INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

That is just emotional recationism. If I wanted to enslave someone I could not find a single verse to justify it. I could in fact find many that justify killing to stop it. However racism and evolution are inseparable and nothing in evolution could argue against slavery even if it existed, as a moral wrong.

No, it’s my sense of morality kicking in. As I keep pointing out, Christianity is not a system of morality. Rather, it’s a system of obedience to authority. It doesn’t allow you to exercise your own moral judgment.

You could find many verses to justify enslaving someone which is why I keep pointing out that the Bible condones slavery. It doesn’t say anywhere that it’s wrong, there’s no commandment against it and it describes how to treat a slave including the fact that you can beat them to the point of near death, as long as they don’t die within a specified number of days. How could anyone deduce from all that, that slavery is wrong? If it were that important to your god to impart to us that slavery is wrong, why not include it in one of the 613 commandments he ordered?

Racism and evolution are not inseparable and not even related, and I don’t know why you think they are. It appears that you’ve completely ignored the post in which I discussed this. Evolution actually refutes racism in that it shows us that humans are genetically homogenous and that all life evolved from a common ancestor. I.e. That we are all made up of the same stuff and we all come from the same place and that all humans are only one biological race. There’s nothing racist about that, quite the opposite in actuality.

This is two separate issues. Behavior has the most dire temporal penalty possible in the Bible. As far as salvation goes no man can even theoretically earn heaven and so how could moral merit be a factor. i used to be troubled by the fact that heaven is faith based until I tried to cobble together a merit based system. It is absolutely impossible.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what it is that you’re attempting to say here.

If entrance to heaven depends only on belief, then how do you declare that your god cares about morality?

You have apparently spent little time considering a merit based salvation system. I spent three years in study on that one issue and can elaborate as much as needed. I can also include what I believe were three miracles that helped settle the matter for me if you wish. Any study at all quickly reveals the irrationality of merit based systems concerning heaven.

I would love for you to elaborate because I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

I never gave him any label. Scholarship consensus did. If you can contend him you would be the first. Clarence Darrow sure couldn't. There is a mock theatrical debate of this based on the transcripts I would recommend.

I don’t care who’s giving him the label. I’d rather talk about the merits of his arguments rather than who calls him what.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very well, Keep in mind that he argues by wit and universally acknowledged as a satirical master wordsmith.

Great, I love satire.

The paradoxes of Christianity
Because the truth of Christianity is a complex truth, it is hard to argue directly for it. The case for it is cumulative, and this makes it hard to know where to begin. C. says that the anti-Christian literature of his day provided the clue as to how to begin (see p. 91).

Examples:

• a. Christianity is too pessimistic: spreads gloom, keeps people from taking joy in nature, in their bodies, in their own autonomy, etc.

BUT Christianity is also too optimistic: consists in wishful thinking with its doctrines of Providence and life after death.

• • "This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it" (p. 92).

b. Christianity makes one too timid: emphasis on virtues like kindness, non-violence, monkishness


BUT Christianity also makes one too warlike: crusades, mother of wars.

• • "The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep ... [But] I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned upside down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much" (p. 93).

c. Christianity is just one among other religions; as a creed it divides people but as a moral code it is universal


BUT Christianity preaches a benighted and outmoded morality.

• • "I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideas. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstition of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark" (p. 94).

d. Christianity attacks the family by dragging women to the cloister

BUT Christianity forces marriage and the family upon us.
e. Christianity shows contempt for women's intellect
BUT Christianity is such that in Europe "only women" follow it.
f. Christianity is reproachable because of its pomp and ritualism
BUT Christianity is reproachable because of its sackcloth and dried peas.
g. Christianity restrains sexuality too much
BUT Christianity does not restrain sexuality enough.
h. Christianity is primly respectable
BUT Christianity is religiously extravagant.
i. Christianity is too disunified
BUT Christianity is too monolithic.
C's conclusion at that point was not that Christianity is true, but simply that it must be very odd to be wrong in all these ways at once. There are just two possibilities: either Christianity is a very odd shape or the critics themselves are odd in many opposed ways. (p. 97).
Chesterton's Orthodoxy

Ahh, I see what happened here. You’re arguing against “my side” rather than against the arguments I’ve actually made.
Where’s the part where he actually discusses the truths of Christianity? I’m interested in what’s true and what isn’t.

 

[1robin]

And why does God get a special pass?

If your speaking naturally God is above and beyond natural law because AS A CONCEPT:
1. He exists independent from the material.
2. He exists independent of time.
3. He exists independent of space.
4. He is the architect of them all.
5. There exists no reason, scientific discovery, or even a logical theory to suggest that if the Biblical God exists he is in anyway bound by nature.

