I've been getting this response a lot lately and seen this argument posed by theists on this site as well. I would personally just like to clear things up with anybody using this argument.
Firstly: This argument isn't even valid with most Atheists. It is only valid if you are arguing against a Gnostic Atheist. The Agnostic Atheist, which is by far more common, by definition believes that it CANNOT be proven that a God doesn't exist.
Secondly (if you are arguing against an Agnostic Atheist):
I get the point that you're trying to make-you're saying that an assumption can only be disproved with with contradictory evidence. This is true; however it is not a strong point that you're making, since it is impossible to disprove anything that is unverifiable on a practical level. For example: Can you find contradictory evidence to the assumption that rabbits live in the centre of one of Jupiter's moons?
Even though it technically is impossible to disprove the existence of a God, I still put it in the same category as rabbits living in the centre of one of Jupiter's moons and so does a lot of other atheists on this site.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I won't ask you to disprove the existence of God, but do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist? Likewise, do you have any justifiable evidence to suggest that the views expressed by atheism should be expected to be true, or to suggest that atheism is more probable than improbable?
"...do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist?" Please explain to me how this question is in any way different than asking to disprove the existence of a god.
I asked for *evidence* against the existence of God. Evidence does not constitute proof. Evidence supports an idea but does not prove it true. You have dodged my question committing a red-herring in doing so, so I'll ask again.
Do you have any justifiable evidence against the existence of God? Likewise, do you have any justifiable evidence to suggest that the ideas expressed by atheism should be expected to be true, or to suggest that atheism is more probable than improbable?
I never mentioned in this thread that I had any evidence of it, but since you brought it up, would you like me to give you evidence, as the way you put it, against the Christian God or Gods in general?
I am asking for justifiable evidence that suggests that a god does not or cannot exist.
And while you're at it, I would like to see some justifiable evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.
"I won't ask you to disprove the existence of God,"
Then don't
"but do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist?"
Do you have justifiable evidence that their are no rabbits in the centre of Jupiter... You're asking the same thing, just changing the word proof with "justifiable evidence".
Though lets take justifiable evidence to be something a bit less than conclusive proof ie. something that would provide a pretty good idea, which you kind of allude to. Something logical and rational (which the claim is not)
- Can you physically sense God? See, hear, feel (not emotionally, feel physically)
- Can you measure or test God/ (no)
- Is there a widely agreed upon definition of God (no)
- Is there reliable, unbiased sources of information on God? (no)
- Is there statistical evidence for God? (no)
- Does the idea support any other scientific fact? (no)
If we applied this criteria to any other thing, any thing at all, you would feel justified in not believing it, right?
"Likewise, do you have any justifiable evidence to suggest that the views expressed by atheism should be expected to be true, or to suggest that atheism is more probable than improbable?"
Yes, not only because God fails to answer favorably to even ONE of the questions above, but also due to the absurdity of the claims made in the bible, it is very easy to believe athiestim is more likely than not.
- The bible claims that God created the heavens and Earth in 7 days and humans were designed by God. Yet their are many flaws in our design as well as left over aspects from evolution such as goosebumps.
- The bible claims to be the word of God, an all knowing and all powerful being, yet is filled with inaccuracies and stories suspiciously similar to those of other religions.
- The bible claims the Earth is 6,000 years old. Scientifically not true
- The sheer size of the universe in which we live, it's a lot to create to just be interested in a few billion primates. Why not just the Earth and the Sun?
- No reasonable person would believe claims such as; I was born to a virgin, I died and then came back to life 3 days later, I walked on non-frozen water ect.
There are SO many more, but, I think you get the point.
And so in turn I ask you. What "justifiable evidence" do you have that either the Christian God, or any God is more likely than no god?
Firstly, you seem to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". I did not ask for something which displays with absolute certainty that God does not exist, I asked for information, theories, or statistics that render his existence more improbable than probable.
Secondly, everything you've addressed is not what is meant by evidence for the existence of God.
