How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[AltF4]

Omniscience and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Typical Christian dogma states that god is omniscient, and bestows Free Will upon us, but this is contradictory at best.

 

[Aesir]

Omniscience implies all knowing. He knows everything even our action, so our suppose free will isn't free will.

How can we have free will if god knows what we're going to do? He has full knowledge that Adam and Eve were going to eat the fruit. It's almost like he only created us to punish us, sounds like a guy with a massive anger problem.

 

[Chaco]

EDIT: Snex, I just remembered a history altering event in the christian favor. Have you ever heard of "The Battle of Milvian Bridge" ? Well, if you haven't, it is called the Vision of Constantine and here is the Wiki article, if you want another one I will definitely get it for you. This goes back to what we were recently talking about, the vision of angels.

"It is commonly stated that on the evening of October 27, with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine had a vision which lead him to fight under the protection of the Christian God. The details of that vision, however, differ between the sources reporting it. It is believed that the sign of the cross appeared and Constantine heard "In this sign, you shall conquer" in Greek.

Lactantius states that, in the night before the battle, Constantine was commanded in a dream to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers" (de mort. pers. 44,5). He obeyed and marked the shields with a sign "denoting Christ". Lactantius describes that sign as a "staurogram", or a Latin cross with its upper end rounded in a P-like fashion. There is no certain evidence that Constantine ever used that sign, opposed to the better known chi-rho sign described by Eusebius.

From Eusebius, two accounts of the battle survive. The first, shorter one in the Ecclesiastical History leaves no doubt that God helped Constantine but doesn't mention any vision. In his later Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives a detailed account of a vision and stresses that he had heard the story from the emperor himself. According to this version, Constantine with his army was marching somewhere (Eusebius doesn't specify the actual location of the event, but it clearly isn't in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τούτωι Νίκα". The Latin translation is in hoc signo vinces — "In this (sign), conquer". At first he was unsure of the meaning of the apparition, but in the following night he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the labarum, the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the chi-rho sign."

Snex, you ignored it again so here, read this time. <.<

 

[snex]

no. i did not. YOU ignored my response. stop spamming.

 

[Chaco]

your post about constantine no more supports christianity than stories about other sects winning battles after praying supports the existence of those gods.

No, not exactly because Constantine SAW the chi-rho sign. So then he had it painted on to his shields, and they won. They had never seen this symbol until Constantine had it painted on those shields. Yet it existed in other parts of the world, and Constantine had not seen it. That's from my World History book btw.

And sorry, I hadn't seen you post, due to the other things on top of it.

 

[snex]

No, not exactly because Constantine SAW the chi-rho sign. So then he had it painted on to his shields, and they won. They had never seen this symbol until Constantine had it painted on those shields. Yet it existed in other parts of the world, and Constantine had not seen it. That's from my World History book btw.

And sorry, I hadn't seen you post, due to the other things on top of it.

chi rho is just two greek letters. they existed way before constantine and he would have known about them. and according to your own source, the entire story is hearsay anyway.

and really, think about how stupid what youre saying is. baseball players will wear the same pair of socks for the whole season. does that mean wearing the same pair of socks helps you win baseball games?

 

[Chaco]

chi rho is just two greek letters. they existed way before constantine and he would have known about them.

and really, think about how stupid what youre saying is. baseball players will wear the same pair of socks for the whole season. does that mean wearing the same pair of socks helps you win baseball games?

Chi rho is the Greek L and X, which the X is interpreted as Christ and the L is something else. But them used together, had not been used near him, because of the fact all Christians were being punished, beaten, and kept away.

Actually yes, t does, the mentality of the player is altered when they feel as if a prior success setting has been altered from the previous setting. Which makes them think if everything is not the same neither will the way I played, it really happens like that so don't say it doesn't. I know for a fact that major league players do it for that reason. Don't get into that, I've played all stars, select and the like for 10 years.

Edit: You edited on me, well not true I don't use Wiki as a valid source, I was using it for showing you the story, which is accurate since I checked my history book.