In your unfortunate and illogical view nature is primary and causal and mind is derivative. That has about a billion problems. In my view mind is primary and nature is derivative. There are no known problems with this, even theoretically.
If you are discussing a God that is simply a part of the universe furniture then that is not my God.

If you were thinking morally:

Because he is the one entity not in need of a pass. He does nothing by your leave, permission, or attempts to bind. At best all we can say is that we do not agree or hate him. Even if Allah existed I could not say what he did was "wrong". On what basis or standard could that even be attempted? However I could say I hate what he did, will not serve him, and would kill him if that is possible but wrong is simply beyond our grasp.

Do you have evidence that anything, much less God, can exist outside of the natural?

I have countless independent lines of evidence that are consistent with that concept.
1. I have experienced the supernatural several times myself.
2. Billions will testify to miracles and supernatural salvation events.
3. People have had knowledge that is impossible for them to have gotten naturally.
(Even the mighty Tesla admitted this) but that is not exactly what I meant.
4. The eyewitness testimony that passes modern legal and historical standards in the Bible.
5. I would go on but there is no series of words no matter how factual, accurate, and convincing that would do any convincing if the receiver wishes it not to be so.

Considering that rates for homicide, violent crime, teen pregnancy, abortion, divorce, infidelity are declining while charitable giving and high school graduation rates are up, your claims of a moral decline ring hollow.

What I claimed is so obvious that to be required to demonstrate it suggests cognitive dissonance so strongly as to make it unjustifiable. What the heck. The secular "sacred right" to kill an innocent baby has killed more people that all the religious wars, inquisitions, and conquests put together many many times over. Even if every other rate was getting better (most are getting far worse, like STD's transmitted by homosexuals like currency and costing people who do not practice it billions and even their lives at times, children in no parent homes up 400%, one parent homes 300%, percentage of children doped up through child hood up 1000's%) it would still not undo the harm of abortion alone. BTW the most charitable demographic is Conservative Christians and our public scholl system was built by Christians in the first place. Whatever theory you use to generate your personal morality is, does it justify sending money, workers, and food to starving African nations as we are currently doing?

 

[1robin]

Sure there is. If everyone practiced slavery, would slavery still be wrong? Ask the slaves what they think about that.

That is the point. With God slavery would still be wrong. Without it would be right.

If everyone believed in cannibalism and murder and practiced it, there would be nobody left to declare anything.

Yet it would still be wrong and if the cannibals and murderers would have accepted that they would still be around.

We have convenience and preference with or without god

Obviously

We have rights and wrongs with or without god.

Objectively impossible. Nothing in nature has the power to make anything right or wrong morally. Nature says what is not what should be.

We collectively declare what is right or wrong

NO we collectively declare what we label as such.

we are the only ones around to do so.

No, God is around.

How do you think we determine that psychopathy is deviant behavior?

Because we apprahend a moral "norm" using out God given consciences. We intuitively declare psychopathy to be in opossition to that norm. A norm which has no objective foundation without God.

And why do we even care? Think about it.

Because we were created to.

The system of morality that you believe in (which I contend isn’t actually a system of morality at all), is based on opinion and preference. They rely solely on god’s opinion and preferences. You assume he’s good and right because the Bible says so.

There is no preference to it if his existence is granted. I do not steal because it is a universal moral truth even if no one would notice, not because it is preferred or convenient. Your only argument is whether God exists. Once granted the rest of your argumentation evaporates.

I understand what you’re saying, I simply disagree with your assertion that there is nothing objective and/or that nothing can have any value without your god inserted into the equation. What we value does matter, and we’re the only ones around to make such determinations.

Let me give the test once again. Is X moral truth if as you say above no one is around who agrees.

I have never head of these carved coral rights that you speak of. Could you provide more information? Google isn’t giving me anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones

Giving value to lumps of coal and creating laws against murder are not the same thing.

They are without God.

The former is arbitrary, while the latter is based on reason and analysis of a given situation.

Then Hitler and Stalin were right as the requirement was the use of reason and they did so.

I would declare it wrong because I value human life and apparently god does not. How’s that?

I have lost track of the original subject.

Talk about opinion! How do you know that god’s nature is good?

I use right not good in this context. There exists no standard to judge anything he does as wrong. If Newton said 1+ 1 = 7 than the standard of math can disprove him. If God killed Hitler or a child in Israel by what standard can you declare that wrong? As for good, I claim that because my God given conscience and his actions are consistent most of the time. If God exists human wellbeing IS ACTUALLY good and he has acted consistently with this. If he does not the Human wellbeing is specieism and a self-interested and unjustifiable standard and not even one we obey anyway.

Which standard are you using to declare such a thing?

There exists no standard that can make God wrong. If God exists then my conscience is the standard to declare his actions good because it is God given.

They’re very important questions, if you ask me. How are you declaring that god is good in the first place? If no standard exists to declare he’s not good, then by what standard are you using to declare that he is good?

They are two different arguments. If he exists his actions are right (that is different than good). If he exists then he gave me revelation and my conscience and they testify that he is good. I have never suggested human wellbeing is bad. I said it is not objective nor sufficiently justifiable without God.

So you believe. The point is, how do you know this? How do you know that right and wrong don’t exist beyond your god? If morality is part of nature, then maybe it does exist outside of your god.

As I have explained many times. To discuss God I have two choices I can assume he exists and then debate what his existence means, or I can refuse to allow his existence and then do so. The former is correct, the latter is wrong, useless, but unfortunately the tactic many times. Morality is not part of nature exclusively. Atoms are amoral, natural law can't generate what should be. We are talking about impossibilities. There is no well maybe this or that. Nature does not place actual value on anything. It is God's nature that is moral and is part of the framework of reality.

Well, if your god existed I could point out that “he” declared murder to be wrong. So he’d be violating his own moral pronouncement.

As soon as you prove he killed without justification then I will agree. Good luck.

You’re declaring that the god you believe in is the one that exists. I’m wondering how you know this and why it’s more likely than the one Plato and Russell talked about.

I met him. However as in all debates we must assume what we are discussing is possible and if we are discussing My God then he comes with a context. If you want to discuss another context then that is not my God.
My computer is trying to crash so I will stop here. SCIENCE???

I recommend any debate by the great mathematician Lennox concerning morality and nature.

 

[ruffen]

There exists no standard that can make God wrong. If God exists then my conscience is the standard to declare his actions good because it is God given.

What would have to happen for you to conclude that maybe God isn't good?

If that is completely impossible to imagine, then you are not being rational when you say God is good, because you would say that even if he wasn't good.

And how do you know that God must be good? Did he tell you with a voice in your head? Did you read it somewhere (Bible? elsewhere?). Did someone just tell you that that's how it is? How can you know that God is good? Or even that he exists at all?

 

[camanintx]

If your speaking naturally God is above and beyond natural law because AS A CONCEPT:

If your argument is that God is only a concept, then you might be right. It's when you attempt to claim that God exists that it falls apart. Lets look at these one at a time.

1. He exists independent from the material.

Energy also exists independent from the material. Your answer fails to explain why God is any different.

2. He exists independent of time.

In other words, there has never been a time when God existed. Time and change are inseparable. If you doubt this, then try to define time without referring to anything changing. Since creating is by definition a change, it is also inseparable from time so nothing that creates can be independent of time.

3. He exists independent of space.

In other words, there is nowhere that God exists. While higher dimensions make for great math, physicists have yet to produce any evidence that they actually exist. Baring any such evidence, we can only conclude that the three spatial dimensions we experience are all that exist. Therefore, saying anything exists independent of space is no different than saying it doesn't exist.

 

[camanintx]

As soon as you prove he killed without justification then I will agree. Good luck.

So if someone killed you for a reason, regardless of what that reason was, they would be morally right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is if it is God that this is being claimed about, and that was Chesterton's point. God as a concept is defined as never contradictory. He can’t be too demanding and too permissive. Claiming he is one is hard enough to prove. God as a concept only speaks truth. He can't demand two contradictory things. However that does not stop preference and ignorance from claiming has in fact done so.

Yeah, I understand (I think) your viewpoint. God is a perfect entity who sits outside natural law and subjective morality. He is the only explanation for universal creation due to this (ie. the only way a beginning could have occurred without cause) and the only way good and evil can exist (since any human explanation of these is subjective, rather than absolute).

However, even if I believed these things (obviously, I strongly disagree), I would still have issue with your argument. God can be perfect, never contradictory, and of absolute moral good, and still not effectively communicate these concepts to his own creation.

Ignore atheists. Ignore all non-Christians. You still have a bucketload of different beliefs and views on the moral message of God, despite those same various flavours of Christian all agreeing that God is perfect, and the source of absolute moral authority.

Without me going off on a tangent, wondering why God would communicate his perfect message via imperfect means, it is clear to me that there is no human on earth who can claim absolute authority in interpreting God, and thus allowing humanity to know this perfect moral code to which they should subscribe.

In terms of how that relates to this argument, I think arguing that God is perfect is basically useless since even believers cannot 'know' God. It is an interpretive process based on belief and faith.

So...hopefully you can understand what I'm saying. I get that your viewpoint is different, but the way I see it, an atheist can easily claim that God is overly permissive in one area and overly stringent in another without contradiction.

They are an atheist. When they talk of God, they are truly talking of religion, since they don't believe in God. I think, for a believer, they could perhaps concede that even a perfect being can be imperfectly understood by his creations. It is the messages and tenets of religion that are being discussed any time we talk of God, unless you are talking direct revelation, something I think any atheist would find hard to swallow, in honesty.

I tell you what why don't you be specific and then we can debate a specific issue.

If you mean God, then we can't debate it. You believe in a single being of perfection, which means it's not contradictory, only misunderstood. And I don't believe in said being. What would we debate? If you want to debate the message of God, then I can come up with plenty of examples. Your call.

If they do so they are incorrect. The character of God is not reelected perfectly by Christians. At best you could have said his word but his followers are a muddy reflection and God is not on the hook for their actions inconsistent with his character. Actually claiming God is anything and simultaneously not believing he exists is inherently contradictory. Did you view the quotes by Chesterton that started this whole line of discussion? It would help as it was his argument.

Meh...to be honest, I pretty much agree with all this. For clarification, I'll run through your points quickly.

The character of a perfect God could only ever be imperfectly followed (by anyone). Not sure about the 'God is not on the hook for their actions' part though. It's an interesting topic. In some sense, God is on the hook for EVERYTHING. But in the terms you meant it, I'm happy to concede.
And yeah, claiming God is anything, and also not believing is contradictory. But I would state that I talk about God when discussing religious topics (as I have in this post), since it's bloody hard to discuss religion without doing that. Hence my earlier point. In general terms, it is very hard for an atheist to discuss 'God' without reference to religion. It comes back to being someone who focuses on the empirical, rather than on things requiring faith.

And you are right about the original post. I didn't read it. I generally read entire threads before posting (90% I would estimate) but in this case didn't.

 

[Skeptisch]

As soon as you prove he killed without justification then I will agree.

How many has God killed?
I kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.
Deuteronomy, Chapter 32

 

[Agnostic75]

The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general.

I refer you to my new thread on atheism, and crime at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...relation-between-atheism-increased-crime.html. It shows that generally, countries that have more atheists have good societal health, not to mention that generally, countries that have good societal health are more likely to accept homosexuals, including allowing openly homosexual people to join the military, which over 20 countries do, including Britain, and Israel.

Consider the following map from Wikipedia:



The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights. Many of them have less education, and less income, including the majority of countries that are predominantly Christian.

Please make a post in the thread that I mentioned.

You said that all of macro evolution has problems. How are you in a position to make such a claim based upon your own personal knowledge of biology? You have refused to debate an expert on macro evolution since you know that you would lose the debate. Such being the case, why did you say anything at all in opposition to macro evolution since you already admitted that you do not know a lot about biology?

According to over 99% of experts, it is creationism that has lots of problems, not macro evolution.

Why should anyone trust a relative handful of creationist experts, many if not the majority of whom (for example, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis) accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory?

Even one of your own sources, Michael Behe, accepts macro evolution. Here is what he said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Since it is already a given that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old, if macro evolution is true, then at least most of the book of Genesis is not literally true. Of course, that does not bother liberal Christians.

Do you have reasonable proof that any Old Testament supernatural events happened?

I will illustrate this another way. Keep in mind reasonable faith is the criteria in theology, NOT SCIENCE.

Actually, many Christians support Christian apologetics, including your highly touted Ravi Zacharias. Consider the following from his website:

"The primary mission of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of a culture with the credibility of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Distinctive in its strong evangelistic and apologetic foundation, the ministry of RZIM is intended to touch both the heart and the intellect of the thinkers and influencers of society through the support of the visionary leadership of Ravi Zacharias."

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism, Blaise Pascal before and during the Age of Enlightenment, in the modern period through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, and in contemporary times through the work of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a branch of apologetics aimed at criticizing or attacking other belief systems, e. g. the Disputation of Barcelona at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon (July 20–24, 1263).

Please note:

"Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, just say so. If you are interested in it, then please provide historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments that supernatural events happened in the Old Testament.

Please reply to my most recent post in a thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-75.html#post3346786. It is obvious that you refused to reply to my post #688 in that thread since you know that I made some good arguments in that post. In that thread, you have shown that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality from a secular perspective, including the issue of gays in the military. You somehow believe that since thousands of servicemen who are opposed to the policy wrote a letter to the government that that qualifies as valid research when it doesn't. I have a recent thread on gays in the military at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/148424-gays-military.html.

You fancy yourself as being well-informed on many subjects, but you are not close to being an expert on any subject in Bible apologetics. You are merely an amateur hoping to impress other amateurs. Since you could not win a debate about anything with experts, if you sometimes win debates with amateurs, so what? Why should anyone be impressed with that? You do not know nearly enough about the Bible to even have some basic discussions at the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards). Some of the members there are professionals, and are fluent in New Testament Greek. Many others who are not professionals also have a good knowledge of New Testament Greek. Practically all of the regulars there have read hundreds of books that are pertinent to biblical criticism and history.

In this thread, you have said that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe, but your own sources, Vilinken, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, have not said that. Vilenkin has even said that his research does not give much of an advantage to Christians.

Since the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, why have you discussed science a lot in this thread?

 

[Skeptisch]

Agnostic75 and others who are trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasoned with, you are very much appreciated. However, do not forget that when someone is capable of posting the following s/he is pretty well beyond reason and shows an ignorance that should be offensive to anyone willing to investigate what is true:

Originally Posted by 1robin

People who practice homosexuality have higher rates of:
Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
Nicotine dependence
Depression
Suicide
Domestic violence (20 times more common than among heterosexuals)
Higher rates of child molestation*
(Nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, and homosexuals are only 3% of the population.)
Daughters of lesbian "parents" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and experience the consequences of that behavior.
In areas in which homosexual marriage has become accepted (The Netherlands and areas of Scandinavia, for example), the fundamental building block of society--the family--has fallen apart. In some of these areas as many as 80% of the children are born outside of a family.
Children of homosexual "parents" do the worst in 9 of 13 acedemic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples.

Homosexuals prey on children.
* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7)
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE."
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester (19)
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9)
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22)
* Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls.

Homosexuality Harms Society
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (16)
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are partly right on both claims so let me clarify. It is an absolute fact that the rise in secularism in the US has corresponded with a general decline in moral data.

No it isn’t. You haven’t been able to show that.
And there are a whole bunch of people debating you on this statement as we speak.

I do not claim that no one can be moral without God. I claim that morality has no objective foundation without God even theoretically possible which is why so many atheistic scholars claim morality is an illusion.

Didn’t you tell me that we all have a built-in moral conscience, but it can only be properly tuned if we have faith that god exists?

I was not debating what Christians do but what Christianity claims. For example if only the sanctity of all life made abortion illegal that would have saved a billion lives.

What good is such a claim if Christians don’t actually follow it?

If I granted (irrationally) that every case of servitude in the Bible was chattel slavery, that women can't vote, that gays can't marry, and all the people killed in the crusades, the inquisition, and the conquests combined would be a small price. Not that Christianity or God is actually on the hook for any of that.

Why wouldn’t Christianity be on the hook for the things it advocates in its holy book?

God claimed it an abomination, I think what a person claims is irrelevant but you are discussing application and I wasn't. I argue that:
1. God is the only actual basis for moral truth.
2. That Christianity is the best moral plan for an individual’s life.
3. Christianity was never intended to be a governmental institution but a personal one.

There are many sects of Christianity which do not agree with your interpretation, which highlights my point.

They absolutely are as a percentage of population. Do you still not get this? Besides the fact that a Christian acting against a Christian principle has nothing to do with the Bible or God.

Studies show that the rate of abortion in the Christian population is the same as it is in the non-Christian population, with Catholics having higher rates.

Your claim that if there were more Christianity there would be less abortion is inaccurate.

That may be but your complaint was about my motivation and was wrong. I was motivated by a common observation and (head shaking) confusion produced by the dismissal of any ultimate hope based on insufficient evidence for it and what appears to me to be primarily preference based. Let me this because unlike Pascal's wager I think it valid.

You have observed atheists and declare that they have no hope?

1. Let's take the verse:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Now history can never confirm nor deny this absolutely (however it has been spiritually confirmed by millions, this is evidence that no atheist can begin to counter but still not objective).

Atheists can counter it if they choose because that “evidence” is only evidence to the people who experienced it. Do you believe the millions of people who say they’ve been abducted by aliens? If not, then you should get what I’m saying.

Just out of curiosity, how could such a thing be confirmed by millions of people?

It would make all the sense in the world to leave the option that it is true open if possible. That is totally separate from committing your life to him but logical none the less.

Why? Should I also leave open the option that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?

You can never confirm no God exists and I can never prove he does. However allowing the evidence to be viewed in the light of hope is logical. Looking at it with a hopeless bias makes no sense. Again this is a different issue than actual faith. In that context the only potential loss is found in your viewpoint. Pascal carried it way beyond that point and was not “right” in my context. Most non-theists appear to me to have a potentially devestating assumption in search of evidence.

