Creationists: Here's your chance

[Autodidact]

Audodidact



This is not a 6th view, apparently you’re not thinking about what I said. This view that you just mentioned “the universe has always existed” this is a variation of number 1 “energy is mindless and eternal, it always existed and took on many different forms and now is in the form of this universe.

Basically what you just said is a variation of number 1.

Think.

There is NO 6th view, only 5 views, there was always only 5 views through all history, the only difference was and is, they all come in many different words and packages and ways. But there always is 5 views.

You need to get use to it and choose one. By not choosing, you are choosing the “I don’t know” position and that one is not safe.

Read my sig.

So you don’t know how the laws of physics were made, either by chance or physics doing it. That is interesting. If you don’t know, then you don’t know that God DID NOT DO IT, do you?

1. No, it is not possible to know whether a Deist God exists. It also makes no difference.
2. Good practice is NOT to believe in entities for which there is no evidence, sex Professor Occam.

Yes I have advanced it. I was only asserting it because you asked a question and I wanted to give you an answer that is my position. So I asserted that this was my position.

No, you have not. So far you have shown that if the universe had a beginning, which we don't know, the conditions that made that possible may have been set up by a Deist God. You have not made any sound argument in favor of anything more than that. (Nor are you likely to, since no one else in the history of the world has. That's why religion requires faith.)

No, he doesn’t cut out the snow flakes. He created the laws of physics and how the snow flake would be with relation to everything else that makes it that way.

So you're a Deist? Cool.

I thought you said above you don’t know how the laws of physics got made, now you’re saying you don’t believe God did it. Let me ask you again, do you KNOW God DID NOT do it?

No, I said nothing of the kind; read my post.

No I am not promoting a deist God. I am just building my case step by step.

Well this could have gone much faster. O.K., you've established that if the universe had a beginning, which we don't know, it could be caused by a Deist God. Good job. (hint: I already believed that, and my guess is so did most of us in the thread.)

Now let's move on.

 

[bossbozz]

Some people have told me themselves by pure admittance. And I have read quotes from people admitting it.

Again that's very convenient but hardly compelling evidence

Do you KNOW that I am wrong that there is a God and he holds you accountable? Do you KNOW that I am wrong?

I'm about 99.(insert Grahams number)% sure that you are wrong. I'll take my chances on that.

Tell me this, do you KNOW that I am wrong? If you don’t know that I am wrong, but only believe I am, why do you not FEAR that you COULD be wrong and I right, which would then make you accountable to God?

Please answer that for me.

Because that would be like fearing that I'm going to get abducted by aliens or attacked by zombies, it might happen but it's really not worth worrying myself over.

Also if there is no God, nor a soul, why would you care to know why people still believe in God or not? What would it matter?

Curiosity

You just said you don’t like me speaking for all mankind and that they all form beliefs with some form of fear, now you just did the same thing you were against me doing, you said God was a concept born out of the fear of the unknown.

How do you know that it was out of fear? You presume to know all God believers?

I said that in my view I believe that is why the concept of god came about, I didn't however state it as a universal truth but purely what makes sense to me. If I had said ALL people know that this is true in the same way that you said "ALL of us are pressed in a rock and a hard place, and we all choose a view based on a fear of something" then maybe you'd have a point here. Also some people have admitted it to me and I've read quotes on the internet :sarcastic

 

[painted wolf]

Look, if I stake my life on it, that means I KNOW FOR SURE. There is no 6. All these you just mentioned are just what I said, all 5 views come in many different words and packages. They are the same thing said differently as all 5 views I mentioned.

Except that they really aren't.

I’m not stupid.

Just over confident.... and the "big bang" wasn't an explosion.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Do you KNOW that I am wrong that there is a God and he holds you accountable? Do you KNOW that I am wrong? ... If you don’t know that I am wrong, but only believe I am, why do you not FEAR that you COULD be wrong and I right, which would then make you accountable to God?

Do you KNOW that the real god is not in fact the feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl, who on your death will hold you accountable for not feeding him with fresh human hearts throughout your life? If you don’t know but only believe that not to be the case, why do you not FEAR that you COULD be wrong?

It's interesting that on the one hand you're arguing about the laws of physics implying some uncaused amorphous creator deity, then jumping straight from there to highly specific cultish beliefs about punishment in the afterlife. It seems to go 'in my view the origin of the universe implies an uncaused creator; therefore, this uncaused creator must be the very specific anthropomorphic and anthropocentric father-figure I happen to believe in, and if you don't believe in him too he'll punish you when you're dead'. Don't you think this is a bit of a leap?

