Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[lengy]

Who is the creator of the creator then cheesman? By your logic if humans exist then there must be a creator of humans. Is there another creator for animals? Is there another creator to plants? Do they neccessarily have to be the same creator? And who created these creators? And who created these creators who created creators? This reasoning has no end. It can stretch to infinity.

 

[cheesman]

look at wat a God is meant to be
they are meant to be able to anything etc.. and to be perfect etc..
if the first/'created' God is perfect and all, how could it have a creator
cause the creator would have to effectively be better than the creation cause this is wat separates the two.
so since the first/'created' is perfect, how could there be an original creator if they are both perfect? therefore theyd have to be exactly the same, resulting in there only being one creator

besides, if the earth making God was created, Earth in this scenario is still created, which inherently is the matter in question

 

[Not-That-Bright]

since any one thing exisiting is enoguh to suggest a creator, is there any one thing that can suggest it wasnt created?

Why does a creator have to be anything with a conscious etc? For example, craters on the moon were 'created' by flying space rock crashing into it.

if the first/'created' God is perfect and all, how could it have a creator

Well first of all you said all things need a creator... now you're claiming that some things don't, how is it that some things don't? You seem to be saying 'well because that thing is magic' - It's a weak response.

 

[katyn]

By created, I meant that somehow, an all powerful entity, god or whatever you would like to call it/him/her, was created either naturally, artificially, through a preconceived process or by an accident of some sort, by the forces of nature or by sentient hands.

And on the argument that the very existence of an object suggests a creator, it could be said that the object just happened to be there because of chance. Intelligent design says that there must have been some creator of all things because all the conditions seemed to be just right for it to be created. For example, the 4 forces, electromagnetic, graavitational, strong and weak nuclear, were all rightly balanced so as to keep atoms in one piece. If one force was too strong then life as we know it would not exist.

I don't think it's a valid theory because it's entirely possible that the universe could simply have ended up the way it is now through sheer luck. There doesn't have to be an intelligent being who created it. Just chance.

 

[lengy]

But Earth is not perfect, the inhabitants of Earth are not perfect, what's the point of a perfect god if not to create perfection? What is the point of creating sentient beings who don't praise him equally and with all their heart? What the point of creating flawed holy texts which don't make all humanity believe in him? What's the point of other religions?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Intelligent design says that there must have been some creator of all things because everything seemed to be just right for it to be created.

Well of course if something comes into existance that means it was 'just right' for it to be created, if it was not right then obviously it would not have come into existance.

There doesn't have to be a creator.

IMHO there might be a creator to the universe. It just doesn't have to be a intelligent being... for instance, if you want to you could postulate that the big bang was the 'creator'.

But Earth is not perfect, the inhabitants of Earth are not perfect, what's the point of a perfect god if not to create perfection?

Heh... it is perfect for life to come into existance exactly as it has... essentially, something to be met with a big 'duh'.

 

[PrettyVacant]

I believe in evolution.

 

[cheesman]

you sound like tht thats ur answer to this discussion
but evolution certanily doesnt disprove a god,it is merely a possible method by which the world has become wat it is now
evolution has its beginnings as well dont forget, whered they all come from?

 

[cheesman]

i know i did say that we shouldnt really go off topic in talking about religions
but i feel i should post wat i got from a website, cause it might help answer some Qs people tend to have about christianty and the whole God thing

irrespective of christianity, it should get you to think,
eg, as it talks about believeing in a God first. and then brings in christianity, its all relative.
source for this : http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2001/006/3.40.html

the following is an interview with an atheist turned christian:


An atheist turned believer answers your questions about Christ, evolution, evil, suffering and more.
an interview by Chris Lutes
Lee Strobel was 14 when he decided God didn't exist. The loss of what little faith he had took place after a biology teacher introduced him to evolution.
In the years that followed his "conversion" to atheism, Lee studied journalism at the University of Missouri, received legal training at Yale Law School, and eventually became an award-winning legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. Somewhere along the way, he married his high school sweetheart, Leslie, who eventually became a Christian. Lee was not only stunned by her newfound beliefs, but also fascinated by the way faith had changed her life for the good. He decided it was time to take another look at God and Christianity.
Like a good journalist, he carefully investigated the facts behind faith and eventually found himself bowing before the Creator he once rejected. And to help others check out the facts of faith for themselves, Lee has written The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ (Zondervan).
Now the teaching pastor at California's Saddleback Valley Community Church, Lee said he'd gladly try to answer some of the toughest questions we could toss his way. Keep reading for his answers.