 

[snex]

im sorry but you are 100% wrong. statistics clearly show that wearing the same socks has no benefit. it is just superstition.

and your claims about the chi-rho are irrelevant. so what if he invented it? that has no bearing on anything. by the way, the chi is the "K" sound and the rho is the "R" sound.

 

[Aesir]

Constantine was well known to pray to god for victory, this was when he was first introduced to Christianity. The whole Socks thing is clearly a placebo affect.

 

[Crimson King]

Also, it's noted that Constantine fell upon Christianity as a crutch. Hence why he didn't convert until his deathbed, which is odd that he had some minor say in how the bible was edited.

The cross itself means nothing though. Don't believe me? Pray that God will save you and wear crosses all over your body, then jump off a cliff. See how that works out for you. Constantine was a well noted, and superior, strategist. He won battles because he was a capable warrior.

 

[Chaco]

Also, it's noted that Constantine fell upon Christianity as a crutch. Hence why he didn't convert until his deathbed, which is odd that he had some minor say in how the bible was edited.

The cross itself means nothing though. Don't believe me? Pray that God will save you and wear crosses all over your body, then jump off a cliff. See how that works out for you. Constantine was a well noted, and superior, strategist. He won battles because he was a capable warrior.

I heard that as well, I also heard, it was because the views of his people that he waited until his deathbed to publicly convert. I do not know which one is valid.

Yes, Constantine was an excellent strategist.

And I know that,the cross is merely a symbol of the religion not the religion itself.

I question my religion a lot and came across one that hes been going through my mind alot. All religions believe that their god is the one true God. So how do we know that ours is the one true God? And I mean, nowadays they could all be the same one. Allah=God, hence ther could have that same coorelation.

 

[pockyD]

because different religions attribute different properties to their god(s), some often contradictory

 

[Chaco]

True, your a Christian correct?

 

[snex]

tissue mentioned earlier that he thinks demons can spread false religions to people. the real question you should be asking yourself is: "how do i know my own religion is not one started by a demon to lead me away from the true god?"

assume for the sake of argument that the prophecies about jesus really are true, and jesus really did perform miracles. couldnt a demon duplicate these powers? is there *anything* you can think of that christianity has going for it that a demon couldnt be doing just to fool you?

 

[Cubemario]

I've been following this topic for a long time now. I wanted to step in to see what I could bring to the table here. So I appreciate whoever gave me the permission to.

The one big problem with this topic is that there is a big disrespect for a person's beliefs here. Throwing around insults at people just isn't right in a debate. Saying things like "get out of here with your preaching" just isn't right. I've often seen people write out really good posts and bring up some excellent points (from all sides) but it seems if they so much get so much as ONE thing incorrect, they ignore all of those excellent points and tell you your wrong/stupid/an idiot about one thing. I'm aware not everyone is doing that and i'm not going to name people. I'm just telling you that isn't debating. Give the person credit where it's due and learn from it and *gasp* maybe even admit that you were wrong!

I'm going to address the common arguments that have been brought up.

Now i've heard the pink invisible unicorn/ flying spaghetti monster before. I understand what a person is trying to say. They are saying that such things are impossible to exist in nature and don't work according to natural law. So we are to assume that god would have to be subject to the same laws as animals, meatballs and noodles. However a supernatural being would not be subject to such laws (look up the definition of supernatural) and can bend them or even break them if it wishes to. So that analogy doesn't fly.

Now to address Santa vs God. The argument is that God is just something made up from man, it was an idea to make people feel better and to have hope in dark times. This argument would be valid if we were not talking about the god of the bible. The God of the bible is not exactly something that man would come up with. God isn't something you would normally see, taste, feel or hear. He isn't something you would set in your house. God also detests a lot of things and calls them sin. He even warns us about hell. Does this sound like something every one would appeal to? No, not really. In fact if it was so appealing to man, god would be a lot more popular right now and we wouldn't even be having this debate. Bottom line, stuff made up from man is according to what they want and for their enjoyment. Which is why we have so many things like spaghetti. Nothing wrong with that food either. God is not entertaining or happy fun time at FIRST GLANCE (more on this later). I know the other side agrees. So that argument is made null.