What we theists mean by 'evidence' is information that verifies neutral premises within arguments that contain theological implications. For example, cosmological observations have verified the second premise of the Kalam argument, "the Universe began to exist."
Thirdly, I would invite nobody to take literally the Bible. I would not recommend it as a document of scientific accuracy. I don't accept most of the Bible as true. Only that which has been scientifically or historically validated.
"And so in turn I ask you. What "justifiable evidence" do you have that either the Christian God, or any God is more likely than no god?"
1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The Universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause.
The first premise should be obvious, and anybody who disagrees with it has their work cut out for them.
I will focus mainly on the second premise, "the Universe began to exist".
All the evidence we have from cosmology suggests that the Universe came into being 13.7 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang.
Every model that has described a universe which is extended indefinitely into the past (past-eternal) has failed.
The observed expansion of the Universe also tells us that the Universe is not eternal into the past. If the Universe is expanding, then as you extrapolate into the past, the Universe will get progressively denser and denser, until a point of infinite density is reached.
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin later created a theorem which states that a Universe which is dominated by classical descriptions of spacetime (like ours does) and that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion (like ours is) will not be extended infinitely into the past, but will have a past spacetime boundary.
The detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation also suggest that the Universe had a beginning. It is essentially the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang.
So, if the Universe began to exist, then it has a cause.
So what would this cause look like? Well, if it brought the Universe into existence, then it transcends the Universe. That means this entity is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused.
If this entity brought matter and energy into existence, then it is a nonphysical and immaterial entity.
If it brought space and time into existence then it is spaceless and timeless.
If this entity is timeless then it is beginningless, changeless, and uncaused. Changes, causes, and beginnings are all effects within temporal reality. If this entity is atemporal (without time) then it can exist apart from temporal reality.
If it is uncaused and beginningless then it is eternal.
If this entity is eternal then it must be personal.
Impersonal causal agents cannot exist eternally without their effects existing eternally as well.
For instance, water freezes at zero degrees centigrade. If the temperature has been zero degrees centigrade (the cause) from eternity-past, then water's being frozen (the effect) must also be from eternity-past. The water could not be unfrozen forever, and then a finite time ago just begin to freeze. But, if this entity which brought the Universe into existence is endowed with the freedom of the will, the it can freely choose to bring about effects.
This entity can only be singular. If this entity is eternally existent, then it exists by necessity and is, thereby, maximally great. If there were two or more maximally great beings existing with each other, then they'd both be maximally great... therefore neither would be maximally great, for one could not be greater than the other. So this cause of the Universe must be a singular, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless, atemporal, immaterial, and personal being which freely chose to bring the Universe into a state of being.
That's just one argument I have.
"Firstly, you seem to be conflating "evidence" with "proof". I did not ask for something which displays with absolute certainty that God does not exist, I asked for information, theories, or statistics that render his existence more improbable than probable."
No.... You're nit-picking at words. You jump to conclusions because of the way you've been conditioned to view the world and then seem to think that this then shifts the burden of proof, that we have to refute your evidence. No. You want to be the one to say there is a difference between evidence and proof here you go then. YOU have evidence, not proof and you are the one making the outragous claim therefor you need proof not evidence.
"Secondly, everything you've addressed is not what is meant by evidence for the existence of God."
Yet we could apply my questions to anything else and you would accept it... ie. Why don’t you believe in leprechauns – you can’t see them, or hear them, they don’t support anything. But I assume you don’t believe in them. EVEN if you saw a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, you probably wouldn't assume leprechauns were behind it. (HINT: the pot of gold is the universe in this analogy)
“Thirdly, I would invite nobody to take literally the Bible. I would not recommend it as a document of scientific accuracy. I don't accept most of the Bible as true. Only that which has been scientifically or historically validated.”
Then in the past you would have been called a heritic. The good thing about being an atheist, is that we don’t claim to be eternally right. Religion claims to be the ultimate, unchanging truth, yet from one century to the next we see countless horrific acts done by religious people, then condemned by the next generation. Same with scientific theories, look at the progress of the theory of the Earth moving around the sun. That was not accepted by the religious at the time. You’re the one claiming to know the answers, yet that only really brings more questions (morally and scientifically). We follow the evidence.
