The voters have decided that this post is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Also about Religion+150It's not a bad thing to wait until the next day to do dishes, amirite?
Also about Religion+114An exorsism is a fansy word for a holy beating, amirite?
Also about Religion+89I respect if you're another religion besides mine (Christian), like Muslim or Hindu. I respect if you're atheist. I don't respect if you're anti-theist. Look, if I'm going to respect your religious views, you've gotta return the favor and at least respect mine. Amirite?
1) Christians aren't the only religion with a God, I don't know why this addressed to only Christians.
2) We say you believe in God to explain what you don't know
3) That's not why we don't believe. It's because there's no proof.
So basically, if you're an atheist, you're a hiding Christian.
I'm sure you're probably convinced the everyone in the world is secretly a Christian.
How exactly is that logical?
I think the OP means it's easier to say you don't believe than face the fear/thought that there is a God.
Why would you vote for something that isn't directed to you?
Well, if it's asking the opinion of Christians on this idea, it's kind of not fair for you all atheists to be voting and screwing with the results. I mean, I'm an atheist. I think this post is bullshit. But I respect that it's meant for Christians. I don't go to some girly post about nail polish and disagree the fuck out of it because I just don't like it or use it. I leave it be, to the people whom the post concerns.
Well, you can still comment without voting.
Did I? I could've sworn I've went back and undid my vote a few minutes after I've read these comments. That's odd, it's meant to be blue.
Yes, at first I did vote NW like you. Then I realised it's just not fair to the OP.
Oh man. <___< Ever heard religious diversity in the world? Please get out of that sheltered bubble of yours and see the truth. We're all different. We all have different appearances, foods, languages, religions, ect.
Don't try to prove another religion wrong. It's a douche move. That's like expecting everyone to look just like you and share in your exact same culture. This goes for EVERYONE. I don't care if you're Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Islamic, Pagan, Buddhist, or worship a giant, floating purple bear in the sky.
Good luck with using that retort.
From a non-Christian perspective: I don't choose not to believe in Christianity's God out of fear, I lack belief in God because I'm not convinced by Christianity's claims. If God (as represented by both the Old and New testaments) somehow could and did exist, then I wouldn't want to follow/worship that god anyway.
I think some atheists might believe because of this, but not the majority of them. Also, I think some Christians might believe out of comfort in God and fear of his nonexistence, but not the majority of us. There are many reasons for believing in God and there are many reasons for not believing in God. You cannot limit it to one. Also, if you are looking for a "counter" to their argument, try explaining to them other reasons for Christian belief rather than just attacking their beliefs.
and yet again another christian proving why everybody thinks they're stupid. This argument isn't even close to being logical...or rather it's just as logical as the reasons people believe in God.
I'm a Christian i love my savior Jesus Christ very much. i am not however going to defend this argument that the OP put up.
the argument the OP put up
the atheist fears that God exists, and watching over them
therefore atheists don't believe God exists.
That argument is not valid it almost contradicts itself.
Explain to me what reason there is to believe the literal Christian God exists? I believe in some sort of God, but it could equally well be Allah as God. All of the religious texts have been so corrupted over time by mistranslation that it's only really useful to take the general idea and ignore the specifics because it's impossible to tell that they're what was originally intended.
I love the story of the Resurrection of Christ. Paul states that if the resurrection never happened then Christianity is not validated. the writings of Josephus states that Jesus died on the Cross and that his followers claimed that he rose again. Josephus was not a christian. so there is a scenario that follows ether Jesus did not rise from the dead or he did and validated Christianity. rising from the dead is a pretty miraculous thing to do. if he didn't rise from the dead something must of happened to his body. and the other possible explanations are very flawed. that is one argument i have for Christianity. i have others reasons also and i would like to elaborate on them. i am also very busy because i am very close to finals week so if i don't reply right away don't think i forgot.
Allah and God are the same deity. Maybe like, it could equally well be the Buddha or something?
^ This site answers many questions, but for your statement on not knowing what God is the right God: http://www.godandscience.org/ap..._true.html#n26
I'm sorry but that link had no logical foundation. It's really grasping at straws, and more significantly clearly has a confirmation bias due to the fact that the author is already Christian. The other factor is that it criticises science for having a complicated explanation for how the universe started, whereas Christianity indeed offers no explanation at all. The answer "God did it" really answers nothing, for what created God?
By saying something isn't logical, grasping at straws, etc., and then not backing up the reasons, is basically no reason in itself. And yes, the author, a man who use to not believe, but is now a Christian, is also a man who dedicated his life to scientific research. But since he's Christian, then he's OBVIOUSLY bias against any scientific findings.
And one of the criteria for a World View, which is an actual thing that many scientists apply, is that the idea, hypothesis, etc., should neither be too simple, nor too complex. So the author is justified in criticizing "science" for an overly complex "explanation", even though their explanation is one that can not be observed, or proved; Such as the multiverse theory. The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea.