Which brings up the age old argument of... Why would a loving god send people to hell. Or an even more personal question. Why would a loving god send ME to hell? A person who's lived a decent life, hasn't ***** anyone, murdered anyone. Why should I get the same treatment as those scumbags? What happens to people who never even heard of god, would they go to hell as well?

For one, God warns people of hell and tells you how to avoid it. It would be like me seeing a guy crossing the street and a car is coming straight at him. I couldn't get there in time to push him out of the way. I tell him to jump out of the way because I didn't want to see him get hurt or die. He chooses to ignore what I said and continues to walk and gets hit by the car and dies. Who's fault was it? I did everything I could to save him, but in the end you can't save someone who wants to be hit by that car. It was his choice to make.

The problem people have with God is that he asks a lot from us to avoid hell. Many people do not like having to quite literally give up their current life to do what god would like them to do, even if it's in their best interest and they don't know it. Another unfortunate thing is too many christians warn non-christians about hell and tell you to serve god or he'll get you. This is a fear tactic and it doesn't work and isn't what people like to hear. There are tons of benefits to walking with God and christians should be sharing that information instead. I know people don't want to hear any preaching here and I don't have to either, any of you could find those things out for yourself.

I will be answering several other good points that have been brought up here as well as some of those other questions I brought up concerning god's character and hell. I have to go right now, so i'll end the post here.

PS: I couldn't find an option about removing a signature, could anyone tell me how to do so? I don't think I had one to begin with though.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Now i've heard the pink invisible unicorn/ flying spaghetti monster before. I understand what a person is trying to say. They are saying that such things are impossible to exist in nature and don't work according to natural law. So we are to assume that god would have to be subject to the same laws as animals, meatballs and noodles. However a supernatural being would not be subject to such laws (look up the definition of supernatural) and can bend them or even break them if it wishes to. So that analogy doesn't fly.

That's not the point of the argument at all. The FSM, et al, are brought up in response to attempts to shift the burden of proof to the person that is skeptical of religion, e.g. saying "you can't DISPROVE the existence of God." While that may or may not be true, the same can be said of any other arbitrarily silly and patently unfalsifiable construct like the IPU and the FSM, and Russell's Teapot. The point is to illustrate that the burden of proof lies with theists who claim God exists, and not with those who question or reject those claims.

As Russell said:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Now to address Santa vs God. The argument is that God is just something made up from man, it was an idea to make people feel better and to have hope in dark times. This argument would be valid if we were not talking about the god of the bible. The God of the bible is not exactly something that man would come up with. God isn't something you would normally see, taste, feel or hear. He isn't something you would set in your house. God also detests a lot of things and calls them sin. He even warns us about hell. Does this sound like something every one would appeal to? No, not really. In fact if it was so appealing to man, god would be a lot more popular right now and we wouldn't even be having this debate. Bottom line, stuff made up from man is according to what they want and for their enjoyment. Which is why we have so many things like spaghetti. Nothing wrong with that food either. God is not entertaining or happy fun time at FIRST GLANCE (more on this later). I know the other side agrees. So that argument is made null.

The whole of this counter-argument is "God doesn't sound like something man could/would have made up," which is an argument from ignorance. The counter-argument is kind of a strawman in the first place though, because the idea that "God is just something made up from man" is an attempt to explain the preponderence of the belief, and not an argument against the existence of God.

For one, God warns people of hell and tells you how to avoid it. It would be like me seeing a guy crossing the street and a car is coming straight at him. I couldn't get there in time to push him out of the way. I tell him to jump out of the way because I didn't want to see him get hurt or die. He chooses to ignore what I said and continues to walk and gets hit by the car and dies. Who's fault was it? I did everything I could to save him, but in the end you can't save someone who wants to be hit by that car. It was his choice to make.

This analogy is invalid because you did not create both the car and the pedestrian with foreknowledge of this event, which is the crux of the argument. If you DID, then you ARE at fault in the same way you'd be at fault if you sent two wind-up toys at one another such that they collide and are destroyed, because you're responsible for the scenario to begin with.