 

[Danmac]

I think conscience itself declares an objective standard that is independent of all of us, but demands our adherence to it. If not, why do you feel compelled to justify actions that aren't necessarily against judicial law? Comments like, "I was here first", or "that's not fair", or "c'mon you promised", or "your stingy". When people make remarks like this they are appealing to a standard of behavior that they expect the other party to know about. I think this should at the very least make anyone consider the existence of an objective standard.

If indeed there is an objective law that is independent of every human being then there is a lawgiver that isn't human.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The_evelyonian



Yes, he is immune from this requirement. Here is why, there has to be a FIRST cause. There CANNOT be a infinite regression of causes and this argument alone is your downfall. Here is why there cannot be a infinite regression of causes, because first it would then take an eternity for all causes to take place, thus no causes would take place since it’s taking forever for them all to happen. Or second, all causes would be happening at the same time, thus everything would be motionless. This argument shows that there has to be a FIRST cause.

Thus God does not need to be made or designed, or have a designer above him. Plus, if a designer was above him, then that designer above him would be THE God and “God” below him would NOT be God by definition.

I don't think there is a sentence in this that makes sense to me. If this has any logical weight and actually makes sense to other people then I wonder if I'm smart enough to remain here on RF??

Can someone explain to me if this is real logical thinking or is this just smoke and mirrors covered in a big helping of crazy talk?

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

I'm about 99.(insert Grahams number)% sure that you are wrong. I'll take my chances on that.

I’m limited for time so I won’t respond to everything, just certain things.

I am 99% sure that I am right and you are wrong. What do you say to that?

Because that would be like fearing that I'm going to get abducted by aliens or attacked by zombies, it might happen but it's really not worth worrying myself over.

God is different then aliens, aliens are FINITE. Plus, let me ask you this, if you were not being worried about it and it happened, what would you think then?

Curiosity

Why are you curious if your 99% sure there wrong?

Painted_wolf

Except that they really aren't.

Ok, in your OWN words, describe the 6th view for me. After you do it, I am going to SHOW you, using your own words that it is no different then one of the 5 views I mentioned. Now, go ahead, explain the 6th view in your own words.

Johnhanks

Do you KNOW that the real god is not in fact the feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl, who on your death will hold you accountable for not feeding him with fresh human hearts throughout your life? If you don’t know but only believe that not to be the case, why do you not FEAR that you COULD be wrong?

I know 99% sure that it’s not the real god. However, that means I am taking a 1% gamble. Now that being said, the serpent god is FINITE, FINITE. However, you are taking a gamble that I am wrong. And my religion is more plausible then this serpent god thing. Fact is, YOUR taking a gamble, now what if you find out after you die, that I am right, what will you think to yourself?

 

[bossbozz]

I am 99% sure that I am right and you are wrong. What do you say to that?

Not sure where you're going with this? You asked me if I knew, I told you how sure I am. Did you have a point to make or were you just trying to bait me into a pointless tit for tat argument?

God is different then aliens, aliens are FINITE. Plus, let me ask you this, if you were not being worried about it and it happened, what would you think then?

You know all about aliens now too? Wow, please tell me more? How finite are they? Do you know the exact numbers? What about zombies, do you know all about zombies too?

I guess you're trying to say that god is infinite which is in fact is purely a mathematical theory, how come you get to pick and choose which theories carry weight? How can you be sure that infinity even exists outside of mathematical theory?

What would i do if I came face to face with god? I'd have a million questions but first I'd offer some feedback on my experience, maybe make a few suggestions on how he could improve his strategy. I'd ask him why he didn't impart any real beneficial scientific wisdom to us during his time on earth and also ask his opinion on how well he thinks he's doing, how does he perceive the threat of the post modern condition etc etc etc...

Why are you curious if your 99% sure there wrong?

It would be very arrogant of me to assume that I do not need to learn about the views of others just because I am sure of my beliefs. How can a person be sure of anything if they don't question and explore other views? I am amazed at how in this day and age people can still believe in creationism and gods, where better to learn about why than a forum where everyone has the right to input their views?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If indeed there is an objective law that is independent of every human being then there is a lawgiver that isn't human.

This is a huge leap, but even if we grant it, there is a major flaw in the idea that all objective and moral truth comes from god.

It can be set out like this: Did god have a reason for choosing the standards that he did?