I don’t see how you’ve distinguished hope from faith. Why should I have hope in your claims and not in the claims of others? What makes your claims more believable than any others?

 

[1robin]

No it isn’t. You haven’t been able to show that.
And there are a whole bunch of people debating you on this statement as we speak.

I will use this as an opportunity to post statistics alone.


From 1960 to 1990 violent crime rose 560%. F.B.I. Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennett Quantifying America's Decline
The nation has tripled its prison population since 1980; opening the equivalent of 3 or more new 500 bed prisons every week.14 http://www.wrongfuldeathinstitute.com/links/prison/prisonstats.htm
·The rate of incarceration has risen from 313 per 100,000 in 1985 to 476 of every 100,000 in 1997. U.S. 14 ^
·The current prison population of over 2 million constitues a growth of over 850% in the past 30 years. 14^
http://www.wrongfuldeathinstitute.com/links/prison/prisonstats.htm
Since 1995 the number of female prisoners (6.8 percent of all prison inmates) in federal or state prison has grown 42 percent, while the number of male prisoners has increased 27 percent. U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/p02pr.htm
Between 1990 and 2000 the number of State correctional facilities increased by 351. States also added over 528,000 beds, an 81% increase. 14 Bureau of Justice Statistics; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003 (table 6.1.2004)..
·In Canada, there was a 340 percent greater incidence of violent crime over its 1965 figure, with similar rises in robbery, assault, rape and murder statistics. http://www.cchr.org/morals/return.htm
·In Canada, the rate of violent crime doubled in the '60s, increased by 30 percent in the '70s and rose another 46 percent in the '80s. "Juristat," Service Bulletin for the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, October 1990.
·Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among youths ages 15 to 20. http://whs.wsd.wednet.edu/Faculty/Lynch/sadd/statistics.html
·From 1960 to 1990 child abuse has risen from 670,000 in 1976 to nearly 3 million in the 1990s. The FBI; U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
·1987 to 1996 saw an increase of more than 50 percent in juvenile arrest for murder, possession of weapons, robbery, and aggravated assault. FBI: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1997). 1996 Uniform Crime Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.yellodyno.com/html/violent_kids_stats.html
· Between 1960 and 1990, there was a 41% decline in marriage. Larry L. Bumpass, "What's Happening to the Family? Interactions Between Demographic and Institutional Change,"
· Divorce is up 350%.in whichchildren under 18 are involved. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and Statistical Abstract of the United States.
· • Since 1960 there has been over a 400% increase in illegitimate births. The Wall Street Journal,Monday, March 15, 1993 Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennett Quantifying America's Decline
· Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers more than doubled, from 17 percent to 36 percent. http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Popenoe/nofathers.htm
· While in 1960 only 9 percent of all children lived in single-parent families (a figure that had changed little over the course of the 20th century), by 2003 the percentage had jumped to 27 percent.9The State of our unions 2004 marriage. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publications/soou/textsoou2004.htm.
· Between 1960 AND 2002, the number of unmarried couples in America – couples who are sexual partners, not married to each other, and sharing a household [otherwise known as fornicators, living in sin] – increased by over 1100 percent. ^9
· Child abuse up 2,300%. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Child Maltreatment: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.

Continued below unfortunately:

 

[1robin]

· Premarital sexual activity for girls increased over 500 percent; http://www.christianaction.org.za/media_egroups/uca_2003-04-30.htm
· Births to unmarried girls from 15-19 years of age is up 500% U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States http://www.angelfire.com/music2/fullcircle/
· • Since 1960 the percentage of babies born to unwed mothers (any age) has increased more than sixfold.9The State of our unions 2004marriage.http://marriage.rutgers.edu/publications/soou/textsoou2004.htm .
· 1960 there were 2 known Sexually Transmitted Diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea); today there are more than 25. Family Research Council: The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Epidemic:www.ccv.org/downloads/pdf/HPV-Epidemic.pdf
· Gonorrhonea (a Sexually Transmitted Disease) went up over 200 percent; http://www.christianaction.org.za/media_egroups/uca_2003-04-30.htm
· Ilegal drug usage is up 6,000% since 1960. The percent of youth who have used illegal drugs has gone from 5 to 75%. National Institute on Drug Abuse.
· Less than 1% of all Americans had used illegal drugs before 1960. The Honorable Judge Robert Ulrich Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District; http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage19.html
· Between 1960 and the early 1980s.smoking among 8th-grade girls increased 50 percent over this period, and the percentage of black 8th- and 10th-graders who smoked doubled. U.S. Health and Human Srevices; Page Not Found.
• Suicides rose for all youth 15 – 24 from 5.2 deaths per 100,00 in 1960 to 13.2 in 1988. National Center For Health Statistics. Youth Suicide Prevention Programs
• From 1960 to 1980 the suicide rate among teens has risen more than 200% (1 suicide every 17 minutes).National Center for Health Statistics. Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennett; Quantifying America's Decline
• From 1960 to 1990 violent crime rose 560%. F.B.I.Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennetthttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/usadecline.html
• Criminal Arrests of Teens from age 14-17 per 100,000 is up 150%. U.S. Department Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States.