 

[Cubemario]

You make some good points hyuga. Though some confusion was brought up with the whole santa claus /unicorn thing. I've seen people use the analogy in the way I addressed it before, but you used it in a different way, which is fine. I do agree that it is a silly argument to begin with, I probably should have just left it alone.

Ok so what your saying is that because god knew something bad was going to happen, he should have interfered and stopped it from happening? That would remove any sort of free will a person would have. God may know the outcome of the choices we make with free will, but if he were to interfere with every affair in our lives without our permission, I would be the first to shake my fist at him. We also would never learn from other mistakes and would always stay the same if god controlled every aspect of our lives without our say so.

God created people in his image because he wants people that are like him. God has free will just like we do and if he were to remove that right, we wouldn't be in his image at all.

 

[cF=)]

Cubemario, one post ago you made it clear that you read this thread before posting, yet you're making a mistake snex has made blatant ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE. How would you prove free will if god is omniscient, thus created the universe with knowledge of all its events?

 

[Peeze]

Omniscience and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Typical Christian dogma states that god is omniscient, and bestows Free Will upon us, but this is contradictory at best.

Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?
A meteorologist predicts(if you will) future weather events. So he causes the hurricane to come because he knows during the months of June-November hurricanes strike?

I'm seriously not following you here.
Seriously, please expound on this.

On a side note Constantine was a hypocrite. "Convert or die" is definetly not christian, no matter who does it pope, emperor, ronald mcdonald.

 

[snex]

cubemario has claimed that it is GOD who tells us how to avoid hell. but is that the case? has anybody in this thread ever been spoken to directly by god? i know i have not.

it is always other humans telling me about god. god has never told me anything himself. so when god decides to tell me something, he will know exactly what burden of proof he has to meet (he is god after all, he knows all). but until that day, when YOU HUMANS make claims, YOU HUMANS need to back them up. it is really that simple.

deep down, christians know this. that is why they talk about prophecies and miracles and such. jesus himself even said that miracles would follow the faithful so that non-believers would know that they were the real deal. ive seen no signs from cubemario or any other self-professed christian. so either jesus lied, every christian ive ever met has just as little faith as i do, or christianity is just plain wrong.

and going beyond that, even if they DID perform miraculous signs for me, i still have no way to prove that it was GOD responsible and not some evil demon trying to trick me. im sorry, but you havent addressed ANY of the points made thus far. all youve done is (poorly) critique analogies that atheists use and offer evasions as to why you cant meet the standard of proof that you yourself demand from any other claim.

Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?

im sorry, where did he say anything about CAUSATION? he didnt. he said omniscience and free will are incompatible. address THAT claim, not some wild nonsense you make up yourself.

omniscience doesnt imply causation by itself. omniscience combined with creating the universe in which you are omniscient about DOES imply causation. you programmed the guys walking in the circles, and you programmed them to do so without randomness. you caused the behavior. if you had put randomness into the system, they would have a form of free will, and you would not be able to predict their behavior.

 

[Aesir]

Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?
A meteorologist predicts(if you will) future weather events. So he causes the hurricane to come because he knows during the months of June-November hurricanes strike?

If I'm omniscient I know everything.

God is omniscient he is all knowing, by saying he gave us free will is a contradiction. By being all knowing he knows all our actions before they happen. That is the contradiction of being omniscient.

On a side note Constantine was a hypocrite. "Convert or die" is definetly not christian, no matter who does it pope, emperor, ronald mcdonald.

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

This and many other passages similar are in the bible.

 

[Peeze]

@ snex:
Who are you talking to?
If its me address my post dont sidetrack the issue, with the "you have no proof of god argument" because you are yet to provide any evidence proving god doesnt exist besides analogies(which is why i critique them) and theories.

oh btw the bible says those gifts of miracles and prophesying speaking in tongues yada yada would be done away with(1 cor13:8). but you know that was probably added in the bible centuries later just in case snex wanted to argue that point, and i have no evidence proving otherwise.