If he did, then those reasons, whatever they are, could be called the root of objective truth and morality, and god himself isn't needed.

If he didn't, then his choices are arbitrary (he could just as easily have made compassion evil and greed good) and we would have no reason to take his choices seriously.

Indeed, the idea that our objective and moral truth comes from god (the biblical one, anyway) can be negated simply by reading the Old Testament.

Consider the numerous times that god ordered his followers to enter a city and engage in the wholesale slaughter of everyone therein. Children, even infants, were not spared from god's wrath.

Now, many people are forced to look at passages like this and say that they are either metaphorical or, with a deep sigh of regret, admit that the Old Testament contains an atrocity or two, and this is exactly the point.

If our morality come from god then these acts of mass infanticide were just and noble deeds. They shouldn't be sources of shame, but pride; flaunted as examples of god's goodness. However, when we read these passages, they just don't sit well. Something inside of us tells us that, even if these acts were ordered by god, slaughtering children is wrong. Therefore, we must be consulting a moral and objective standard other than god to reach that conclusion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You speak of nothing as if it was a creative energy. At no time has any reasonable person thought so.

You misunderstood what I was saying. When I was referring to the word nothing, I did not mean that “nothing” was a creative energy, for if that is what I meant, I would not have used the word nothing, but rather I would have used energy. Which by the way is the 1st view “energy is mindless and eternal and it created the universe”.

Good, then we understand that both the lack of physical laws and quantum mechanics show that cause is not necessary.

Yea, that view is stupid. From nothing, nothing comes. If there is no cause for the seed of the bang to happen, then it won’t happen for there is nothing causing it to happen. That is a stupid view and I don’t have enough faith to believe it. It defies everything we know about causes as we observe the world. To believe that view is to believe magic. Why not believe rabbits can come out of a hat from nowhere?

Says the man who thinks a magic deity is the "cause"

Both the lack of physical laws and quantum mechanics show that cause is not necessary.
Not only is this backed by science, it eliminates any "magic"or "supernatural" beliefs.

In quantum physics, spontaneity can be defined as, (here we go again)...

No....Cause....Is....Necessary.:slap:

That is a science stopper, whether you believe it or not. Just because someone does not understand the CAUSE of something, does not mean there is NO cause for the thing.

Nor does it necessitate cause, as I have shown over, and over, and over.......

You can speak these words all day long. Go ahead. Just because someone does not understand something does not mean there is no cause for the thing.

The foundation of science is to look for causes. It’s to find out how this or that works.

Science has shown that cause/effect does not apply beyond the singularity. Is this really so hard for someone who believes a "Magic" deity is the cause? A deity you claim needs no cause, while in the same breath you argue all things need a cause?

According to men and women much more intelligent and knowledgeable than you, no cause has been found, nor has any action observed necessitated cause.
Further study may reveal a cause, or not. Research is continuous.

For one, it does exist, and second, it does show a cause. They just don’t know why when they look at the particle, it stops instead of keeps flying everywhere. They don’t YET know why. But just because they don’t yet know, does not mean there is no REASON WHY.

Ah, so you know something all those physicist don't. When are you submitting your papers for review? Going for the Nobel in Physics?
Perhaps you should look up Hawkings and point out his mistakes.

Fortunately, your five views do not put restrictions on actual scientific study.

I remember hearing this on a video I watched from a scientist.

Oh, I see. you ignore science unless it seems to match your preconceptions. How convenient. You insist cause, then say your deity needs no cause. You present your "five options" that you "remember hearing this on a video I watched from a scientist."
What scientist? Can you link us to this video? Has this view been presented for peer review? Have other cosmologists confirmed or dissented?
Really Jolly, you have presented nothing to counter the actual findings of cosmologist and physicists. All you have shown is that the answers make no sense to you. This should tell you that your understanding is limited, and you should actually make an attempt to find out how this universe really works.

 

[johnhanks]

I know 99% sure that it’s not the real god. However, that means I am taking a 1% gamble.

Are you sure that's a chance worth taking? Quetzalcoatl is going to be really p!$$ed if you've got it wrong...

However, you are taking a gamble that I am wrong. And my religion is more plausible then this serpent god thing.

How so? From where I'm standing Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl look at least equally plausible (i.e. not very). Seems to me we're taking an equal gamble.

You did not, I note, address my point about the huge leap you make from arguing from fundamental physics for the existence of an uncaused cause to the assumption that this cause must be coterminous with the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric god you happen to believe in.