Also, nothing of what makes Jesus divine (aka. Miracles or the resurrection) are historically verified or accepted as accurate. The bible is a bias source, written a significant number of years after the fact and make claims that simply can not be accepted as historically accurate because they (by the definition of miracles) are the least likely event to have happened. The study of history deals with what was most likely to have occurred, given the evidence. Because the evidence given by the bible is not reliable and the claims it makes are un-repeatable it is not accepted as fact. A guy named Jesus may have existed, this is not the point.
"What we theists mean by 'evidence' is information that verifies neutral premises within arguments that contain theological implications. For example, cosmological observations have verified the second premise of the Kalam argument, "the Universe began to exist."
What the rest of the world means by "evidence" is evidence. Something observable and testable. I really wish you'd stop changing the definitions of words to suit yourself. Also, if you're only going to accept "evidence" that supports your theory, then why bother using evidence at all?
I'd like to know what you’ve done (other than reading wikkipedia on this one theory) that would make you more qualified to make claims that directly refute great, modern day scientists for whom studying the beginning of the universe is their profession and life's work?
What is your credentials to make these claims? Have you got a PHD in physics?
Have you investigated any alternative theory, or have you just read the one that agrees with you and gone with it?
Have you written a peer reviewed article?
If not, then sorry. I don’t trust you (not that it matters, because I find flaws in your theory anyway). And I don’t trust the word of ancient peoples who've been wrong about SO much else.
"So, if the Universe began to exist, then it has a cause."
The physics used to study how the universe came to be and answer those really fundamental questions is difficult and complex. I won’t try to understand this because I don’t feel it is my job, but from what I have heard from multiple and reliable, scientific sources is something can come from nothing when we are talking about the beginning of the universe. It’s complicated and any explanation I give would not be adequate. You can do this research if you want (I know you don’t). Not understanding it though does not make it false. Or true. But this is OK. I don’t need to rely on this… Let’s say for this argument I agree with you and there is a cause.
“So what would this cause look like? Well, if it brought the Universe into existence, then it transcends the Universe. That means this entity is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused.
If this entity brought matter and energy into existence, then it is a nonphysical and immaterial entity.”
It’s a BIG jump to say, yes the universe exists, yes there was a cause therefore it has to be an entity that created the cause. When it could be any RANGE other inconceivable events not an entity.
IF the cause was an event, not an entity, then all the other rubbish and BS you rambled on about then is useless, because water melting isn't (Gods divine plan), it is just the laws of physics – freshly created doing their thing.
“If this entity is eternal then it must be personal.”
Another big jump. Why? What IF some THING created the universe the same way we might create a drawing and then throw it in the bin… Why do you KNOW this POSSIBLE (but not probable) thing that "caused" the universe cares at all. You don’t.
Honestly, ask yourself if scientists found proof that God wasn’t real, would you believe it?
Because, we’re about as close as we can be…
You’ll never be able to fully prove something isn’t real, particularly something you claim is outside of what we are able to sense, but do you really, really buy that. Is it logical? If you answer anything other than no, you’re delusional. You might as well block your ears, close your eyes and sing "God created the earth in 6,000 days and Noah saved the animals and put fossils here to test our faith".
If you admit your beliefs are unlikely, but possible, I would have a bit more respect for you, but if you were logical enough to see that, you'd probably be athiest.
You, as well, are conflating evidence with proof. Evidence supports the validity or invalidity of something, whilst proof makes it known with absolute certainty to be either true or false.
There are no word games here, it is merely you conflating your terms.
Secondly, you commit a "false analogy" fallacy when you attempt to compare God to leprecauns. To me, this merely shows how desperate the atheist is to make God look unbelievable. There is evidence in favor for the existence of God, and there is evidence against the existence of leprechauns.
Thirdly, I don't really care what I would have been known as in the past. Jesus was considered a heretic and a blasphemer as well. I also don't really care about all the atrocities committed by religions; most of them by the Muslims.