Why do Christians insist Jesus is the only way to heaven?
Because Jesus said he was the only way. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
Now anybody could make that claim, but Jesus backed it up by living a perfect life, by performing miracles in front of skeptics and cynics, and, ultimately, by being raised from the dead.

But Christianity sounds so narrow and exclusive. There are so many sincere followers of other religions. Why would God reject them?
Imagine two student clubs everybody would love to join. To get into the one club, you've got to do a bunch of good things. You've got to be an honor student, a nice guy and a great athlete. If you can't meet the club's high standards, you don't get in.
Then there's the other club. No matter who you are—great grades or bad grades, incredible athlete or horrible athlete—this club is wide open to you. And your dues have been paid in full by the club leader! That club is an example of Christianity.
Does the second "club" sound narrow to you? Actually, I think other religions are a lot more exclusive, because you must live up to all kinds of rules, and even then, you still can't know if you've done enough. But Christianity says, "Jesus has met the requirements. The dues have been paid. Come on in!"

So, you don't have to do anything to get to heaven but repent of your sins. That means God will let in murderers and rapists, which doesn't seem fair to those who have lived a good, moral life.
It may seem unfair because we don't completely understand sin. We might think we're nowhere near as bad as Timothy McVeigh or Adolf Hitler. We can't imagine how anybody like that could ever be forgiven. After all, we haven't killed anybody. Most of us haven't even committed a crime. But the Bible says our sin—any sin or wrongdoing—separates us from God. We all fall short of God's holy standards. We all need forgiveness so this separation can be ended and we can have a relationship with God.
When Jesus was asked "What is the greatest law?" he didn't say "Do not murder." He said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37). We're all guilty of breaking God's greatest law of not loving God with complete devotion.
We may think it's too easy to get into heaven. All you have to do is "repent." But think about what that means. We must truly regret our sins. We must admit we can't do anything to get to heaven, but accept God's forgiveness. For stubborn, proud humans, that's very hard to do.
Even more than that, though, we must understand salvation is not cheap. It's very costly. Imagine that I give you a new Corvette. You then say, "Wow, what a great free gift!" And I say, "Yes, it is free to you, but it cost me a lot of money!"
That's kind of like what Jesus did for us. He offered us a free gift of forgiveness so we could have eternal life. But it cost him everything—his very life. That's the price tag of eternal life.

Let's switch gears. Evolution keeps many people from even considering Christianity. Why should we believe God is the Creator when it seems that science backs evolution?
I understand why this is a problem for many students. In high school, evolution pretty much destroyed the little bit of faith I had. If evolution explained where life came from, then who needed God? Why believe in him? Evolution became the issue that pushed me toward atheism.
When I started looking into Christianity, I discovered evolution had its share of flaws. For instance, when Darwin looked through a microscope at a one-cell organism, he believed he was looking at a simple, noncomplex creature. It didn't take much of a leap for him to believe that this simple cell could have easily developed from a bunch of dead chemicals—given the right conditions and enough time. But modern science tells us the most basic single-cell organism is so incredibly complex that our biggest supercomputers cannot duplicate what it does. We know the leap from non-living chemicals to the first basic life form is so huge that scientists don't have any credible theory to explain how it could have happened on its own.


So why are intelligent scientists still clinging to Darwin's theory?
I think it's because they believe there's no God. If you start with that premise, you simply can't admit that anything but evolution is true. But the reality is, many scientists aren't clinging to evolution. For example, Dr. Walter Bradley, co-author of Mystery of Life's Origin, concluded that life could not have happened without "outside help"—without an intelligent designer. Even The New York Times recently had a front-page article about the intelligent design movement. The article stressed that growing numbers of scientists, not all of them Christians, are finding that the design of nature and of the universe points powerfully toward the existence of an intelligent Creator.

Why is there evil and suffering?
Questions about evil and suffering are often very personal. It's hard to believe in a loving God when your parents are getting divorced, when your mother is dying from cancer, when your brother is paralyzed in a car accident. As important as rational answers can be, hurting people need something more. They need someone who will simply love them—someone who will show them God's love.
Now for others, the problems of pain and evil really do pose an intellectual barrier between them and God. And to these people, I'd say, first off, that God made the decision to create people who could freely love him—because love is the greatest value in the universe. And you can't have authentic love without choice. Take a doll that's programmed to say, "I love you!" That's not real love. Love demands the ability to love or not to love. It demands what Christians call "free will." This allows the potential for evil, where people could decide to be abusive and cruel rather than loving.
The first two humans made the choice to not love God completely. They turned their backs on him and chose evil over good. So evil was introduced into the world, and it continues to negatively affect everything and everybody.
Here's the amazing thing, though. While God allows evil and suffering, he manages to use them for good. My friend's mom was not a Christian when she got cancer. It awakened her to her own mortality, and caused her to realize her need for God. She became a Christian. Before she died, she said, "If it took cancer for me to find God, then I say thank God for cancer."
It may seem radical to say, but God can bring good out of bad. He can use the most terrible circumstances to draw us to himself, and to sharpen our character and make us better people. The best example of this is Jesus Christ, who endured the worst evil and suffering ever.
Yet God took that evil and turned it into something wonderful, throwing open the door of heaven!


But what about hell? Why would a loving God create a horrible place of eternal suffering?
This is a very difficult question theologians have argued over for centuries. But I believe the Bible teaches hell is a place where non-believers go after death. For those who are offended by the idea of hell, I ask, "What is God supposed to do with people who've spent their entire lives denying and rejecting their Creator?" In the end, God has to separate these people forever from himself. And why would they want to be in heaven anyway? Heaven is about worshiping God and experiencing him to the fullest. Our heaven would be their hell.
The main thing to understand about hell is that it means eternal separation from God. We can end that separation by accepting Jesus' death on the cross as payment for our sins. That's our doorway into heaven.

Everything you're saying depends on whether or not the Bible is true. How do we know it's true?
When I was an atheist, I had many questions about whether or not the Bible was true. So I researched it. I concluded that the Bible is a dependable record of history. And recent archaeological discoveries give more evidence that supports events, people and places mentioned in the Bible.
When I worked on The Case for Faith, I talked to Dr. Norman Geisler, a brilliant Bible scholar. He pointed out many instances where skeptical archaeologists have been forced to revise their thinking because recent archaeological discoveries have supported what the Old Testament and New Testament say. Archaeology can't prove all Scriptures are true, but it certainly has helped establish the Bible as a reliable historical work. When you combine that with the Bible's incredible fulfillment of ancient prophecies against all mathematical odds, there's little reason to doubt its reliability. Because of that, it's not hard for me to take the next step and say it really is what it claims to be—the unique Word of God.

What's the most important thing I can do to make my beliefs more real?
I'd encourage you to ask God that question. Come to him with an open and honest heart and say, "God, I don't want to just know a bunch of facts about you, I want to know you and experience you. I want our relationship to grow deep and strong. I want you to lead my life and give me the courage to follow you wherever you direct me."
When I gave my life to Christ, I'd done a lot of research into the Bible. I finally became convinced it was true—that Jesus was the Son of God, and he died for my sins. But that knowledge would have meant nothing if I hadn't acted on it—if I hadn't personally trusted Christ to forgive my sins and change my life.
God has made a monumental difference in my life. I've gone from being an immoral atheist to someone who wants to love God and love others. I'm certainly not perfect. But I have been changed—and that change is probably the greatest evidence I have that God is real and Christianity is true.

umm discuss i guess. but im hoping this may have shed light on sumthing for any of u

 

[volition]

Everything you're saying depends on whether or not the Bible is true. How do we know it's true?
When I was an atheist, I had many questions about whether or not the Bible was true. So I researched it. I concluded that the Bible is a dependable record of history. And recent archaeological discoveries give more evidence that supports events, people and places mentioned in the Bible.
When I worked on The Case for Faith, I talked to Dr. Norman Geisler, a brilliant Bible scholar. He pointed out many instances where skeptical archaeologists have been forced to revise their thinking because recent archaeological discoveries have supported what the Old Testament and New Testament say. Archaeology can't prove all Scriptures are true, but it certainly has helped establish the Bible as a reliable historical work. When you combine that with the Bible's incredible fulfillment of ancient prophecies against all mathematical odds, there's little reason to doubt its reliability. Because of that, it's not hard for me to take the next step and say it really is what it claims to be—the unique Word of God.

I really like the way he 'proves' the bible is evidence...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

An atheist turned believer answers your questions about Christ, evolution, evil, suffering and more.
an interview by Chris Lutes
Lee Strobel was 14 when he decided God didn't exist. The loss of what little faith he had took place after a biology teacher introduced him to evolution.
In the years that followed his "conversion" to atheism, Lee studied journalism at the University of Missouri, received legal training at Yale Law School, and eventually became an award-winning legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. Somewhere along the way, he married his high school sweetheart, Leslie, who eventually became a Christian. Lee was not only stunned by her newfound beliefs, but also fascinated by the way faith had changed her life for the good. He decided it was time to take another look at God and Christianity.
Like a good journalist, he carefully investigated the facts behind faith and eventually found himself bowing before the Creator he once rejected. And to help others check out the facts of faith for themselves, Lee has written The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ (Zondervan).
Now the teaching pastor at California's Saddleback Valley Community Church, Lee said he'd gladly try to answer some of the toughest questions we could toss his way. Keep reading for his answers.

Um k.

Why do Christians insist Jesus is the only way to heaven?
Because Jesus said he was the only way. He said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
Now anybody could make that claim, but Jesus backed it up by living a perfect life, by performing miracles in front of skeptics and cynics, and, ultimately, by being raised from the dead.

Does this guy present similar arguments in the court room?

- How do we know Jesus lived a perfect life, or even lived at all?
- How do we know that he really performed those miracles? People are easily fooled and it's been a long time since they apparently occured, we have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000's of examples of myths of this type and not ONE has been scientifically verified.
- Jesus was raised from the dead? Proof? :/

But Christianity sounds so narrow and exclusive. There are so many sincere followers of other religions. Why would God reject them?

The real clincher question is WHY should I reject the other religions that are equally valid?

Imagine two student clubs everybody would love to join. To get into the one club, you've got to do a bunch of good things. You've got to be an honor student, a nice guy and a great athlete. If you can't meet the club's high standards, you don't get in.
Then there's the other club. No matter who you are—great grades or bad grades, incredible athlete or horrible athlete—this club is wide open to you.

Err... Wth? What a terrible analogy. Do I even need to begin to explain the problems?

Does the second "club" sound narrow to you? Actually, I think other religions are a lot more exclusive, because you must live up to all kinds of rules, and even then, you still can't know if you've done enough. But Christianity says, "Jesus has met the requirements. The dues have been paid. Come on in!"

Nonsense. There are still requirements to join the christian club unless you want to stretch christianity to some sort of extremist liberal view?

He offered us a free gift of forgiveness so we could have eternal life. But it cost him everything—his very life.

Au Contraire, he didn't lose anything. It seems if we are to take jesus as a part of god, that he did something that he wanted to do, it's impossible for such a being to do anything he wouldn't want to do - Therefore, no cost, god could have just forgiven us for our sins but for the symbolism or whatever he decided to kill his 'mortal' being.... (Then raise him back from the dead etc)... he wasn't forced into this situation, this is exactly what he wanted in every way.

Also, the idea of a 'perfect' being losing anything is beyond illogical.

This 'former atheists' reasoning previously for being an atheist is in many cases not what most atheists care about. That's why I don't think he's being honest, I don't think he really was much of a strong atheist, he was probably just apathetic.