 

[johnhanks]

If indeed there is an objective law that is independent of every human being then there is a lawgiver that isn't human.

No such objective law has been shown to exist, so this proposition remains hypothetical. Even if it were true, however, the 'lawgiver' needn't be divine. It could, for example, be a process such as natural selection.

 

[Autodidact]

I think conscience itself declares an objective standard that is independent of all of us, but demands our adherence to it. If not, why do you feel compelled to justify actions that aren't necessarily against judicial law? Comments like, "I was here first", or "that's not fair", or "c'mon you promised", or "your stingy". When people make remarks like this they are appealing to a standard of behavior that they expect the other party to know about. I think this should at the very least make anyone consider the existence of an objective standard.

If indeed there is an objective law that is independent of every human being then there is a lawgiver that isn't human.

One word. Evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

One other word... magnets.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

Not sure where you're going with this? You asked me if I knew, I told you how sure I am. Did you have a point to make or were you just trying to bait me into a pointless tit for tat argument?

You can’t be that sure, because I am 99% sure that I am right, so how can you be 99% sure that you are right? So since I am 99% sure that I am right, what do you say to that? How can you be 99% sure?

And here is a side question, how are you 99% sure that there is NO God? Referring to the God I believe in, not this pink unicorn nonsense.

You know all about aliens now too? Wow, please tell me more? How finite are they? Do you know the exact numbers? What about zombies, do you know all about zombies too?

I did not say I know a lot about aliens and zombies. Aliens based on the images the world thinks of, such as they have a body, head, arms, all of that is FINITE. Now if you want to say the alien is infinite, well then your describing my God, just calling him or labeling him as an alien, which I don’t mind in that case, since the definition is understood.

Ok?

I guess you're trying to say that god is infinite which is in fact is purely a mathematical theory, how come you get to pick and choose which theories carry weight? How can you be sure that infinity even exists outside of mathematical theory?

Infinity exists based on intuition and based on logic. If hypothetically you shot an arrow up into space, and it kept going past our solar system, past our milky way and outside it and then kept going and going and going, and let’s say it did not TOUCH any stars or planets or debris, would it keep going forever, or would it HIT a dead end? Intuition tells us it would not hit a dead end, BUT lets SAY it did hit a dead end, that would only PROVE that there is something SOLID stopping the arrow from going further, therefore that solid thing is taking UP space BEYOND where the arrow can reach. Therefore, the solid thing goes further into infinity, and the space inside it, where the arrow is, is like a bubble. Now that being said, your defying logic when you say there is no infinity.

Also mathematical is not theory, numbers can keep going infinitely. We just cannot count that long of course.

What would i do if I came face to face with god? I'd have a million questions but first I'd offer some feedback on my experience, maybe make a few suggestions on how he could improve his strategy.

Interesting, just curious, what would your suggestions be to him?

I'd ask him why he didn't impart any real beneficial scientific wisdom to us during his time on earth

During his time on earth? Are you referring to Jesus?

and also ask his opinion on how well he thinks he's doing, how does he perceive the threat of the post modern condition etc etc etc...

If he said he thinks he is doing and running things just great, then asked you what you thought of that, what would you say?

Also, you will have your day to ask him all this, but, he will ask you just as many questions if not more, and you will have to answer all of them. You will have your day in his court room.

This reminds me of the book of job. Job had the same attitude you do, he wanted to ask God all the questions and then when God finally showed up, God asked him tons of questions.

It would be very arrogant of me to assume that I do not need to learn about the views of others just because I am sure of my beliefs.

I’m glad you said that, I respect this very much.

How can a person be sure of anything if they don't question and explore other views?

I agree.

I am amazed at how in this day and age people can still believe in creationism and gods, where better to learn about why than a forum where everyone has the right to input their views?

True, the forum is good to learn from. Books are a great source to, I learn from them just as much as the forum.

But you are amazed why people would still believe in God, of course I am amazed when some people don’t believe in God.

I gauss I don’t understand why you’re so amazed at it. And I don’t understand how you are 99% sure there is no God. I don’t understand how you can be this sure?

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Good, then we understand that both the lack of physical laws and quantum mechanics show that cause is not necessary.

Huh? You misunderstood me. I said I was using the word nothing to mean NOT something, like energy. So nothing creating something, or something being caused by nothing, or something coming to be without a cause. < I was rightly representing this view that I disagree with. BUT I was saying that this view that I represented correctly, defies the foundation of science, it defies our intuition, it defies common sense. From nothing, nothing comes. This view is foolish.

