A Challenge

[Karl R]

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound arguement as to why he exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

I'll freely admit that the existence of god is unprovable. The non-existence of god is also unprovable.

But using Kathryn's dog as an example, I'm not about to claim that god is illogical. In my opinion, Kathryn's dog has a better chance of understanding us than we do of understanding god. The dog's closer to being on our level than god is. Until I understand god, I'm in a poor position to say god's illogical.

Of course, logic is definitely a human construct, so it's entirely possible that god's not limited by it.

Lot's of believers (both christians and those who follow other religions) have experiences with the divine: answered prayers, miracles, prophecy, visions, other spiritual gifts, etc. For the individual in question, these provide strong evidence that there is a god.

To a non-believer, these don't count as evidence, and they certainly don't count as proof. If I tell you that I witnessed a miracle, you might believe that I'm lying, mistaken or delusional. Any of those options is more likely than a miracle.

If I witness a miracle, I don't get the same options. I can either believe that I'm delusional, or I can believe that there's a theistic god that treats scientific laws as if they're entirely optional. I'm not comfortable with either of those options. But once I've seen evidence, I can either accept it or try to deny it.

Just to be perfectly clear: If you base your belief off my personal experiences then I'm going to think you're seriously derranged.

However, isn't changlessness a characteristic of the Christian God?

I'm not sure it is. If that's the case, why did Abraham petition god to change his mind about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

And there are a lot of things in this world that appear to be unchanging (like the continents), but they're constantly changing ... just on a scale that's beyond human perception. Just because people perceive god to be unchanging, that doesn't mean that the perception is accurate.

Of course, even if something is always changing, it may be more useful for me to treat it like it's not. Even though a mountain is changing, I'm almost certain to find it in the exact same spot I last saw it.

Sure, you could claim that it is the cultural lens through which God is perceived that has changed, and not God himself,

In general, that's my take on things. It seems to be the most logical explanation.

Surely, God can control how he is perceived.

Can it be done without eliminating free will? Our free will seems to be important to god ... more important than misperceptions.

Why would he want faulty perceptions of himself to be placed in his own holy book?

Let me give you an analogy: a six year old asks you where babies come from. You might want to give a completely accurate answer. You may even have the scientific knowledge to give a completely accurate answer. But the six year old isn't going to have the mental capacity to understand your explanation, no matter how hard you work at it. And in attempting to provide the answer, you may do a lot of harm (i.e. if you start demonstrating how sex works).

Given our mental capabilities, I would say our understanding of god is mostly incomplete. Of the knowledge we do have, some of it may also be difficult for us to accurately understand. I don't think the faulty perceptions are avoidable.

On a more personal level, there are a lot of misconceptions about me floating around. Most of the time I don't care enough to try to correct them. I'm not sure god cares about little things like that either.

Science is not meant to be stagnant; it is meant to be ever evolving, ever discovering. I would think that is preferable to a belief system that is historically antagonistic to change.

I think religion and belief are also meant to be ever evolving and ever discovering.

But just as there are students who aren't interested in learning more, and there are science teachers who aren't willing to admit that their knowledge might be wrong, religion has the same problems. (And unlike science, religion doesn't have the convenient tools that science has to keep things moving along.)

The best belief system is one that's true. If I understand correctly, you believe in science and the non-existence of god. I believe in science and the existence of god. Since we have an area where we both agree, I'll use the common ground for my examples.

You and I both believe in the theory of evolution. It's not proven. It may not be provable. But either it's true or it's not true, regardless of whether of it's proven or provable. If it's true, it was true before there was evidence for it. It was true even when it wasn't correctly understood. It was true before anyone believed in it. It was even true before anyone conceived of it.

Either there is a god or there's not. Lack of proof, limited evidence and misconceptions don't change what is. They just affect what you and I are inclined to believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

As a Christian, here's my take on Intelligent Design "versus" Random Acts of Nothingness - oops, I mean Big Bang, creationism "versus" evolution - whatever catchy phrase of the day applies:

Just thought I'd clarify for you that the Big Bang was not a random act of nothingness.

It wasn't a random explosion from nothing; that's not physically possible.

The theory is that everything in the universe was contained in the tiniest of points, and then exploded for whatever reason.

Think of this tiniest of points as the ultimate of black holes.

 

[Riverwolf]

Anyhoo, on to the topic at hand.