This is just getting depressing. Countless more stats can be found here:
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/node/724
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2040
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/statistics.htm

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you actually not know what I meant? Let me restate because of meaningless technical complaints. That is what Biblical doctrine illustrates and therefore what I believe God intends.

Okay. How is that not based on your own interpretation of it?

I’m trying to point out that you’re using your own judgment, in assessing the Bible and god.

He does intend to fix it but not before it has served its purpose and our rebellion has run it's course.

Isn’t he going to “fix it” by destroying it?

If I build a house and allow in tenants that because of some legal loop hole can destroy my house but I can't evict them. Does it make sense I would continually fix it up? No I would make sure it's frame remains intact until the tenants die off or something then make it back perfect. Your question's seem a form of complaint instead of inquiry. I think you know enough doctrine to answer most of them your self.

I didn’t create the tenants of the house. I didn’t create them sick and command them to be well. I didn’t set up a situation where I knew they would fail from the get-go. If I did all of those things, I think I should bear some responsibility for it. Don’t you?

I know doctrine well enough to know it doesn’t make any sense. Hence the reason I no longer accept it.

Again an atheistic self-contradiction. One half yells too restrictive and the other yells too permissive. The only thing certain is it can't be both. One of the top ten complaints against God is his frequent and inconvenient moral injunctions so how is it you claim the polar opposite is the problem? In fact I think the most prolific concepts associated with God by all sides is first love, and the second moral constraint.

Well first of all, god could be too restrictive in one area and too permissive in another. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

The problem is this: You keep saying that god thinks slavery is wrong. And yet, your claim is directly contradicted by your god’s moral pronouncements which support the practice of slavery in the Bible. (And also by your support of, and justification for slavery during Biblical times.) That’s not an atheistic self-contradiction. It’s a contradiction between what you claim and what the Bible indicates.

That was not even in an excuse category. I have no idea what your saying. However facts are usually convenient as explanations (you know being true and all).

I’m saying it’s a silly explanation and doesn’t “explain countless moral dilemmas perfectly.” How do you think it does?

Since the Bible claims he created it and only with him is morality as truth even possible one kind of follows the other.

That’s if you believe the Bible is truth in the first place.

As you would find any similarly inconvenient explanation regardless of source or truth.

Or maybe it’s not a good explanation.

We certainly are doing a bang up job at it so far. We literally kill ourselves off on an industrial scale. If not bad enough we reason ourselves into thinking it "right" even though right makes no sense without God.

I think we’ve done a fairly decent job with plenty of work left to do, of course. We no longer have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy. We no longer have to worry about hoards of barbarians sweeping through and murdering entire villages. We no longer have to worry about being stoned to death on the outskirts of town for being disobedient to our parents or for being gay. We no longer have to worry about our children dying in mass numbers from smallpox or the common cold. We’re healthier than we have ever been, we’re living longer than we ever have, and we have better quality of life than we’ve ever had. We can go to sleep at night feeling safe and secure in our beds, and feeling that our children are safe. If you don’t think we’re better off now that at practically any time in history, I submit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Would you rather live in the dark ages? I doubt it.

Right can make sense without god. You just can’t see it because you’re so immersed in your religious dogma.

That says quite a lot. Sounds like a 60's hippy. What are you rebelling against "what do you got?" I am out of time.

What??

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[jmn]

Why would anybody worship something that advocates rape, murder, incest, slavery, genocide.

 

[Skeptisch]

Why would anybody worship something that advocates rape, murder, incest, slavery, genocide.

Some may not know what you are talking about.

“Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me. Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible.”

“So grab your Bibles and follow along all the nasty rapes that your priests and preachers don't want to tell you about. Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to "taking a wife". Don't be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to "take" these wives.”

1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick ******** killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
(Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Rape in the Bible

 

[Agnostic75]

The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general.

I refer you to my new thread on atheism, and crime at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...relation-between-atheism-increased-crime.html. It shows that generally, countries that have more atheists have good societal health, not to mention that generally, countries that have good societal health are more likely to accept homosexuals, including allowing openly homosexual people to join the military, which over 20 countries do, including Britain, and Israel.

Consider the following map from Wikipedia:



The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights. Many of them have less education, and less income, including the majority of countries that are predominantly Christian.