Again, why not believe that rabbits can come magically out of a hat from nowhere?

Says the man who thinks a magic deity is the "cause"

No, a deity creating it is not magic, it&#8217;s supernatural creation. NOTHING doing it, THAT is magic and a stupid view.

Both the lack of physical laws and quantum mechanics show that cause is not necessary.

Not only is this backed by science, it eliminates any "magic"or "supernatural" beliefs.

No it does not show that cause is not necessary. It shows people don&#8217;t understand everything about the world yet. If you say it eliminates magic well no it doesn&#8217;t. If nothing causes it, and it just comes out of nowhere, well that is MAGIC.

I want proof, perhaps an article or something SHOWING that quantum mechanics show that cause is not necessary? Give me that, I will read it and respond.

Nor does it necessitate cause, as I have shown over, and over, and over.......

Just because they don&#8217;t know what the cause is yet that must mean there is no cause? Ok, you are assuming there is no cause; science has not proven there is no cause.

Science has shown that cause/effect does not apply beyond the singularity.

No it has not shown this, this is assumed.

Is this really so hard for someone who believes a "Magic" deity is the cause?

God creating it is not magic, since it&#8217;s coming from somewhere (namely God) but if it came from nowhere, well, that is magic.

A deity you claim needs no cause, while in the same breath you argue all things need a cause?

All things EXCEPT God need a cause. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes otherwise it would either take forever for events to happen or there would be no motion.

Ah, so you know something all those physicist don't. When are you submitting your papers for review? Going for the Nobel in Physics?

Perhaps you should look up Hawkings and point out his mistakes.

Those physicists don&#8217;t KNOW there is NO cause, they just don&#8217;t KNOW what the cause IS. That is how it is. In other words, they don&#8217;t know if there is NO cause and they don&#8217;t know if there is a cause or what the cause is, they don&#8217;t KNOW either way. But it&#8217;s more credible to say there is a cause, they just don&#8217;t know yet what it is. That to me sounds better, for it is foolish to believe there is no cause, that defies the foundation of science.

And even if they did find out there is NO cause (which they have not found that out) then the next question would be &#8220;why is there no cause?&#8221;

Oh, I see. you ignore science unless it seems to match your preconceptions.

No, wrong, but even if you were right, that just means you ignore science unless it seems to match your preconceptions.

How convenient. You insist cause, then say your deity needs no cause. You present your "five options" that you "remember hearing this on a video I watched from a scientist."

No, no, no, no, no, you misunderstood. The video I watched, the scientist was not saying there is only 5 views on origins, he was talking about quantum mechanics and how when certain small particles fly all over the place, then when you look at them, they STOP, then when you look away, they fly again. THAT is the issue he was talking about. He was not mentioning the 5 views on origins.

What scientist? Can you link us to this video? Has this view been presented for peer review? Have other cosmologists confirmed or dissented?

Really Jolly, you have presented nothing to counter the actual findings of cosmologist and physicists. All you have shown is that the answers make no sense to you. This should tell you that your understanding is limited, and you should actually make an attempt to find out how this universe really works.

Don&#8217;t promote a double standard to me now. By you saying there is no cause, I will tell you that you should make an attempt to find out how this universe really works.

Watch this link [youtube]45KGS1Ro-sc[/youtube]
YouTube - Quantum Mechanics

When the particles are watched they change, when there not watched, they change once again.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

Are you sure that's a chance worth taking? Quetzalcoatl is going to be really p!$$ed if you've got it wrong...

Well, we have to choose ONE, don&#8217;t we? So we have to take a leap somewhere. And yes I do think it&#8217;s worth it because I think the so called serpent god is NOT God, because a serpent is FINITE, and therefore that is polytheism and therefore is NOT truly God.

Also, if I am right about my God, whatcha gonna do then when you find out the hard way? Huh?

How so? From where I'm standing Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl look at least equally plausible (i.e. not very). Seems to me we're taking an equal gamble.

How do they seem equally plausible when the serpent god is finite and my God is infinite? And if you come back and say the serpent God is infinite too, then I will say that the serpent God IS my God then, just you are calling him a different name, but he is then defined the same.

But anyway, let&#8217;s assume for the moment it is a equal gamble, don&#8217;t you want to be sure? It would suck really bad for you if I am right.

