of their times, but does it still apply today? This is not rhetorical by the way. Which do you take as literal and which do you take as metaphorical? Thanks so now you are changing topics, well I thought that this was regarding the mechanisms of how God created things, not about how men lived under the law. I do not see another way to take the passage on creation, I only see it in the literal sense.

uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/29/2008 11:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD First let me apologize, because I am partly responsible for this thread getting off track. The problem is this. When we stop taking Gods word literally where it is meant to be literal, and start accepting mans word as truth before we take Gods actual truth as the only truth, we have a real problem. Regarding creation he is pretty straight forward about how it happened. Forgive me if I took this the wrong way. But I was asking about taking Gods literal word from the old testament, which in my mind naturally leads to the old law. Im not trying to chnage the subject, I am just trying to understand others viewpoints. Kind regards.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/30/2008 1:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uniteforlife quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD First let me apologize, because I am partly responsible for this thread getting off track. The problem is this. When we stop taking Gods word literally where it is meant to be literal, and start accepting mans word as truth before we take Gods actual truth as the only truth, we have a real problem. Regarding creation he is pretty straight forward about how it happened. Forgive me if I took this the wrong way. But I was asking about taking Gods literal word from the old testament, which in my mind naturally leads to the old law. Im not trying to chnage the subject, I am just trying to understand others viewpoints. Kind regards. I understand. In the NT we are told many times that because of Jesus we are not under the law of the OT. But in regards to creation, that has nothing to do with the account that is given by Moses, of how God did create. The law came later. But just because we are not under the law, does not mean we throw out everything in the OT, because we think it doesn't pertain to us.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI