Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

Verified by who? Scientists?

Even if there were no evidence, which there is.

No there's not. There are organisations offering hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove a single miracle. But they can't, so they didn't happen.

It is not a logical link to conclude, that because there is no evidence, something does not exist. It is neither disproven.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it is logical to not believe that for which there is no evidence. You don't need to disprove that for which there is no evidence. Do I need to disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden?

What's more the thousands of accounts of miracles is proof in itself. Certainly it's good enough when proving if a crime was committed in many trials.

The thousands of examples of UFO sightings are conclusive proof too I suppose?

People commonly suffer delusions and mistaken sightings. Or they just make shit up.

Well how could I answer this? It's up to you whether or not you believe in it. The reason I do is because it is so open. Everyone has the chance to become a Christian, God loves everyone no matter who they are. And every one has the chance to be redeemed and enter Heaven.

Belief in Christianity requires faith. In my opinion, you have to find this answer yourself.

What a wishy washy load of rubbish.

 

[nikolas]

Verified by who? Scientists?

Even if there were no evidence, which there is. It is not a logical link to conclude, that because there is no evidence, something does not exist. It is neither disproven.

What's more the thousands of accounts of miracles is proof in itself. Certainly it's good enough when proving if a crime was committed in many trials.



Well how could I answer this? It's up to you whether or not you believe in it. The reason I do is because it is so open. Everyone has the chance to become a Christian, God loves everyone no matter who they are. And every one has the chance to be redeemed and enter Heaven.

Belief in Christianity requires faith. In my opinion, you have to find this answer yourself.

Not verified by anyone, in fact, your pretty naive if you don't think its possible miracles are fakes/exaggerations/rumors/etc

Maybe if you actually understood Russel's teapot you would know why your 1st 3 lines have already been refuted.

and Again faith=blind/willful ignorance.

 

[nikolas]

I don't think that we pay for the sins of Adam and Eve, but our own sins. Personally, I find solace in the knowledge that God is just and forgiving of all; He judges us on our sins, not on whther we have or have not heard of Him.

And actually we don't pay for our sins. We can never reach perfection and so the Lord shows us His compassion, by offering His forgiveness to us.

(If you go to Church every now and again, you could get a grasp of Christianity and ask some of these questions yourself. They'd have better answers for you than me..)

You make the assumption that I've never been to church. I still do on occasion, mostly for family reasons/tradition.

 

[impervious182]

The Bible is a collection of books, based on a number of first hand accounts. These first hand-accounts were not found in one location, but many. The variety of accounts, and the way in which they corroborate what the other's say, is in itself evidence.

What defines a miracle? Why is it that a miracle has to not fit within the confines of science? And even if no miracles can be proven in the last century, how does this disprove God?

The fact is that both arguments for and against Christianity cannot be proven. However there are many testimonies which claim that God exists because of personal experiences, which in my opinion, is evidence. There are no accounts (because of the impossible nature of such an experience) that disprove God... because, as has been stated, it would be impossible to do so.

 

[impervious182]

You make the assumption that I've never been to church. I still do on occasion, mostly for family reasons/tradition.

I didn't make that assumption at all. I merely said that my answers are not very good. For more accurate answers to your questions you could go to Church, for they will answer them there.

 

[impervious182]

Not verified by anyone, in fact, your pretty naive if you don't think its possible miracles are fakes/exaggerations/rumors/etc

I didn't say that many miracles werent' fakes/exaggerations or rumours.

You're pretty naive if you believe that everything can be explained by science.

 

[tommykins]

Firstly that's not an argument. Secondly it's certainly not 'logical'.

God was not created, rather he created time and space, so he transcends it.

How is it 'logical' to believe in the creation of the universe, yet not in the perennial nature of God? How could the universe be created from nothing? 'Logically' it can't be. It takes faith to believe this. Just as it takes faith to believe in God.

Neither can be disproved and neither are mutually exclusive beliefs.

So everything was created, but we draw the line at God...nice logic.

Why can't we draw the line at the universe? And say nothing created the universe?

 

[nikolas]

The Bible is a collection of books, based on a number of first hand accounts. These first hand-accounts were not found in one location, but many. The variety of accounts, and the way in which they corroborate what the other's say, is in itself evidence.

What defines a miracle? Why is it that a miracle has to not fit within the confines of science? And even if no miracles can be proven in the last century, how does this disprove God?

The fact is that both arguments for and against Christianity cannot be proven. However there are many testimonies which claim that God exists because of personal experiences, which in my opinion, is evidence. There are no accounts (because of the impossible nature of such an experience) that disprove God... because, as has been stated, it would be impossible to do so.

You are a Fucking idiot.

I also refer you to the 1st page of this thread, look for why religious texts cannot be used to prove god.

 

[nikolas]

I didn't say that many miracles werent' fakes/exaggerations or rumours.

You're pretty naive if you believe that everything can be explained by science.

I never made that claim though.

You're pretty naive if you think God explains everything science cannot.

 

[impervious182]

No there's not. There are organisations offering hundreds of thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove a single miracle. But they can't, so they didn't happen.

Yes but again, what would constitute for proof? Some scientific evidence no doubt. What more proof can one give than a testimony? If miracles are defined as fitting outside the realms of science, then of course they can't be proven. If they fit within the realms of science, people claim that they're not miracles.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it is logical to not believe that for which there is no evidence. You don't need to disprove that for which there is no evidence. Do I need to disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden?


The thousands of examples of UFO sightings are conclusive proof too I suppose?

Are they thousands of sightings of the same UFO on the same day? If they were then I think it would be safe to say that there was something in the sky - not necessarily a UFO.

Well that's my point. I don't have any obligation to convince you of Christianity. If you choose not to believe, even after my answering questions, then that's your problem and it's entirely up to you. Proof is subjective in itself, because proof is, by definition, something which can be understood by mankind and as is explained, God is beyond human comprehension. I know that this sounds wishy-washy, but it's the best explanation I can give. In the end it is all about faith and how to explain our existance.

 

[Lukybear]

The causation arguement rebuttal

1. Contradiction

Well the 1st premise( that everything has a cause) is self-contradictory.

Ill ask what caused God.

You'll say god is the cause.

and you have just violated the 1st premise that everything is caused.

Assuming that my logic is somehow false in the above, that does not then....

The arguement that you are referring to for God is correctly labled the Cosmological argument for God, rather then the causation. The modern version of this argument contains 4 Premise:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe therefore had a cause.
4) Naturalistic explanations are insufficient in comparison to God in explaining this cause.

As you can see, the word begins is in italic. It is done so to counteract your strawmen. Everything that begins to exist renders God immune to your logic.

2. Jumping to a conclusion of the 1st cause argument.

Assuming you have that the 1st cause argument is correct, then...err well so what? you jump to the conclusion that God is the 1st cause.

The cosmological arguement argues that there is a God, a very loose definition of it anywaz. It argues neither for the Christian God, nor any other God, rather is proves that there is a creator to the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Take note, that there different versions of the cosmological argument.

 

[nikolas]

I didn't make that assumption at all. I merely said that my answers are not very good. For more accurate answers to your questions you could go to Church, for they will answer them there.

Yes, because that worked out so well before.

 

[impervious182]

I never made that claim though.

In calling for proof in God, you make that assumption. What constitutes proof for humans is science or fact. However it is completely impossible for one to prove or disprove God and so we have to go to the next best thing, which is testimony. (The story of Jesus is corroborated to a degree by the different books of the Bible.)

 

[Lukybear]

So everything was created, but we draw the line at God...nice logic.

Why can't we draw the line at the universe? And say nothing created the universe?

There is SCIENTIFC (lol) proof, very good scientific proof that there was a period transcending the universe. Its called the BIG BANG.

 

[Graney]

The Bible is a collection of books, based on a number of first hand accounts. These first hand-accounts were not found in one location, but many. The variety of accounts, and the way in which they corroborate what the other's say, is in itself evidence.

The variety of accounts of bigfoot and the way in which they corroborate what the other's say, is irrefutable evidence in my opinion.

What defines a miracle? Why is it that a miracle has to not fit within the confines of science?

You should know what a miracle is. I'd say it could be defined as any event where the only possible explanation is devine intervention. It's absolutely essential to test it through scientific means- if it can't stand up to a examination by natural science, it's not a miracle.

If it's a genuine miracle, it should be easily testable and provable.

And even if no miracles can be proven in the last century, how does this disprove God?

I'm not trying to disprove god. I'm just making the basic point that should be obvious to anyone over 5 that miracles are bullshit and don't exist.

 

[nikolas]

In calling for proof in God, you make that assumption. What constitutes proof for humans is science or fact. However it is completely impossible for one to prove or disprove God and so we have to go to the next best thing, which is testimony. (The story of Jesus is corroborated to a degree by the different books of the Bible.)

Again you show complete Ignorance of Russels teapot.

And again, your being naive with testimony. (btw testimony would be considered evidence, not good evidence for obvious reasons.)

 

[impervious182]

1. Contradiction

Well the 1st premise( that everything has a cause) is self-contradictory.

Ill ask what caused God.

You'll say god is the cause.

and you have just violated the 1st premise that everything is caused.

Assuming that my logic is somehow false in the above, that does not then....

2. Jumping to a conclusion of the 1st cause argument.

Assuming you have that the 1st cause argument is correct, then...err well so what? you jump to the conclusion that God is the 1st cause.

Edit the two that come to mind will provide more.

Which again links back to God being beyond our understanding. It's an explanation as to how the world was created.

To create something from nothing is in itself beyond human understanding. It does not fit within the realms of science or human explanation; neither does the idea of there being a beginning, though we know there has to be, because time moves forward not backwards.

 

[moll.]

what an unfair generalisation, to judge someone's overall intelligence more or less on the basis of whether i believe the same as you.

but you have accidently stumbled upon grace. the truth is that there is not a single reason that a great and powerful god would care about me in the slightest. as god tells us in his word. we are his creation and he loves us an infinite amount

I never once judged your intelligence upon your beliefs. Read what i said again. Everything i wrote was objective. But now i'm thinking that you're paranoid and insecure about your intelligence being brought up...
And here we stumble onto a basic flaw in your argument. A reliance upon the Gospels and the Hebrew Bible to prove your argument, despite the fact that both of the texts are man made and can proven to have been edited at various times throughout history. God has not told you anything. Self-proclaimed "holy" men, scribes and translators from the past 3,000 years have told you everything.

 

[nikolas]

There is SCIENTIFC (lol) proof, very good scientific proof that there was a period transcending the universe. Its called the BIG BANG.

No, this plain wrong, re-read what you learned about Big bang.

 

[impervious182]

Again you show complete Ignorance of Russels teapot.

And again, your being naive with testimony. (btw testimony would be considered evidence, not good evidence for obvious reasons.)

Erm... but that's my point. Testimony is the only evidence we have and could possibly have. So you can either choose to believe nothing, or take a few thousands people's first-hand accounts.