Anyway, that entire part doesn't resolve the problem for me. To me, from my perspective, allowing rapists into heaven next to their victims is a sick thought. Who cares what this perfect being thinks? Maybe he's not so perfect, maybe he should prove to us why they deserve to go to heaven also.

Let's switch gears. Evolution keeps many people from even considering Christianity. Why should we believe God is the Creator when it seems that science backs evolution?
I understand why this is a problem for many students. In high school, evolution pretty much destroyed the little bit of faith I had. If evolution explained where life came from, then who needed God? Why believe in him? Evolution became the issue that pushed me toward atheism.
When I started looking into Christianity, I discovered evolution had its share of flaws. For instance, when Darwin looked through a microscope at a one-cell organism, he believed he was looking at a simple, noncomplex creature. It didn't take much of a leap for him to believe that this simple cell could have easily developed from a bunch of dead chemicals—given the right conditions and enough time. But modern science tells us the most basic single-cell organism is so incredibly complex that our biggest supercomputers cannot duplicate what it does. We know the leap from non-living chemicals to the first basic life form is so huge that scientists don't have any credible theory to explain how it could have happened on its own.


So why are intelligent scientists still clinging to Darwin's theory?
I think it's because they believe there's no God. If you start with that premise, you simply can't admit that anything but evolution is true. But the reality is, many scientists aren't clinging to evolution. For example, Dr. Walter Bradley, co-author of Mystery of Life's Origin, concluded that life could not have happened without "outside help"—without an intelligent designer. Even The New York Times recently had a front-page article about the intelligent design movement. The article stressed that growing numbers of scientists, not all of them Christians, are finding that the design of nature and of the universe points powerfully toward the existence of an intelligent Creator.

k... lol

Why is there evil and suffering?

He says that you need free will, so that the love is 'true' and that will lead to the possibility of pain/suffering. OK, what's it like in heaven then? Is there pain/suffering in heaven because of free will? If not, why can't there be free will on earth without pain/suffering? Are we just robots in heaven without free will?

I ask, "What is God supposed to do with people who've spent their entire lives denying and rejecting their Creator?"

Oh lol, that's just gold! I bet that one stops the heathens RIGHT in their tracks eh? I think the biggest problem is that God 'created' me, knowing that I would go to hell. I as an atheist am just as much a part of his plan as the christians are, he obviously wants us here (otherwise why would we exist), so why does he punish what he desires?

My guess is someone might respond to this by saying 'you have free will', to which I will reply - If you're right, I don't. You see, if God exists, he knows everything that will happen, correct? So I can't do anything other than that which he already knows is going to happen - if I can, then he either doesn't know the entire future or doesn't exist. If God exists and knows the entire future, then there is nothing that I can do but go along with god's pre-concieved future (that he knew of before I even existed) - and roast in hell.

Seems awesome eh?

I concluded that the Bible is a dependable record of history.

Alot of books have historical accuracies in them, does this mean that they're entirely a dependable record of history? COME ON MAN! YOU SAID YOU WERE AN ATHEIST! What sort of an atheist researches the bible and comes to the conclusion that it's a dependable record of history in it's entirity?

When you combine that with the Bible's incredible fulfillment of ancient prophecies against all mathematical odds, there's little reason to doubt its reliability. Because of that, it's not hard for me to take the next step and say it really is what it claims to be—the unique Word of God.

I wonder if he could answer this: Why can't it be the unique work of the devil?

I really like the way he 'proves' the bible is evidence...

Yea really. He must have been one of the dumbest or most apathetic atheists ever. From what was posted, I see an ignorance/lack of knowledge about atheist criticisms of God.

 

[The Brucemaster]

NTB I can understand your criticisms based on the interview above but I assure A Case for Faith is a much more accurate reflection of Mr Strobel's intellect. I dont know about A Case for Christ, I haven't had a chance to read it yet but certainly ACFF is a very intellectual look at faith in general.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

NTB I can understand your criticisms based on the interview above but I assure A Case for Faith is a much more accurate reflection of Mr Strobel's intellect.

I'm sure he is a clever guy, but everything from that interview is just silly, ignoring what I see to be common atheist criticisms while he claims he is a former atheist.

 

[BradCube]

K, I don't have time for a long reply, as I should be in bed, but I just wanted to give a quick response before I disapear off into the land of trials and X2 work.

Does this guy present similar arguments in the court room?

- How do we know Jesus lived a perfect life, or even lived at all?
- How do we know that he really performed those miracles? People are easily fooled and it's been a long time since they apparently occured, we have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000's of examples of myths of this type and not ONE has been scientifically verified.
- Jesus was raised from the dead? Proof? :/

While these are valid points, I don't think they neccesarily address the original question in regard to why christians insist that Jesus would be the only way. If they are a christian then they would already believe these things anyway. Also, conversley, can we provide proofs that these things did not happen?

Nonsense. There are still requirements to join the christian club unless you want to stretch christianity to some sort of extremist liberal view?

Which are you reffering to here? I think the orginal statement is talking more about the fact that anyone is able to become a christian (rapist, murderer etc) rather than the fact that they will have to change there lifestyle once they are a christian.

Au Contraire, he didn't lose anything. It seems if we are to take jesus as a part of god, that he did something that he wanted to do, it's impossible for such a being to do anything he wouldn't want to do - Therefore, no cost, god could have just forgiven us for our sins but for the symbolism or whatever he decided to kill his 'mortal' being.... (Then raise him back from the dead etc)... he wasn't forced into this situation, this is exactly what he wanted in every way.

I don't follow this. Certainly God must have wanted to go through with the action, but I fail to see how that indicates no loss - in this case life when it did not have to be given. Also your point about symbolism being the only reason for the crucifiction of christ does not hold. If he is a perfect God than, we must also know that he is perfectly just and it would therefore be impossible for him to just 'forget' about any sin his creations may have.

Also, the idea of a 'perfect' being losing anything is beyond illogical.

Beyond illogical? I don't understand, lol. Unless you are reffering to lost as in "lost the remote".

Anyway, that entire part doesn't resolve the problem for me. To me, from my perspective, allowing rapists into heaven next to their victims is a sick thought. Who cares what this perfect being thinks? Maybe he's not so perfect, maybe he should prove to us why they deserve to go to heaven also.

Firstly for someone who believes that there is no such thing as absolute morality, you must thereby believe that there is no such thing as a sick thought.

Secondly if we are looking at christian point of view here, then we must recognize that any form of sin must seperate from God and that forgiveness can cover all sin. So to be able to say that God must prove why a rapist should be allowed into heaven, you must also be able to prove why you are any more deseverving of heaven.

He says that you need free will, so that the love is 'true' and that will lead to the possibility of pain/suffering. OK, what's it like in heaven then? Is there pain/suffering in heaven because of free will? If not, why can't there be free will on earth without pain/suffering? Are we just robots in heaven without free will?

I think that the premise is that you have chosen to obey Gods will rather then your own and this would thereby continue in heaven.

Oh lol, that's just gold! I bet that one stops the heathens RIGHT in their tracks eh? I think the biggest problem is that God 'created' me, knowing that I would go to hell. I as an atheist am just as much a part of his plan as the christians are, he obviously wants us here (otherwise why would we exist), so why does he punish what he desires?

Your an aethiest NTB? I would have thought you were an agnostic if I was guessing. I haven't seen any proof yet of why a God does not exist, but rather,you explaining why many cannot prove their belief in God.

I wonder if he could answer this: Why can't it be the unique work of the devil?

Lets say it was the devil, I don't think it takes away from the nature of the accuracy in regard to prophecy. Debatable, but I don't think that response is quite what the orginal question was aimed at.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't think they neccesarily address the original question in regard to why christians insist that Jesus would be the only way. If they are a christian then they would already believe these things anyway.

It is 'a case for christ' or something like that, he positions himself as a former atheist and is addressing what he sees as the major challenges to christianity. You have to keep that in mind when the question is 'why christians insist jesus would be the only way', it is not supposed to be an argument aimed at christians.

Also, conversley, can we provide proofs that these things did not happen?