So aside from the fact that "science" really offers no explanation for the start of the universe, just theories with no evidence, your question of "what created God?" : http://www.godandscience.org/ap...eated_god.html
This is going to take a few posts:
Do I have to itemise it? Ok then, I will. First I will open up that I am inherently an Atheist due to struggles with justifying the existence of a God in my own beliefs, but I would surely LIKE to be Christian for it would answer a lot of existential questions, and as such I enjoy having a debate like this and there is a definite possibility of a conversion. I also play the Devil's Advocate in debates such as these in order to thoroughly test the logical soundness of an argument.
FUNDAMENTAL LOGICAL FALLACIES IN THE ARGUMENT(S):
1) Since this forum for communication is an Internet comments section, I will try and keep the messages short. This is why I did not itemise my argument prior, and while I will not run through the entire website but rather address the most glaring points. It does not illegitamise my own claim that I have not provided references and/or quotes.
2) You claim that for a theory to be valid, it "should neither be too simple, nor too complex". This is outright false. I believe the rule you are looking to apply is Occam's Razor, in summary meaning "simpler explanations are, ceteris paribis, generally better than more complex ones
." That is essentially what you said, except that you added an additional constraint that should not be too simple. Failure to align with what the principle of Occam's Razor would suggest is the primary logical barrier I find to Christianity itself.
3) You claim that "'science' really offers no explanation for the start of the universe". This is a gross misrepresentation of fact, for at least science tries to find an explanation for the beginning of the universe, whereas the answer that the site you linked offers is simply "God has no need to have been created". This argument is invalid because it does not introduce any need for the existence of God into the system, by that logic it is easy to say that the universe has no need to be created. The reason that this is not accepted by scientists as the answer is that it is not a satisfying one. To explain "It just is, and that's that," doesn't answer the existential questions which need answers.
4) You claim that science offers "an overly complex 'explanation'," which is thoroughly invalid because the existence of a God that does not obey the laws of the universe we observe, in addition to the existence of a second "universe" in which
Heaven and Hell reside is as complicated as the Multiverse theory, if not much more so. Conventional theory suggests that a system cannot contain within it a system more complicated than itself, which suggests that not only must God have existed to create the universe, but also a low entropy (i.e. highly structured) set of material with which to construct the universe, as entropy is always decreasing. If you respond that the theory that entropy is always decreasing does not apply in this case, then you must justify it. I refuse to abandon my belief in observed physical laws simply to allow a religion to hold true.
5) Now moving onto the link: Quoting Carl Sagan's ultimatum and then using the fact that one of the two options he has offered has been invalidated to prove the other is thoroughly invalid. No one scientist is a fountain of knowledge, to be treated like the Bible as a final say in any argument. You must independently provide evidence that the fact that the universe started at a point indicates a God. This is the most important point of my argument. THE UNIVERSE HAVING A DEFINED START POINT DOES NOT EQUATE TO IT HAVING A SENTIENT CREATOR.
Ok, so now that the main fundamental logical flaws have been addressed, I'll just list 4 out of many simple logical flaws that occur in the 2 pages of the website you linked me (I could make more but I don't have time):
1) "the heavens and the earth were once joined together as one unit before it was split into two parts. ... could never be applied to any kind of Big Bang theory". This is outright stupid. What is the Big Bang other than splitting apart things that were once joined together?
2) "Only those individuals who were given divine revelation would be expected to give an accurate account of our world". This one is just too easy. Listen, EVERY SINGLE major religion CLAIMS to be guided by divine revelation, the choice is based on simply choosing which religion is telling the truth. This statement does nothing to make Christianity appear more valid than, say, Islam.
3) The "Who created God" page quotes the Bible to support its claims. That is not valid, period.
4) The page claims that the Bible is logically sound when it makes several false claims, most obvious now is the claim that stars are small objects that can fall from the sky: to quote Revelations 8:10 "there fell a grea
t star ... and it fell upon the third part of the rivers". It also claims in 1 Kings 7:23 that a bowl Solomon made "was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely". This blatantly misunderstands how circles work, declaring the value of Pi to be 3.0 rather than at least 3.1.
tl;dr: There are logical fallacies in your argument and the website. Feel free to prove me wrong.
(I typed this with not much time, I apologize, in advance, for typos.)
Well I don't know if I fully believe the statement that your open in any way to conversion, but here we go.
2.) I did not simply claim that for a theory to be valid it should neither be too simple nor too complex. You were criticizing that the author did this and I stated that that is just one of the many criteria of a worldview, something many scientists use, hence why the author would be justified in using that criteria. It is simply ONE of the many criteria for a world view. So again, I was justifying the author's actions, not claiming what a theory needs to be valid.
3.) The reason "God has no need to have been created" isn't "It just is, and that's that". If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang. God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the
dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.
4.) Again, as in "2.", I was more so justifying the author's actions of using one of the criteria in a World View to make a point. "..the existence of a God that does not obey the laws of the universe we observe" was answered in number 3. And I don't know if I'd even go as far to say that a second "universe"(Heaven & Hell) coincides with this universe. To me, at least, I've always considered Heaven & Hell to only exist in the afterlife. Afterlife, being, something that is hard for many people to even wrap their head around. And the thing is, I'm content with the fact that I cannot understand everything. For I am simply human, and that's not a justification to not accept science or research, or attempt to figure things out, or anything, but it means I'm able
to set my pride aside in saying that I am simply unable to know how everything and anything works under the sun. However Heaven and Hell may exist is neither something I would even begin to compare with the existence of this universe, nor something I expect to really understand until I'm there. And I'm content with that.