 

[snex]

prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist. seriously, do it. if you cant, i expect you to immediately start believing in him.

 

[Peeze]

If I'm omniscient I know everything.

God is omniscient he is all knowing, by saying he gave us free will is a contradiction. By being all knowing he knows all our actions before they happen. That is the contradiction of being omniscient.





This and many other passages similar are in the bible.

Sorry for double post!

Again your not proving anything by restating it. Since when is knowing the future causing the future? answer that question!
Your impling that knowing=causing.

Oh btw i said christian. That law was given to jews not christians But if you want to analyze it further very well. The law of Israel said worshipping other gods(molech, ba'al) and not the lord(yahweh, jehovah) was punishable by law. Therefore it was against the law, that wasnt convert or die, that was break the law and die. That's why it said "living among your towns" They didnt go out and kill people, it was in they're own city. Try again though


Edit: SNEX: good job addresing my post with yet again another analogy. Good debate tactic.

 

[snex]

1) you completely ignored the fact that he said nothing about CAUSATION AGAIN!

2) YOU are the one who said "disprove god." if "disprove the FSM" isnt an argument, then neither is "disprove god."

 

[Peeze]

1)( i actually had to look this up for my own good not yours) Causation: the action of causing or producing
If humans have no free will as Aesir was aruging, god CAUSES(programs whatever) you to do what he wants you to do. Causation is implied in a discussion about free will.

2)no i didnt we were at the time arguing omniscience(post#1539) then you didnot reply to the premise in my post(going against your own"how to reply" thread) and instead said i had no solid evidence proving god. i replied with you have no solid evidence disproving god.

 

[Aesir]

Sorry for double post!

Again your not proving anything by restating it. Since when is knowing the future causing the future? answer that question!
Your impling that knowing=causing.

Again no I'm not.

God knows the future so how do we have free will? If he knows what you're going to do before you do wheres the free will in that?

Oh btw i said christian. That law was given to jews not christians But if you want to analyze it further very well. The law of Israel said worshipping other gods(molech, ba'al) and not the lord(yahweh, jehovah) was punishable by law. Therefore it was against the law, that wasnt convert or die, that was break the law and die. That's why it said "living among your towns" They didnt go out and kill people, it was in they're own city. Try again though

Those laws were given by god, by worshiping another god you are to be put to death.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus didn't abolish the old law he came to reinforce it.

Don't ignore the OT it's part of Christianity.

 

[snex]

1)( i actually had to look this up for my own good not yours) Causation: the action of causing or producing
If humans have no free will as Aesir was aruging, god CAUSES(programs whatever) you to do what he wants you to do. Causation is implied in a discussion about free will.

no, this is only the case if god created them. you believe he did, but aeisir did not mention that. deal with what he did mention first.

2)no i didnt we were at the time arguing omniscience(post#1539) then you didnot reply to the premise in my post(going against your own"how to reply" thread) and instead said i had no solid evidence proving god. i replied with you have no solid evidence disproving god.

it is completely irrelevant why you said it. if you think "disprove the FSM" is a poor argument, then why did you say "disprove god?" you admit to using poor arguments but complain when you think others use them?

in essence, thats EXACTLY THE POINT of the FSM argument. "disprove the FSM" IS a poor argument. it is not a convincing way to make you believe in the FSM. yet, you still insist on making the same argument with respect to your god. the argument is not less poor when you use it. so quit being a hypocrite.

 

[Peeze]

Aesir:
I didnt ignore anything. i told you, it wasnt a matter of convert or die, it was a matter of "follow the law or die". Notice nowhere in that verse did it say those who worshipped others gods were to convert to Judaism nowhere. it said dont follow the law and your stoned.

I know your going to post a counter argument to this. therefore you have no other choice but to post a counterargument to this....according to your logic.

SNEX: i'm not trying to make you believe in god, i could care less. This is a debate room , not convert room. You said i cant prove god(poor argument) i said you cant disprove god(poor argument). But we're arguing over trivial matters....and you still havent addressed my post. Nice waffling Bush.