It is generally a historically accepted fact that a man names Jesus who taught belief in the Christian god was real. However, his divine powers cannot be accounted for.
The story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is actually a pretty historically accurate description of something that many New Testament scholars accept as plausible.
Now you're claiming that I only read Wikipedia articles and have only researched one theory. Well, I'll have you know that I have committed myself to in-depth studies of astronomy and cosmology, especially that pertaining to cosmogony and the origin of the Universe.
I have read dozens of scholarly and peer reviewed articles on the cosmogony and origin of the Universe, the various models of the origin of the Universe such as the Big Bang model, inflationary models, steady state models, and quantum gravity models.
Next you ask where I have received my Ph.D from; so now you must bd a doctored cosmologist to discuss these topics? That's an extremely narrow-minded view. There are many people, myself being one of them, who are very learned in the arts of astronomy, physics, cosmology, and/or philosophy. You don't necessarily need a degree to be educated in a certain subject or subjects.
Next, you assert that scientists agree that the Universe could have come from nothing, this is false. Physicists such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss equivocate the word "nothing" here. What they mean is the Universe could have come from a quantum fluctuation of an energy plane, which is not nothing. Vacuum fluctuation models of the origin of the Universe are not successful due to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which states that a universe which is dominated by classical descriptions of spacetime (like ours is) and that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion (like ours is) will not be extended indefinitely into the past, but will have a finite spacetime boundary.
Now, when I say "entity" I mean anything. This entity could be a law, a being, a parameter, or an event... anything. "Entity" does not mean any one thing.
Now, to say that this entity must be personal because it is eternal is not a jump. Please re-read the example I give with the water. An impersonal causal agent cannot be eternally existent unless its effect is eternally existent as well. Only if the causal agent is endowed with the freedom of the will and can choose when to bring about effects, i.e., personal, can it exist eternally sans any effects.
Lastly, science has not, will not, and is not close to 'disproving' the existence of God. I believe that the evidence from contemporary cosmology renders God's existence more plausible than not, and I have presented evidence to back it up.
It seems you've done nothing bit spew out not-very-well-thought-out critiques of theistic arguments, all if which have been refuted time and time again.
If you're going to try to deconstruct may arguments, please back up all of your assertions with some justifiable evidence.
PS. Would love to hear another one, lay it on me.
Let us assume you are correct (I find your argument lacking for several reasons) but for the sake of argument, what value does this "god" of yours have. You claim it exists so what has it done since it/he/she created the universe? What does it want? Certainly an "uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless, atemporal, immaterial, and personal being must want something. Perhaps the sole purpose was for us to figure out in some obscure way that he exists? Is creating universes all this god can do?
The truth is your argument is simply circular. The first cause argument's weakness is that you can substitute "god" for whatever you wish. You do not offer any physical, tangible, practical evidence to support your claim. The same argument you make in support of your entity can be used against it. Since we do not have another universe to compare to the only one we know you are only speculating. Speculation makes for fun conversation, but it is terrible science and should not govern belief.
Which leads to the inevitable question: What caused the first cause? Perhaps a larger, more powerful cause? Then what caused that cause to cause? Or is it just...'cause jesus?
"I won't ask you to disprove the existence of God, but do you have any justifiable evidence against His existence that suggests that a divine being should not or cannot exist?"
This is the wrong question, as there are countless possibilities for which particular "God" you are speaking of, and as such has no real answer. In order for anyone to sufficiently answer that question you must first provide specific factors related to your particular God. Of course a"god" might possibly exist, but this is one thing you or I cannot prove or disprove and is therefore a waste of time.
Now, although one cannot prove/disprove the existence a God, one can definitely disprove the existence of a specific God, I will just assume that you are Christian only for the sake of making a point, if you are not a Christian then please take no offense.
The God of Christianity makes numerous truth claims (something asserted as true, while not necessarily being true) about the structure and nature of reality based entirely on Gods own authority. This provides an excellent means of possibly vindicating those very truth claims in light of empirical evidence ABOUT the structure and nature of reality. If many claims are demonstrated to be true, and this knowledge existed outside the means of the scholars and scientists of that era, then this makes a good case for the vindication of more extravagant claims written in holy text, namly the will of God and his ultimate existence.
But, if the opposite is found, and the numerous truth claims written within the bible are false, then so is the more extravagant claims as well, as it rests entirely on THAT God's supposed authority. If the foundational claims of any religion are shown to be false then so is every claim that rests on that very foundation. If Moses never existed, then Jesus is a fraud and therefore Christianity refuted, and by extension the existence of the God of Abraham.
Of course one cannot prove evolution by attempting to disprove creation, and no one is trying to do so. The goal of scientific inquiry is the discovery of truth, and if that search leads us to god then so be it. But it does not. Certainly not to the god and young earth as described in the old testament, and certainly not to the Eucharist with transubstantiation, the ascension, virgin birth, etc. of the new testament. Evolution and creation as conceived by theists are not actually mutually exclusive concepts, and it could be argued that chaos may be a tool used by god if such an entity exists. But to assert that god exists at all is to start with a conclusion and work backwards. To start an inquiry with a conclusion, then justify that conclusion by looking for possible evidence is a flawed process that will not reliably lead to truth.
Science is not a belief or a doctrine, it is simply a method for discovering the truth about various processes including how the universe works. Science cannot provide insight into things that are beyond the scope of inquiry, and good scientific inquiry based on empirical evidence does not attempt to do so.
Deleted. Moved to end of thread.
No one can find evidence that god SHOULD NOT or CANNOT exist but science is inevitably and unintentionally finding evidence that reduces the probability of God's existence.
As you study the history of science, scientific theories were presupposeing the existence of a deity so of course the probability of God was pretty high but as mathematics paved way for science to understand the physical world better, the probability of God's existence started to shake therefore leading science to become more agnostic and now, more presently, more atheistic.
We all know science was more religious and spiritual, science believed and tried to understand the physical world God made but new theorems were emerging, old premises were being challenged, new premises forming; science continues to see their premises challenged all the time; this change allows them to see into the physical world and the human experience that challenges their beliefs about God.
I still don't see how rapid expansion from a singularity leads to stable orbits on such a large scale as the universe
Did someone tell you the universe is orbiting?
What evidence was used to disprove the existence of Zeus? There are stories, many stories, writings, statues of Zeus himself (which the christian messiah doesn't even have, at least during his supposed lifetime), and the Greeks knew where Olympus was, where the gods resided. And they -knew- beyond a doubt that Vulcan, with his mighty god-forge caused volcanic activity... Surely it had to be none but him, what force in nature could forge the weapons of the gods?
How did we ever disprove these mighty deities, known by millions?
How did we disprove that there's a giant catfish under Japan, causing the massive Earthquakes there?
How did we disprove the Pharaohs, with their powers granted them from the gods themselves?
In truth? Part research, part pointing out that logic dictates these things as absurd. Just as in the case of the bible, the stories presented therein are obviously human fiction, written by human hands driven by human minds.
The Judeo-Christian 'god' is no different from Zeus, Ra, Ganesha or any of the others presented... Capricious, mean-spirited, supposedly capable of human emotions like jealousy, anger, love, mercy, empathy....
IF we had a creator we "cannot know, cannot fathom, cannot comprehend", then how is it we know that this 'god' has the same damn emotions we have? Did "he" tell us? And if so... Why? Does a powerful god get the same impetus as a 15-year old girl on twitter, having to tell the world why they are the way they are?
Furthermore... There are too many holes, too many paradoxes. I'd dare anyone religious (seriously dare) to spend one week, just one week away from religion, away from prayer, away from their god... And realistically see if anything changes.
Other than the lost-puppy sensation, I guarantee... Nothing would change. It's not proof, but in my mind these things negate the need for proof.
I could say that I know Vladimir Putin is currently wearing boxer shorts with purple bears on it... How can you prove me wrong? Do you need to know Putin, or know simply that it's a ridiculous notion... At the very least for me to claim to know that? I'm certainly not psychic, and I know for absolutely certain that psychics do not exist.
Bottom line: Who knows? But extraordinary claims, without evidence, require no evidence to supplant them.
To me an I am agnostic who believes in no Gods created by man and thus no gods you have ever heard of. I don't refute that gods or even a single god ever existed as this is out of the scope of my knowledge. I don't knowingly know any gods or god and don't like the idea that people go around believing in something they don't really know but rather only believe exist and assume it OK to influence my kids or politics with such concepts. I see no further proof either for or against the existence of either the existence or non existence of gods or God.
I feel when it comes to existence, I personally find the definition of gods to be too loose and changing variably from one person to another. The only creatures I see showing signs of belief in God are humans. This leads me to believe the whole concept of gods (not just those wacky egotistical man made in his own image ones) is all made up and man made for the large part as a way to answer unanswered things, control people and to cope with unforgivable things.
I think many people have abused the concept creating a cluster of belief systems with a large swath of belief structures. I don't thinking with such variance that anyone's god or gods at this point are in anyway what they may or may not have started out as never mind hundreds of millennia ago. All this being said I could be wrong and there could be a god or gods somewhere but chances are even if there are, they are not your god or gods if you believe in one or more.
Some people argue Something had to create the universe, They make the logical leap that it must exist outside of space and then make a logical leap to say outside of time. They usually tend make the next logical leap as well and say their god is immortal followed up by all knowing and omnipresent.
I will say this, it's likely that if any thing that created this universe, ever did exist, it has probably been dead for some time now and is not an all knowing and omnipresent force unless, God is truly all of creation and thus does not exist out side of but is creation and thus really is everything, which in a weird way would make me God. God would also be my dog, every tree, every grain of sand, and everything in all of existence no matter how big, how small or how far away.
I take the stance I can only act with what I know, so far I can't bring myself to believe in a god and find it easier to believe in there not being one. Perhaps someday immortality can be achieved but for now and until it has been immortal gods seem rather far fetched to me.
At least within the Christian religion, God is not created by man. Also, we do know our god. He has revealed himself to us through Christ Jesus. I can agree with you that religion should not influence children or politics; that is simply taking it too far and imposing your own ideologies.
The only reason that humans are the only species to question or wonder about the existence of God is because we are the only species intelligent enough to understand such a concept. Though, there is psychological evidence to suggest that many mammals do have some sense of spirituality.
There is no logical leap in assuming that the Creator of the Universe must exist spacelessly and timelessly; it must. If it created space and time then it cannot be contingent upon these dimensions and, therefore, must exist sans them. This being cannot exist within space and time *and* be the creator of these dimensions at the same time, this is self-refuting and contradictory. It must exist spacelessly and timelessly. This means that the cause must also be changeless, uncaused, immaterial, and personal.
God is everything and everywhere in the sense that He, existing outside of the Universe, can see everything within it. His mind is so unfathomably powerful that He can see our very thoughts. He created us, so this should not be surprising.
If God is not created by man, why can we track back to when religions started. Why are there so many religions. Surely the all powerful God as described by Christians would be able to give a clearer book than the bible, which is so widely open to interpretation. Surely he would appear not just in illiterate parts of the middle east? Jesus as a historical figgure may be proven, but the unbelievable acts he performed can not. He is not "revealed" to you, he's told to you in stories and that't it. I can't say Thomas the Tank engine is reveled to me by ABC for kids and therefor we have a personal relationship. I can even think in my head I'm talking to him. What would you call me? Delusional, maybe....
Clearly you read stories from other religions and do not believe them... why do you choose Christianity, other than the fact it is what you were indoctrinated with (maybe not by your family, but by society as a whole)? If a million people say a stupid thing, is it still stupid? My answer is yes. Whats yours?
I'm glad you think your belief should be kept out of schools and politics, however, many don't and this goes on to causes great damage. Globally and for individuals. I don't care what you believe, but I do want believes to question their faith as much as I question my beliefs because without thinking humans can do very bad things.