Using the definition of God that you've provided, there's no evidence either way. We CANNOT say with certainty whether or not such a being exists.

But I do believe that there are beings far more evolved than us, who may even be able to freely move about other dimensions, such as time, to the point that we cannot fathom them. I say this because we have similar relationships to other lifeforms, such as bacteria. Do you think bacteria are fully aware of our existence? Of course not.

Therefore I think that there are beings that we are not aware of because they are far more evolved than us. And I call them gods.

And are there beings higher than them? Why not?

 

[Falvlun]

If I witness a miracle, I don't get the same options. I can either believe that I'm delusional, or I can believe that there's a theistic god that treats scientific laws as if they're entirely optional. I'm not comfortable with either of those options. But once I've seen evidence, I can either accept it or try to deny it.

Just to be perfectly clear: If you base your belief off my personal experiences then I'm going to think you're seriously derranged.

I thought this was an excellent answer, and particularly liked the part quoted above. :yes:

I'm not sure it is. If that's the case, why did Abraham petition god to change his mind about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Well, the changlessness of God seems, at least, to be a pretty consistent message throughout Christian scripture. Here is page that sums up how it is supported by scripture, as well as showing how it is actually pretty logical: Immutability Doctrine

I have always believed that the Christian God must be an infinite being, as there would be no other way to be omnimax. How could an infinite being change, since that would require something new to be added to it?

As for Sodom and Gomorrah example, God did destroy S & G, and likely knew that Lot couldn't find x number of righteous people that he claimed he could.

Can it be done without eliminating free will? Our free will seems to be important to god ... more important than misperceptions.

I don't see how free-will is compromised by giving accurate facts.

It seems to me that inaccurate data compromises free-will just as much as accurate data would, since our beliefs and decisions are based upon the data we receive. Would it not be better, then, to present an accurate depiction of oneself, so that people would be better equipped to make the correct decisions?

Let me give you an analogy: a six year old asks you where babies come from. You might want to give a completely accurate answer. You may even have the scientific knowledge to give a completely accurate answer. But the six year old isn't going to have the mental capacity to understand your explanation, no matter how hard you work at it. And in attempting to provide the answer, you may do a lot of harm (i.e. if you start demonstrating how sex works).

Given our mental capabilities, I would say our understanding of god is mostly incomplete. Of the knowledge we do have, some of it may also be difficult for us to accurately understand. I don't think the faulty perceptions are avoidable.

I agree with you that it would be impossible for God to ever make himself completely understandable to us. But I don't think that gives him reason to a) give us false information about himself, or b) be ambiguous about those things which we are able to understand.

I mean, a lot of this stuff is pretty hard to reconcile, and I don't think it has to do with a faulty perception. What Being, on one hand, is so fed up with humanity that he would destroy everything by Flood (besides Noah and his ark), and on the other hand, love them so much that he would sacrifice his son to save them? Don't those two things present a pretty big contrast?

And before you defend this by saying that the perceptions of the original authors could have been wrong, I would think that God could at least have had the good grace to make sure it got written down correctly, so that everyone would have a fair chance at coming to the correct perception.

On a more personal level, there are a lot of misconceptions about me floating around. Most of the time I don't care enough to try to correct them. I'm not sure god cares about little things like that either.

That certainly is a valid point.

Excepting the fact that these faulty perceptions do keep a lot of people from coming to God, or staying with him, and God does seem to want people to come to him.

I think religion and belief are also meant to be ever evolving and ever discovering.

This certainly would be great thing, it's just that I don't think a lot of religions see it that way. I mean, if you believe you have the Truth, capital T, then to change it would mean you now have something less than the Truth you had before.

You and I both believe in the theory of evolution. It's not proven. It may not be provable. But either it's true or it's not true, regardless of whether of it's proven or provable. If it's true, it was true before there was evidence for it. It was true even when it wasn't correctly understood. It was true before anyone believed in it. It was even true before anyone conceived of it.

Ok... I'm not quite sure where you are going with this.
Evolution is not 100% "provable"; nothing in science is. But the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Either there is a god or there's not. Lack of proof, limited evidence and misconceptions don't change what is. They just affect what you and I are inclined to believe.

Exactly!!

Which is why God* should have done his darndest to make sure we had the best information, explanation, and demonstrations possible.