That's a weak rebuttle. Why should I have to prove that someone 2000 years ago did not have magical powers? All that I can say is that we have no other examples of people with magical powers and there are more mundane explanations for how people could come to believe such a story than that it actually happened.

If you want to put forward the idea that someone 2000 years ago died then came back alive, I think it's fair that the onus be on you given the enormity of your claim. It's like if someone was to call you up and say 'HEY MAN A UFO JUST LANDED IN MY BACKYARD', would you go 'HEY AWESOME I AGREE' or 'Um.... evidence?'

Which are you reffering to here? I think the orginal statement is talking more about the fact that anyone is able to become a christian (rapist, murderer etc) rather than the fact that they will have to change there lifestyle once they are a christian.

Well anyone is able to join most religions if they're willing to change their lifestyle.

Certainly God must have wanted to go through with the action, but I fail to see how that indicates no loss

There are no outside forces acting on God to force him to do things (that he does not control), therefore any action he does can't be a loss because a loss is... at least in my world, when you are forced into a position you do not want to be in or have something taken from you that you did not want to lose etc

Beyond illogical? I don't understand, lol. Unless you are reffering to lost as in "lost the remote".

He's perfect. Something perfect cannot have anything 'bad' done to it.

Firstly for someone who believes that there is no such thing as absolute morality, you must thereby believe that there is no such thing as a sick thought.

No. I just don't think there is an absolute moral standard of 'sick thought'. I do think that I can come to an understanding of what I believe to be sick thoughts tho.

So to be able to say that God must prove why a rapist should be allowed into heaven, you must also be able to prove why you are any more deseverving of heaven.

I don't care what God says. To me, from my perspective, they have done more wrong in their life than their victim. Of course, 'God might know better', but that's a ridiculously easy 'out'.

I think that the premise is that you have chosen to obey Gods will rather then your own and this would thereby continue in heaven.

So in heaven we ARE robots? Address the question properly.

Your an aethiest NTB? I would have thought you were an agnostic if I was guessing. I haven't seen any proof yet of why a God does not exist, but rather,you explaining why many cannot prove their belief in God.

If there is no good evidence for God, I make the slightly emotional leap that then there probably is no God. Sure, there may in the future be evidence that comes to my knowledge that shows that I'm wrong, but at the current time there is none thus I don't think God exists.

It's the exactly the same as you making the emotional leap that santa claus doesn't exist. You're not a santa claus agnostic, you're a santa claus atheist - you can't conclusively prove that santa claus doesn't exist (tho you can attempt show how every argument of those whom do claim he exists are wrong), but that doesn't mean you're not going to go the step further.

Lets say it was the devil, I don't think it takes away from the nature of the accuracy in regard to prophecy

Because the prophecies are all 'oh so much more accurate' than all those other religions prophecies that are essentially the same... more 'after the fact' dribble.

Debatable, but I don't think that response is quite what the orginal question was aimed at.

Er, I don't care what it was aimed at. If you're trying to claim that the book is real etc, even if we accept your premise just because the bible is somewhat accurate still does not prove that it is the word of God.

 

[HotShot]

So because we cannot understand what may have happened there must be a god of some sort?

or is that science is able to prove most things that the existence of god cannot be?

if we as humans could understand everything - then god can still exist - except then we would definetly know that he exists.

why is it that we are only the race to use computers - technology etc etc. I dont see dogs having a civilisation of their own?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So because we cannot understand what may have happened there must be a god of some sort?

Hotshot, answer his question or just come clean and admit that you were wrong.

 

[blue_chameleon]

So because we cannot understand what may have happened there must be a god of some sort?

So because we cannot understand the supernatural realm using logic, it must have been evolution?

If a person was to be satisfied in one explanation (maybe they view one realms "proof" to be more acceptable than the others), then there would be no motive for them to openly explore the possibility of the opposing realms existance (with other intents rather than just seeking to disprove/discredit the opposing theory/realm).

Do you understand where im coming from?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So because we cannot understand the supernatural realm using logic, it must have been evolution?

No, but if we're going to accept supernatural explanations as being on par with naturalistic ones I think you can imagine the magnitude of the problems we will face. The supernatural may exist, but as we will (as far as I know) never have a way to prove such an existance we just have to try to discredit all claims of its existance.