 

[Aesir]

Aesir:
I didnt ignore anything. i told you, it wasnt a matter of convert or die, it was a matter of "follow the law or die". Notice nowhere in that verse did it say those who worshipped others gods were to convert to Judaism nowhere. it said dont follow the law and your stoned.

You're twisting the words of the bible now, regardless if it was law, it was still "Convert or die." Don't down play this because it's not going to work.

Law or not, it's still the notion that you convert or die.

 

[Peeze]

What are you talking about? I didnt twist anything. Where did it say convert?! It said this is law. Break law this is punishment.
Did it say "make them become jew, if not stone"? thats twisting it Aesir.
It said"investigate, it they're breaking the law kill them". Stop plucking at straws Aesir, you know im right, thats why you didnt even address the 2nd point in that post.

 

[Aesir]

What are you talking about? I didnt twist anything. Where did it say convert?! It said this is law. Break law this is punishment.
Did it say "make them become jew, if not stone"? thats twisting it Aesir.
It said"investigate, it they're breaking the law kill them". Stop plucking at straws Aesir, you know im right, thats why you didnt even address the 2nd point in that post.

What second point? all you did was state I was going to post a counter argument? that's clearly obvious as this is a debate, stop playing troll.

You are twisting it because even if it's law it clearly states if someone worships another god you are to kill them. That in essence is convert or die.

I'm not even straw picking, convert or die comes from the idea that, if you're not worshiping my god then you'll die. Regardless if it's a law they're being killed for not worshiping that god. It's a similar practice to convert or die.

Christianity is just as bloody as any other monotheistic religion.

edit: Quick edit I forgot to mention this, if you want to argue on a technicality then fine it doens't say convert to Judaism or be killed. No Abrahamic text says that, however the bible does clearly state worshiping a false god in his eyes is punishable by death, which in it's self is very similar but not entirely like the "convert or die" argument. I know I have this problem of not making my ideas very easy to point out, so am I making myself clear now?

 

[Cubemario]

cubemario has claimed that it is GOD who tells us how to avoid hell. but is that the case? has anybody in this thread ever been spoken to directly by god? i know i have not.

Even if someone in this thread did, you wouldn't believe them. God speaks to us through the bible, his written word. It is much easier to understand something when it's written down, not told to you. It's hard to study something you were told, that's why we take notes in school.

it is always other humans telling me about god. god has never told me anything himself. so when god decides to tell me something, he will know exactly what burden of proof he has to meet (he is god after all, he knows all). but until that day, when YOU HUMANS make claims, YOU HUMANS need to back them up. it is really that simple.

If you go by that logic, then I guess you shouldn't believe a word anyone says. I'm sure you hold that burden of proof to every single person you meet, see on the TV, every book you read. Or how about the food you eat, you gotta know everything that's in it right?

I would also like to see the burden of proof when it comes to scientists. Give me proof of their credentials. Give me proof that the results of their experiments are totally unbiased and that there isn't a single possibility they have left some information out in their reports. After all, many people are dishonest, scientists have the same capacity for it as anyone else does.

Therefore, I can't take ANYTHING a scientist would say as true, he is HUMAN after all.

Go to the right places and you'll see miracles. Of course it's your choice to believe them or not. Even several people in the bible thought that jesus' miracles were done through satan. Jesus actually responds to this and provides the explanation. The bible explains itself better than most people would have you think.

The whole argument your making is that because god designed us to have free will, he's responsible for everything wrong because were allowed to make our own choices, which is apparently a flawed concept in your mind. Do you not understand what free will means?

The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions; The doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces

Honestly, i'm not even sure why this needs to be discussed, free will is a very easy concept to grasp. Does god somehow make us do stuff were not supposed to do? It seems your very strong in your belief that god doesn't exist. I guess it isn't possible at all to believe otherwise, I guess you have no choice in the matter. So I guess you can't decide to get out of bed tomorrow. No free will right?