*And by God, I mean a personal God that wants to be known, or basis salvation upon being known, etc. Obviously, it wouldn't really matter what you believed to a deistic sort of god.

 

[cristheseeker]

So let's take the Creation story. Hey, my belief is that God is omnipotent. COULD He create the world in seven days? Of course He could. DID He? I don't know. To me, that's not the point of the creation accounts in Genesis. The point is that God created all things. THAT'S the truth that the accounts in Genesis tell me.

well, if you take the story literally, our omniputent god actually created the world in 6 days, and had to dedicate the 7th to rest, because as we all know, creating existence is exhausting, especially for an omniputent being

 

[cristheseeker]

i would also like to point out the impossibility of existence of a being with limitless characteristics, as god is described by most theists.

lets take mercy and justice for example. muslims like to say(and im sure christians would agree) that god is infinitely merciful and infinitely just. well those two descriptions cancel eachother out.

what is justice?

to be just is to apply a reasonable or fitting punishment to a certain crime. for example, you do not fine a serial killer 50 dollars for killing 9 people in cold blood, just like you do not sentence a little child who stole candy to life in prison.

what is mercy?

mercy is a display of leniency towards a certain crime. in other words, it is the lessening of a deserved punishment. for example, if you get pulled over for doing 60mph in a 45mph zone, the police officer can be just and punish you with a ticket, or he can be merciful and give you a free pass.


so, how can god be infinitely merciful and infinitely just at the same time?

if he is infinitely just, there is no room for mercy, and vice versa. only way he can be just and merciful at the same time is if neither of god's characteristic is infinite. and that applies to every description of god really.

 

[Mister Emu]

If Religions try to use the scientific method for God, they fall short in that category.

A point has to be made that if Atheists use the scientific method against God they fall just as short.

It is like trying to use trignometery to prove which coffee tastes better...

Most common rule that is wrongly applied is the rule of proof of existence. Which, put simply, is: it is up to the person to prove that something exists not for the others to prove that this something doesn't exist. Logically this is true for God, Thor, toothfairies, and anything else you care to say exists.

Actually it is positive statements, which means if you start an arguement with "God doesn't exist" you have to have something to back that up

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound arguement as to why he exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

Let's get something out of the way... what do you mean by evidence? Is anecdote evidence?

 

[Mister Emu]

so, how can god be infinitely merciful and infinitely just at the same time?

If a crime demands a punishment but we get infinite bliss instead we have infinite mercy, but not justice yet...

However, if God takes on the punishment for himself and satisfies justice, we have both...

 

[cristheseeker]

if god is infinitely merciful then even satan himself would be forgiven.

i find it interesting how god sent himself down to earth through his jesus personality to die for the sins of humanity(his creation) and yet, he can not do the same for satan/lucifer (also his creation)

and it is even more interesting that god has given us the power of overriding, or canceling out his sacrifice through jesus by simply not believing in the theory that jesus died for our sins.

i mean, jesus' death/sacrifice, is kind of like a credit card waiting to be activated. and that POWER is in our(the customers) hands. there is nothing god(or in this example the credit card company) can do to take that power away from us....goes to show god does have limits.

if god really is infinitely merciful then he would forgive us for our actions that he defines as sin anyway, and so jesus' sacrifice is pointless.

 

[Seven]

I don't understand how someone can take on someone else's sins.
Imagine if you were in court charged with murder and you said, I confess, I did it and I'm sorry. But, I have a good friend here who is willing to serve my time for me...

 

[cristheseeker]

Lot's of believers (both christians and those who follow other religions) have experiences with the divine: answered prayers, miracles, prophecy, visions, other spiritual gifts, etc. For the individual in question, these provide strong evidence that there is a god.
To a non-believer, these don't count as evidence, and they certainly don't count as proof. If I tell you that I witnessed a miracle, you might believe that I'm lying, mistaken or delusional. Any of those options is more likely than a miracle.

so lets say that an atheist comes to you(a person who communicates has experiences with and feels the presence of god daily) and says : "hey, karl, i can feel that a god does not exist, i have had a personal experience that showed me that a god does not exist".
would you respect his personal experience as evidence and take his word for it? Of course you wouldn’t.. heck, you wouldnt even believe another theist, from a different religion, say muslim, if he told you of his personal inner experience that allah exists and mohammad is his prophet, because based on your own truth you know that everyone else’s experiences are dillusions. What you fail to realize is that just like them, you are also subject to dillusion.

so the whole argument for proof based on personal experience is flawed, and should never be accepted as evidence, because anyone can claim anything, and someone’s inability to disprove that certain claim, does not validate or strenghten it in any way.