5.) You treat it as if his example of the Carl Sagain ultimatum was the only example, when it was not. He used other reasoning, than just "one scientist". All I have to say there.
1.) The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe. The Big Bang is more than just "..splitting apart things that were once joined together?" And the Quran has many, many obvious scientific inaccuracies.
2.) Yes, every one has claimed that, but not without major flaws in the things it states, such as things that go against science; or without a much greater lack of validity, such as the Mormon Bible, which was written by one man within one year(with great scientific inaccuracy), whereas the Bible had more than 40 different writers, and was written over a time-span of 1,500 years. And without any of these writers, most not even being alive at the time of others, contradicting each other. And with many prophesizing about things that later happened in another writer's time.
4.) A) Meteor?
B) One first needs to note the thickness, which is later stated, is a hand-breadth. The mistake that people make when reading 1 Kings 7:23, is to assume that the value of 10 cubits is the inside diameter, and 30 cubits is the inside circumference; or they assume that both are the outside parameters. Take a look at the situation where 10 cubits is the outside diameter, and 30 cubits is the inside circumference, & there ya go, you're longed after Pi.
To be honest, it really is amusing to me that atheists make SUCH big deals out of little things when they can easily be explained. It's like one big attempt to simply say "Ha! I told you so! I'm smarter!", and in doing so they miss the big picture. Having a relationship with God is indescribable. And this debate, although I'm going along with it, seems SO silly to me in comparison to what really matters. Having a relationship with Him doesn't mean you disregard science. Although I have never come across anything that was scientifically inaccurate, I have the knowing that I never will, hence why this seems so silly. The biggest point I could ever make is the knowing, wisdom, love, feelings, that accompany a relationship with the Creator of the Universe, but sadly that's not something I can type out or show you, nor something most atheists care about.
We can continue debating back and forth if you wish, but I strongly feel that it won't make a difference, 'cause despite what you say, I feel your mind is made up. But you can keep attempting your "See, I told you!" 's if you want.
(A "you're" should be a "your", and in another spot, vice versa, along with many other typos, I'm sure.. My apologies.)
What I want from my personal beliefs is to have something I can be fully satisfied with as logical and justified. The key point of mine that you have failed to even mention is WHY IS THERE REASON TO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD. If you can answer me that one question, I'll be a believer. In my understanding of the universe there is no logical necessity for a creator, and no evidence that I personally can observe to prove it. I have had at best inconsistent experiences of a God, which can easily be written off to my own mind playing tricks, and without either concrete evidence or a logical necessity I cannot justify the inclusion of a God in my world view. The fact that the scientific facts line up is only enough to not disprove it, rather than prove it. Please answer this point in your next reply, what evidence is there that there is a God at all.
PS: If I acted closed-minded in my last post it is since, as I mentioned, I was playing the Devil's Advocate in order to fully test the logical foundation of your claims. It is a more effective test the more oppositional the argument.
The question "Why is there a reason to believe in the existence of a god?" can be answered many different ways. But the reason I feel you're after, tangible evidence, I cannot give you. There is more so evidence that supports the idea. With The Big Bang, why did the universe undergo inflation to begin with? The fine-tuned masses of quarks; in the beginning, the mass of a grain of sand added to the universe would've made it impossible for life to exist; the JUST right laws of physics; Anti-design likes to say "Unlikely things happen all the time", but, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years. Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10(-45)s), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is: 1/10(80) x 1/10(18) x 1/10(45) =1/10(143) So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning.
The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of an unproved super universe
that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? Naturalism doesn't answer this.
It seems only logical that an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. Why do human's have a conscience or morals or a longing for purpose? If it were true that our existence was one big unlikely occurrence, then we have no purpose, we are simply just a product of chance.
I have no tangible evidence. As far as tangibility goes, just evidence that supports the idea for a Creator. And then when I take a look at the universe we live in, it seems only logical, to me, at least. And then when I get to know the Creator, when I have a relationship with Him, you just know. As dumb as it sounds, you just know. And you're satisfied.
Everyone that believes in God should be afraid of him. He isn't the nicest deity. He apparently has no problem killing people for small reasons. Like Moses! He killed Moses because he struck the rock to make water instead of speaking to it, like God told him to. I'm pretty sure that's right.
In the book of Job he killed his entire family, destroyed his crops and house, and all to prove to Satan that people will still believe in God if their life is bad because Satan was saying people only believe in God when their life is great.
I know, that's one of my favorite stories. I summarized it for my English class!
That's the story that was one of the last straws to my atheism beliefs. An omnipotent God getting so jealous and prideful that he rips a man's life to pieces to prove a point.
And the poor man just goes along with it!
I know! I'd be really mad. like hey man I believed in you dude, you didn't have to kill my family and destroy my farm to prove it.