Animals don't believe in God because they don't need to, and neither do humans.
I think your point that God MUST exist out side of time and space actually makes your argument MORE silly, not less. To say for certain you know what exists outside of what you are able to perceive is so ridiculous. How do you know this? Because your trusting the accounts of a NUMBER of other human-beings from 1,000 of years ago. People who thought the Earth was flat and the Earth circled the sun. People who would have killed you for believing otherwise. People who were very biased in their thoughts and understandings.
If God is so unchanging, why are their no biblical laws saying "thou shall not commit genocide" "thou shall not rape" "thou shall not own slaves". Either the all knowing all powerful God still wants us to kill people from other lands and take them for slaves OR he is changing. Either way God as you've described is not possible. (Give me the speal about how Jesus changed the law by dying on the cross I dare you)
Why should we test other Gods and false idols but not Him? Because HE doesn't exist, just like all the others. Nowhere does the bible reflect the knowledge of an all powerful being, it does however contain the "knowledge" and opinions of uneducated, middle eastern men, who were looking to either answer the unanswerable questions or control a population (or both). Personally I'd prefer to get my knowledge, opinions and morality from educated people from this century.
What is the POINT? Whats the point of believing in God when really comparing the lives of an average believer and average non-believer are so similar. The only difference is as a Christian there is the constant battle between unanswerable questions answered with the vague "God works in mysterious ways" (also, if you use that cop out it leads me back to the question, whats the point), where as an atheist is not tied to any one position, but can change freely with new information.
Admitting your wrong, when confronted with evidence as a Christian causes cognitive dissonance and can cause lots more questions than answers. Why? I believe it's because the whole belief structure is not founded on the truth.
I hope you can answer my questions intelligently, because I sincerely want to hear what you have to say.
Actually, the Catholic church says that animals don't believe in god because they don't have souls... as if that makes the case for a god any more believable, right?
Too true!
I have a dragon in my garage...I BELIEVE it is there... I am TELLING you it is there...I have FAITH it is there........DISPROVE IT!!! Such is the absurdity of the theist mind!!
Earlier you argued that the universe exists therefore must have causality. If god exists then he also must have causality. God only exists as a thought, a theory, and only in the minds of some human beings. Therefore the cause of god's existence is clearly some human's mind. God is created by man to fill the voids in his knowledge. It has always been and will always be that way. When we have no answers some say: "God did it, he must have because otherwise where did it come from?" More thoughtful humans might say "I don't know. Perhaps some day I may find out." As time goes by we learn more but we will never live long enough to know the entirety of knowledge. In the meantime there are all kind of factions who claim to know the truth because there is no proof either way. However here is something. If god exists why are there babies born with such dreadful bodies they are in agony for as long as they last? Why are there hermaphrodite children born? Why are there twins whose bodies are fused together? Why are there people born whose brains are so confused they will become killers, rapists, child molesters in later life. Remember Jesus said "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." If the kingdom of heaven is the little children, why are some of them sent to earth to suffer and die due to birth defects? Isn't it much more likely that the birth defect a child is born with, is more likely to have come, and has been proven in some cases, from a genetic malformation, something a mother may have ingested during a crucial time, something genetic in the father that caused the production of malformed sperm, and not have been inflicted on its parents by a loving god who wants to test them.
there has to be a beginning...... to something
This question was posted to a theist a while back...the absurdity of the answer was something to the tune of, " well, we know the children are going to Heaven." So, in other words, they were brought down, after being created "perfectly" ( rather IMperfectly) by God himself, because after all He DOES create, and control everything...except the bad things... forced to suffer what little existence they had here on earth, so that they could go to heaven right away. This is the way theists try to justify their incredibly ridiculous folly.
On that note.... If the event involving "Christ" was so damn important, why do we know him by his GREEK name, not his original, Jewish given name? You'd think that would be important.... With that accuracy we may as well call George Washington "El Senor Generale Blanca Cabello", too.
Pages