 

[islamcity]

If you dont mind my input?
yes i agree with crist seeker, answered prayers, miracles, prophecy, visions, other spiritual gifts all may strengthen the fatith of a believer in any religon however if anyone claims so then every religon is the right one. There is not evidence or proof of such things happening to anyone unless the effects of such happenings are ongoing and can be seen by others.

 

[darkendless]

If you dont mind my input?
yes i agree with crist seeker, answered prayers, miracles, prophecy, visions, other spiritual gifts all may strengthen the fatith of a believer in any religon however if anyone claims so then every religon is the right one. There is not evidence or proof of such things happening to anyone unless the effects of such happenings are ongoing and can be seen by others.

Very true, as an atheist how would anyone make me understand that a prayer was answered?

Something i asked in another thread: Why is it that God answers some prayers and not others? Why is one person saved from cancer and 100000 more die? Philosophically, why would that happen (ignoring science). Why did that person die when most of the others probably had something to contribute to society as well?

 

[cristheseeker]

take benny hinn for example.

dont you find it funny how none of the healing he does is visually physical? how many people's amputated limbs have you seen him regrow/restore through the power/mercy/glory of god?

if that would happen, no doubt i would be a believer. and i am sure so would a vast majority of the earth's population, because at that point it wouldnt be a question of not believing based on lack of evidence, but rather based on rejection of compelling evidence.

in that case it woud be a choice to reject god, where as now it is common sense. just like it is common sense not to believe in transparent goblins riding purple unicorns around the milkyway, although we can't prove the inexistence of such creatures with absolute certainty, they probably dont exist, and should be disregarded.

 

[cristheseeker]

another thing i find extremely convenient:

how is it that god/jesus, mohammad etc. all chose to reveal themselfes in the "dark ages" only?in times of abundant ignorance, where impressionable people, unable to find answers to the simple questions in life, simply patched the gaps with supernatural ideologies?

i mean, the all knowing god, surely knew that humanity would advance to a technological point where life images could be captured/recorded, stored, and replayed over and over. he would have known that we would get to a point where live streaming video could be transmitted throughout the whole world. and yet, knowing all this, he still chose to reveal himself in a time where all the proof we had was "word of mouth" and "paintings"

dont you find it funny how god doesnt personally reveal himself to people anymore? i mean, whatever happened modern day "road's to damascus"? what about talking donkeys and sexy serpents tempting you with fruits? people getting swallowed by big fish,and spat out days later unharmed?

is it just me, or do you also find these things rather convenient?

 

[islamcity]

Very true, as an atheist how would anyone make me understand that a prayer was answered?

Something i asked in another thread: Why is it that God answers some prayers and not others? Why is one person saved from cancer and 100000 more die? Philosophically, why would that happen (ignoring science). Why did that person die when most of the others probably had something to contribute to society as well?

“And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they MAY walk in the right way.” – 2:186 (Quran)
“Call on your Lord humbly and secretly; surely He does not love those who exceed the limits.” –7:55(quran)
"...but call on him with fear and longing, for the mercy of allah is near to those who do good" -7:569(quran)

dont' think it really implies that one life is worth more than any other, but perhaps one life is already much closer to being paid off? All lives have different potential, even the same person at different times of their life. Just because one person has more future potential than another doesnt make their life "worth more"

Consider for example the 90 year old. The may have already found the cure for cancer or done some really amazing things, but their future potential is less. That doesn't mean at all that their life is worth less. But that if such decisions have to be made, they can't be made on the basis on whose life is "worth more" or on the basis of who has more to contribute in the future. Some persons cancer may be less powerful than the cancer of another, the person might have taken ealrier precautions. Your claim simply defeats the purpose of reality.