Also snex, it seems like your not even trying to debate at all. You just get on your soap box and tell us your experiences and how you've never seen this and that. It's pretty easy to dismiss everything I say when you can just draw from your own experiences. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences around christians. I really am. Though perhaps you should get off the soap box and stop drawing everything from a personal experience and taking it as fact.

Perhaps this topic should be closed down, I see no fruit bearing from this. The only one who can actually be polite is hyuga.

 

[RDK]

Even if someone in this thread did, you wouldn't believe them. God speaks to us through the bible, his written word. It is much easier to understand something when it's written down, not told to you. It's hard to study something you were told, that's why we take notes in school.

Whether or not a form of communication is preferable to people is subjective. I don't even know why you're making this point.

If you go by that logic, then I guess you shouldn't believe a word anyone says. I'm sure you hold that burden of proof to every single person you meet, see on the TV, every book you read. Or how about the food you eat, you gotta know everything that's in it right?

Basically, yes. If I think a food is going to be detrimental to my health, I'll research it.

You're telling me you believe every moron that says something on TV? Discerning facts from nonfacts is part of being an intelligent person. I wouldn't be surprised if this system is foreign to you.

I would also like to see the burden of proof when it comes to scientists. Give me proof of their credentials. Give me proof that the results of their experiments are totally unbiased and that there isn't a single possibility they have left some information out in their reports. After all, many people are dishonest, scientists have the same capacity for it as anyone else does.

There are many cases of scientists being dishonest. Everyone has the capacity for greed, and as a scientist, you're often in a situation to take advantage of that.

But you can't honestly believe that 100% of all scientists should be questioned. Scientists aren't just some Joe Blows hidden away in their basements by themselves, conducting faulty experiments. A lot of times it's a team of people working on a single project.

As far as credentials go, that's self-evident. If you're just some idiot in college, your word is going to be taken a lot less seriously than a distinguished professor with a PhD and a record of accomplishments.

Go to the right places and you'll see miracles. Of course it's your choice to believe them or not. Even several people in the bible thought that jesus' miracles were done through satan. Jesus actually responds to this and provides the explanation. The bible explains itself better than most people would have you think.

Go to the right places to see miracles? WTF? That's like saying "Go to the right places and you'll see that God doesn't exist". Possibly the biggest, most vague cop-out statement I've heard yet.

The whole argument your making is that because god designed us to have free will, he's responsible for everything wrong because were allowed to make our own choices, which is apparently a flawed concept in your mind. Do you not understand what free will means?

The concept of free will is negligible when you actually think about what free will is. With free will comes the capacity to sin, or "cause grievance against God". God defines this as punishable by being thrown into Hell. By being omniscient, God knew that humanity would royally **** up, no? Then he basically doomed his creation. Doesn't sound like an all-loving God to me. In fact, it sounds like basically every other religion out there. Christianity was so obviously made up by men it's astounding that you guys don't see it.

The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions; The doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces

People are a product of our environment. External forces are what make us who we are (our experiences, etc.). But that's beside the point. You keep dodging the real issue at hand. Apparently God is the ultimate source of everything. Sin had to come somewhere.

Honestly, i'm not even sure why this needs to be discussed, free will is a very easy concept to grasp. Does god somehow make us do stuff were not supposed to do? It seems your very strong in your belief that god doesn't exist. I guess it isn't possible at all to believe otherwise, I guess you have no choice in the matter. So I guess you can't decide to get out of bed tomorrow. No free will right?

Define what you mean by "free will" first, because you flip flop on the actual meaning of it in every single one of your posts.

Also snex, it seems like your not even trying to debate at all. You just get on your soap box and tell us your experiences and how you've never seen this and that. It's pretty easy to dismiss everything I say when you can just draw from your own experiences. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences around christians. I really am. Though perhaps you should get off the soap box and stop drawing everything from a personal experience and taking it as fact.

The burden of proof is on YOU, the believer. If you're so convinced that God exists, show us some of your experiences with him instead of writing it off as it can only be experienced personally. You must have something beyond a reasonable doubt, or you wouldn't believe it so vehemently. Although I doubt it.