You did not, I note, address my point about the huge leap you make from arguing from fundamental physics for the existence of an uncaused cause to the assumption that this cause must be coterminous with the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric god you happen to believe in.

I don&#8217;t understand the question?

Ask it another way.

Danmac

I agree with you, and I am looking forward to your response to what they say. We need to get them, if we don&#8217;t, it will be like letting them get away with murder, don&#8217;t let them do it now.

 

[johnhanks]

I don’t understand the question?

Ask it another way.

What I'm getting at is this. You have spent much of this thread arguing from fundamental physics and cosmology that there must exist an uncaused cause which brought the universe into existence, and that this uncaused cause is the thing you call god. Then, around about here, you started extrapolating from this position to a personalised entity that would exact punishment after death upon those who didn't believe in it. All I'm suggesting is that even if your first argument about the uncaused cause were correct (which I dispute), the leap from there to the assumption that the uncaused cause must in fact be the very same personal deity that you believe in, crucified virgin-born son and all, is a very large and unsubstantiated one.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

What I'm getting at is this. You have spent much of this thread arguing from fundamental physics and cosmology that there must exist an uncaused cause which brought the universe into existence, and that this uncaused cause is the thing you call god.

Let me put it this way, if God is NOT the uncaused cause, SOMETHING has to be the uncaused cause. Here is WHY SOMETHING has to be uncaused, because you CANNOT have an infinite regression of causes, and here is WHY you cannot have an infinite regression of causes, because then all events would take infinity to happen, thus they would never happen, OR the other variation goes like, all events would take place at the SAME time, thus there would be no MOTION. Clearly all events are taking place, and clearly they are not taking place at the same time, there is motion. Therefore there has to be a FIRST cause. So let&#8217;s say for the sake of argument that my position was mindless energy was the uncaused cause. Energy is neither created or destroyed let&#8217;s say. That is the uncaused cause and it created the universe that we now see. Tell me the problem you would have with that view? I have a problem with it, but I want to see what problem you have with it?

I am just trying to show you that SOMETHING has to be a FIRST cause.

Then, around about here, you started extrapolating from this position to a personalised entity that would exact punishment after death upon those who didn't believe in it. All I'm suggesting is that even if your first argument about the uncaused cause were correct (which I dispute), the leap from there to the assumption that the uncaused cause must in fact be the very same personal deity that you believe in, crucified virgin-born son and all, is a very large and unsubstantiated one.

Well, for one, there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (that is a distinct issue from this one we are now talking about) and two, IF I am right, that places you into a hard corner to where you have to make a crucial gambling choice.

Did you ever see Indiana Jones the movie? Well in one of them he goes into the cave and his enemy is there trying to get the treasure ahead of him. That guy drinks the wrong cup, and dies and causes the miraculous disaster to come about from the cave. Indiana Jones however drinks from the right cup and does not die. The point is this: both of them had a gamble in their choice, drink the right cup, or die, don&#8217;t drink any cup, and you still will die. Drink the right cup and you live.

This is basically the situation for you AND even me. Yep&#8230;.it don&#8217;t&#8217; sound too good does it?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Well, for one, there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (that is a distinct issue from this one we are now talking about) and two, IF I am right, that places you into a hard corner to where you have to make a crucial gambling choice.

Did you ever see Indiana Jones the movie? Well in one of them he goes into the cave and his enemy is there trying to get the treasure ahead of him. That guy drinks the wrong cup, and dies and causes the miraculous disaster to come about from the cave. Indiana Jones however drinks from the right cup and does not die. The point is this: both of them had a gamble in their choice, drink the right cup, or die, don&#8217;t drink any cup, and you still will die. Drink the right cup and you live.

This is basically the situation for you AND even me. Yep&#8230;.it don&#8217;t&#8217; sound too good does it?

Well, the "you had better be right about god" argument is inherently flawed and here's why.

The pantheon of deities created by man throughout the ages is simply so vast that there is no way to even be relatively sure that you've picked the right one. You could put your faith in Yahweh only to die and find out the Baal is the one true god and he's just as jealous as his old rival (Yahweh) was made out to be.

There is absolutely no reason to pick the judeo-christian god over the others and say, "Ah, this one is the right one." The evidence for Yahweh's existence is just as flimsy as the evidence for all the other gods man has ever thought up.

The "what if you're wrong" question simply falls apart in this light. What if I'm wrong about Yahweh? Well, what if you're wrong about Baal, Odin, Thor, Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, Amun-Ra, Molech, Ahura Mazda, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?