We can do this through experiments, while it's impossible for us to disprove that someone has psychic powers, we can show that they were not able to do what they said they could do, at the time of the test.

Do you understand where im coming from?

Yes and you're pretty much right. The naturalistic 'realms' proof is more acceptable because we have ways of testing it and we can show that it works. The supernatural 'realms' (that has not even been shown to exist, and i put it to you may not exist) proof is less acceptable because so far no one has been able to show that it works or tested it, it could very well be nothing more than imagination. It's hard to call the findings of the natural world imaginary.

 

[BradCube]

That's a weak rebuttle. Why should I have to prove that someone 2000 years ago did not have magical powers? All that I can say is that we have no other examples of people with magical powers and there are more mundane explanations for how people could come to believe such a story than that it actually happened.

If you want to put forward the idea that someone 2000 years ago died then came back alive, I think it's fair that the onus be on you given the enormity of your claim. It's like if someone was to call you up and say 'HEY MAN A UFO JUST LANDED IN MY BACKYARD', would you go 'HEY AWESOME I AGREE' or 'Um.... evidence?'.

You would ask for evidence of course, however I think even christians look for evidense when choosing what they believe. At the same time while you would ask for evidence you could not logical disregard the claim when your only basis for doing so is that you personally have not witnessed it.

Well anyone is able to join most religions if they're willing to change their lifestyle.

So what's your point? The fact that someone has to change their lifestyle does not make the religion exlclusive to selective individuals as you were first suggesting.

There are no outside forces acting on God to force him to do things (that he does not control), therefore any action he does can't be a loss because a loss is... at least in my world, when you are forced into a position you do not want to be in or have something taken from you that you did not want to lose etc

I doubt that any person including God wanted to go through the pain of being crucified. If there is any sense of want it is because he it was neccessary in order to allow forgiveness.

Lets take another example, if I were to sacrifce my life in the place of another person would you suggest that I want to die? Of course I don't, but I value the life of the person I am saving more than my own and therefore am willing to do even when I would prefer not to.

He's perfect. Something perfect cannot have anything 'bad' done to it.

Why not? I don't see how it would make a being imperfect to have anything "bad" done to them.

No. I just don't think there is an absolute moral standard of 'sick thought'. I do think that I can come to an understanding of what I believe to be sick thoughts tho.

I don't care what God says. To me, from my perspective, they have done more wrong in their life than their victim. Of course, 'God might know better', but that's a ridiculously easy 'out'.

This does not make sense, you may come to an understanding of what you believe sick to but you agree that it may not be the same for everyone else. How can you justify that your sickening though makes it impossible for a forgiven rapist to exist in heaven?

You don't have to care in this case what God says since by your own logic you have shown that your own perpective that says that they have done more wrong than their victim counts for nothing.

So in heaven we ARE robots? Address the question properly.

I did address the questoin properly, just not directly. No we are not robots since those who have entered heaven have done so via their own will.

If there is no good evidence for God, I make the slightly emotional leap that then there probably is no God. Sure, there may in the future be evidence that comes to my knowledge that shows that I'm wrong, but at the current time there is none thus I don't think God exists.

If there is no good evidence for aethiesm other than the questions raised in regard to the nature of God then I see no reason to make the emotional jump to aethiesm.

It's the exactly the same as you making the emotional leap that santa claus doesn't exist. You're not a santa claus agnostic, you're a santa claus atheist - you can't conclusively prove that santa claus doesn't exist (tho you can attempt show how every argument of those whom do claim he exists are wrong), but that doesn't mean you're not going to go the step further.

There is far more suggesting evidence (not proof) that a God exists rather than Santa Clause. And while you can attempt to prove that the claims of his existance are wrong I think those claims are more complications, rather then logical proofs of why it cannot happen (In regard to God here)

Because the prophecies are all 'oh so much more accurate' than all those other religions prophecies that are essentially the same... more 'after the fact' dribble.'

Which ones are those dribble that you refer to? Does it include all because some prohecies in the bible seem pretty to the point to me.