Perhaps this topic should be closed down, I see no fruit bearing from this. The only one who can actually be polite is hyuga.

Because you're not the first person to come in here spouting off these arguments. They're terrible arguments. If there was some way to transfter everything that knowledgeable people know about the subject and pass it on to Christians, I'd do it, because the majority of Christians are agonizingly dumb on the subject matter. They don't even take the time to research topics; they just take whatever their superiors give them as fact.

 

[Cubemario]

God provided a way out of hell and doom, his name is jesus. He even warns us well in advance of hell and tells how how to avoid it. That is as pure as love can get. Honestly, how can you not know this? Hell is a needed so we don't have people like hitler in heaven.

"But you can't honestly believe that 100% of all scientists should be questioned."

You missed my whole point. That's what your saying about christians, you question every single one. The same thing could be said about anyone, including scientists, that is my point.

Free will means to be in control of our own actions and not anyone else.

I'm still waiting for your burden of proof too. Seriously. Must christians be attacked and targeted here? Do we have a sign on our forehead that says ignore everything I say and tell me to prove it? Change the topic title to this

ITT We attack christians

I have plenty of experiences I would share. The thing is, you wouldn't believe them! So why waste my time? My experiences still have no burden of proof in your eyes because you won't take anything I say as truth! What a great way to debate!

 

[Deleted member]

Cubemario - calm down.

They are asking you for proof. They are not attacking you. It's a debate, if you feel attacked then step out of the room. The most significant thing to remember is that you are begging the question when you use the Bible as proof of itself. It's a tough subject, but you're going about it completely the wrong way.

Just remember - when you say that the Christian God does something, you are required to either give proof that is:

a) Repeatable

b) Documentable

and c) Not the Bible

Do that, or choose a different route of attack. Your beliefs aren't arguments, so don't try to use them as such.

Good luck, no johns.

 

[Cubemario]

It's hard to calm down when everyone else doesn't have to prove everything they use as a counter argument. Having it only apply to the christian in this thread is unfair and gives the christian no room for debate. Which is why I view it as an attack because the christian is simply being cornered.

I'm sorry, i've seen several proofs in my life for what I believe. The problem is that the media never cover these things, none of these things are taught in school, and unless someone were to go to the proper church, do a lot of HONEST research from several viewpoints, or take a leap of faith themselves, they would never know about what I know.

There is nothing to fall back on but the bible and personal experience. Though of course the bible isn't considered a credible source by many. It wouldn't be considered credible unless you had personal experiences that verify it.

Shouldn't we debate things that can actually be resolved? There's no winning or losing here. Seems like i'm going to have to take a step back here. All i'm getting from this topic are insults and immature responses.

 

[Deleted member]

Again, no johns. I've gained tons from this debate. Calling it fruitless is a cop-out.

This thread is not solely about Christians. As you know already - you PM'd me rooting me on - I argued fairly well (I hope) against the rampant atheism in the debate hall for a good period of time. When you call the opposing side's points attacks, you're blatantly admitting defeat. Doing so is again a cop-out.

But let's backtrack here - you're new to this, we can tell.

You're willing to admit that the Bible is not a credible source. Great.

You have empirical evidence that proves God for yourself. Great. No problems here. Most people are jealous of you.

That's it, basically. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Lord knows I want atheism as a whole gone, but that's not going to happen. Your best bet is to stick to debating without begging the question, ie: using the Bible as proof of itself.

 

[Cubemario]

I don't know what a john is >_>

Well I didn't fully explain myself. I believe the bible to be a credible source. This is because i've had personal experiences that verify it. Obviously most people who read the bible won't believe it because they just don't have the experiences i've had. So in my opinion it is a very credible source.

I would explain it all, but I would think I would be wasting my breath. It seems most of the people here aren't interested in my experiences and are just looking for a way to shout me down again. I would be happy to share them in private however.

I personally don't think I can handle the heat. I'll see how this plays out though. I have until july 2nd anyway.

 

[GhostAnime]

any way for you to prove the bible credible without silly personal experiences?