 

[darkendless]

“And when My servants ask you concerning Me, then surely I am very near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me that they MAY walk in the right way.” – 2:186 (Quran)
“Call on your Lord humbly and secretly; surely He does not love those who exceed the limits.” –7:55(quran)
"...but call on him with fear and longing, for the mercy of allah is near to those who do good" -7:569(quran)

dont' think it really implies that one life is worth more than any other, but perhaps one life is already much closer to being paid off? All lives have different potential, even the same person at different times of their life. Just because one person has more future potential than another doesnt make their life "worth more"

Consider for example the 90 year old. The may have already found the cure for cancer or done some really amazing things, but their future potential is less. That doesn't mean at all that their life is worth less. But that if such decisions have to be made, they can't be made on the basis on whose life is "worth more" or on the basis of who has more to contribute in the future. Some persons cancer may be less powerful than the cancer of another, the person might have taken ealrier precautions. Your claim simply defeats the purpose of reality.

Thanks for digging that up.

My problem with the philosophy of this is a guy i knew from university. He was 19, had a GPA of 6.5 and really has a lot to offer the world. He was nice, people enjoyed his company. I can't see how he fulfilled his purpose in this life. His life was just getting started.
Yet we see people who are 60 and 70 surviving cancer to sit in a bed all day. Sure thats good, but they've lived, the young man had not. How would God justify that? Was he just angry that day and decided to inhibit mankind?

My claim is valid because don't you attribute everything to God? Why would God give a 19 year old cancer? Why would God let him die and a 70 year old live? Is he teaching us that life is not fair? Where is the lesson in taking yet another life of something who had so much to live for?

The reality of the situation is for such a perfect God why is his influence on us so random, so unjustifiable? Why are there so many stock arguements for what im asking such as:

"they're enjoying God's love"
"its gods will"

Is it God's goal to pain us? To make us suffer?

 

[PureX]

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound argument as to why [God] exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

Or

If evidence turns up, Admit to there being a god and carry out your life appropriately.

Cheers

I am an agnostic, but I will accept this challenge.

Everything is the evidence of God's existence. Or to put it more precisely, the WAY existence exists, is the evidence that existence itself is the result of some governing intelligence, will, and purpose. Were this not so, existence would logically express only chaos. Yet it does not. Existence expresses order, and limitation, and a balance between chance and pre-destiny, with the result of a maximization of variety. As many things that are able to exist according to the laws governing existence, do exist.

The fact that existence HAS laws, is evidence of [God]. That those laws result in a purpose (increased variety) is yet further evidence. Logic therefor mandates that the source of this order and purpose be acknowledged. And in most languages, the term for this mysterious source would be "God".

 

[emiliano]

Are we all in agreement that the existence of cannot be proved or disproved?
I don’t know why is it that this type of discussions are so interesting eg.:

so lets say that an atheist comes to you (a person who communicates has experiences with and feels the presence of god daily) and says : "hey, karl, i can feel that a god does not exist, i have had a personal experience that showed me that a god does not exist".

Well I would say that he has proved to Himself that God does not exist, which is what he wanted to prove, as the Bible says Mat 7:8 For each one who asks receives; and he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, it shall be opened. What was this fellow seeking?

Sure, you could claim that it is the cultural lens through which God is perceived that has changed, and not God himself,

What I would claim is that God is still God even if He is moved to mercy and relent on His just decision to punish, what the Bible claims is that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, He was God when He judged S and G, He was God when He judged humanity, He was God after He spared Lot and when He spared Noah, He is God today, He does not change, He was, He is and always will be God.

Something i asked in another thread: Why is it that God answers some prayers and not others?

Believer don’t see death the same way you do, we believe that God has a purpose for each one of us, when is done God may call us, gather us to our love ones.

Why is one person saved from cancer and 100000 more die?

Those that still have a purpose from God will remain and die later, those ones that have completed their time will go to God.

Why did that person die when most of the others probably had something to contribute to society as well?

Another concept comes into consideration, we believe that God has purpose for us that it got nothing to do with contributing to the world/society, we seek God’s kingdom not a better society His kingdom is beyond comparison.

 

[cristheseeker]

Is it God's goal to pain us? To make us suffer?

i know that according to christianity, our purpose in life is to give praise to god.

so in other words god created us with the simple purpose of giving him praise and honor(basically stroking his ego, or making himself feel good about himself), and if we dont, if we choose to ignore him, he punishes us with eternal suffering in hell.

based on that i can draw the conclusion that if god really does exist, he is a selfish egomaniac who doesnt really care wether we suffer or not, so he chooses to remain neutral to our lifes and let nature take its course. thats why life doesnt seem fair. its not that its his goal to make us suffer, its just that he doesnt care to keep us from suffering.