Please make a post in the thread that I mentioned.

You said that all of macro evolution has problems. How are you in a position to make such a claim based upon your own personal knowledge of biology? You have refused to debate an expert on macro evolution since you know that you would lose the debate. Such being the case, why did you say anything at all in opposition to macro evolution since you already admitted that you do not know a lot about biology?

According to over 99% of experts, it is creationism that has lots of problems, not macro evolution.

Why should anyone trust a relative handful of creationist experts, many if not the majority of whom (for example, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis) accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory?

Even one of your own sources, Michael Behe, accepts macro evolution. Here is what he said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Since it is already a given that a global flood did not occur, and that the earth is old, if macro evolution is true, then probably at least most of the book of Genesis is not literally true. Of course, that does not bother liberal Christians.

A website at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm shows that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have less income. The same website shows that among scientists who deal with the earth and its life forms, 99.86% accept macro evolution.

Even a localized flood in Mesopotamia does not make any sense. Who was God upset with who lived in Mesopotamia that he wanted to kill? Everyone? If so, why did he want to kill them? If they were evil, surely many evil people lived outside of Mesopotamia. Some people who would have been killed by a localized flood would have been travelers and traders from outside of Mesopotamia. Why would God have wanted to kill them? What about some residents of Mesopotamia who must have been traveling outside of Mesopotamia, and would have escaped the flood?

Neither a global flood nor a localized flood make any sense according to what the texts say. Assuming that a God inspired the original Bible, the best conclusions are that God did not inspire the flood story, and the writer made it up on his own, possibly from an innocent but inaccurate revelation, or that God inspired the story as an allegory, not as a literal event.

Do you have reasonable proof that any Old Testament supernatural events happened?

I will illustrate this another way. Keep in mind reasonable faith is the criteria in theology, NOT SCIENCE.

Actually, many Christians support Christian apologetics, including your highly touted Ravi Zacharias. Consider the following from his website:

"The primary mission of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of a culture with the credibility of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Distinctive in its strong evangelistic and apologetic foundation, the ministry of RZIM is intended to touch both the heart and the intellect of the thinkers and influencers of society through the support of the visionary leadership of Ravi Zacharias."

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism, Blaise Pascal before and during the Age of Enlightenment, in the modern period through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, and in contemporary times through the work of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a branch of apologetics aimed at criticizing or attacking other belief systems, e. g. the Disputation of Barcelona at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon (July 20–24, 1263).

Please note:

"Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, just say so. If you are interested in it, then please provide historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments that supernatural events happened in the Old Testament.

You fancy yourself as being well-informed on many subjects, but you do not know nearly enough about the Bible to even have some basic discussions at the Biblical Criticism and History forum at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board). Some of the members there are professionals, and are fluent in New Testament Greek. Many others who are not professionals also have a good knowledge of New Testament Greek. Practically all of the regulars there have read hundreds of books that are pertinent to biblical criticism and history.

In this thread, you have said that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe, but your own sources, Vilinken, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, have not said that. Vilenkin has even said that his research does not give much of an advantage to Christians.

Since the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, why have you discussed science a lot in this thread?

 

[Bobadeer]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Are you aware of virtual particles? They pop in and out of existence out of nothing. They may be 'virtual' but they do have real physical effects. Go look at the wikipedia article of 'Casimir Effect' for more info. It's not god, it's only quantum mechanics. By the way, do you know what E=mc2 means? It means Energy and Mass are the same. Yep, they are. That is why we have the atom bomb and why stars shine. Therefore, if Mass produces gravity, Energy does also, and gravity has negative energy [youtube.com/watch?v=LQL2qiPsHSQ see 00:45:38]. So if we add mass/energy + gravity, we get a net energy amount of zero because the two cancel out each other (gravity has negative energy). If the net amount of energy is zero, guess what it means : the universe has popped out into existence out of nothing. Moreover, Space and Time are indistinguishable from one of the other. They really are. The faster you move through space, the faster you move through time. Go look at the wikipedia article on 'Special Relativity' for more info. So if Space and Time are indistinguishable from one of the other and that Space itself began with the Big Bang, so therefore did Time. If Time began with the Big Bang, well there was no Time before the Big Bang. Asking what's beyond the Time before the Big Bang is like asking what's beyond the edge of the Earth, it doesn't make sense. So if there's no before the Big Bang, then there is no time available for a 1st cause to happen. It is hard to wrap your mind around it because we have evovled is such a way that identifying a first cause is mandatory for our survival. So we are incomfortable without a first cause. Well, there has to be, otherwise we're stuck in an eternal regression of first causes such as your god.