What counts as evidence for God?

[Whia]

If God exists he is a necessary being because it is logically impossible to be by chance.

You need to demonstrate this. You can't just define god as necessarily existing and use that as a premise for your argument.

Because the universe would be a creation of God, the universe is by chance.

This a non-sequitur. I think. I'm not even 100% what that sentence means.

These devices existed by chance

You need to demonstrate this.

The existence of one being is necessary to the existence of another, but one being must always exist and cause the existence of other entities.

You need to demonstrate this. Matter of fact, should abiogenesis ever be fully vindicated, that'll turn your assertion from a merely unsupported one into an outright false one.

That paragraph was explaining why the necessary entity exists, since without the necessary entity nothing would exist because nothing can come from nothing.

Nobody asserts that nothing came from nothing. A true physical nothingness is not purported to have ever existed.

 

[Sehnsucht]

If God exists he is a necessary being because it is logically impossible to be by chance. Because the universe would be a creation of God, the universe is by chance. It is a coincidence as it exists the way it is now because the conditions and devices existed. These devices existed by chance therefore making it a coincidence that the universe is the way it is now.

I think your syntax is off, because this is a bit difficult to sort out.

Either way, it's clear you're talking about chance and randomness in regards to our universe. I don't see it as necessarily coincidental that things are the way they are.

If you roll a six-sided die, it is certainly possible to land on a 1 over any of the other sides. To find that amazing, or so coincidental as to be miraculous? Well, if that's how one feels, then by all means. I can't say I find it very much surprising at all, that our universe landed on a 1 (or whatever other number) as opposed to some other. The dice was rolled***, and now we're here. Cue the confetti.

Within our space and time, we see that things are not coincidental. Not entirely, anyway Things occur as per forces and principles, molded by whatever prior conditions are in place at the time. The extent to which these forces constrain what outcomes can occur is a discussion for some other thread (e.g. free-will and determinism).

Not sure why we would suppose the inception of our space-time is exempt from these principles of probability, causation, conditions, and so forth -- let alone why God, or at least a "necessary being", is the only and/or most probable explanation

***But whom rolled the dice, Sehnsucht? To which I say that question misses the point of the analogy. It's about probability and outcome.

The existence of one being is necessary to the existence of another, but one being must always exist and cause the existence of other entities. That paragraph was explaining why the necessary entity exists, since without the necessary entity nothing would exist because nothing can come from nothing.

We can all agree that there is bound to be some fundamental principle that grounds everything, be it our single universe or a multiverse or an infinity of realities or whatever else. An ontological bedrock. Something uncaused, but from which all things are ultimately caused.

If you want to call this bedrock "God", by all means. You can call it whatever you want. I'll call it "Jambalaya." One name is as good as any other for this "necessary principle".

But if by "God", you furthermore mean an actual being or person, then there's something to be discussed. We can have a necessary principle, but why does it have to be a necessary being? Why suppose such a thing has properties of agency, intent, self-awareness, and/or other qualities associated with being and personhood? How does one jump from "That Which Grounds" to "He/She/It That Grounds"?

The supposition that Jambalaya needs to be a person is what always bugged me regarding the Cosmological Argument (and other variants thereof; your own argument above is a variant of these kinds of apologetic argumentation). I can't recall if I've ever encountered a presentation of these arguments in which the presenter justified why this "Prime Mover" is a being instead of something else.

What further befuddles, of course, is when not only is it proposed this necessary thingamajig is a being, but that we should worship/venerate/etc. this being, or that this being wants those things of us. Is this something you would propose, or that you yourself believe?

 

[TUMM11]

These devices exist and correspond in a way that allows the universe to function.


If everything at one point did not exist, then that means there was a point in which nothing existed yet they exist now. This means that there must be a necessary being that has always existed and will never cease to exist that created life, showing that there is only one God. If multiple gods are creations of other gods, or one God, then they can truly not be gods as they are creations of a higher entity.


I believe in God but I do not believe in the Bible, let alone believe Jesus was God. To my religion, God is formless, shapeless, and colorless and was never born, always existing and eternal. Jesus was born, and in human form. Jesus never said he was God and he explicitly said that God is greater than him and to pray to the Creator not him. Misinterpretations and mistranslations can often lead to a large demographic not knowing their religion accurately. Jesus was a prophet not God.

You can't be leave in God without believing in the Bible. (This is only meant for MeantalDaemon)

 

[Foxus]

The claim that "God can only exist if science proves it" I find unorthodox. Some things in this world cannot be unexplained, and this topic makes it so fascinating when I read these stories about near death experiences. Neuroscience tries to find some type of explanation for that, but I don't think there's an explanation to be had.

 

[Murlough]

You can't be leave in God without believing in the Bible. (This is only meant for MeantalDaemon)

Yes he can. He can believe in whatever he wants. He can believe in a god seperate from the Christian god as well.

 

[Whia]

The claim that "God can only exist if science proves it" I find unorthodox. Some things in this world cannot be unexplained, and this topic makes it so fascinating when I read these stories about near death experiences. Neuroscience tries to find some type of explanation for that, but I don't think there's an explanation to be had.

God of the gaps fallacy.

 

[Powerman293]

Maybe there is some all knowing being out there but we haven't met/seen it yet? I mean, the universe is big, and there are potentially other universes as well and god knows what else out there. We have barely left our own planet, and the observable universe is only getting bigger, so what does that say about what we can definitively say about our universe? It'd be like saying you know a national government doesn't exist just because you are standing on top of a skyscraper and watching the people and cars. Sure, you can tell a lot from watching the patterns and interactions of people, but to find out for yourself, you have to go down there and ask somebody.

 

[Deleted member]

You need to demonstrate this. You can't just define god as necessarily existing and use that as a premise for your argument.

This is the fallacy of my argument. As I said in my first post in this thread, there is no hard evidence that God exists. Only theoretical.

But if by "God", you furthermore mean an actual being or person, then there's something to be discussed. We can have a necessary principle, but why does it have to be a necessary being? Why suppose such a thing has properties of agency, intent, self-awareness, and/or other qualities associated with being and personhood? How does one jump from "That Which Grounds" to "He/She/It That Grounds"?

Simply put, it doesn't need to. It is possible for it to be a being but there is no solid evidence that it is a being.

What further befuddles, of course, is when not only is it proposed this necessary thingamajig is a being, but that we should worship/venerate/etc. this being, or that this being wants those things of us. Is this something you would propose, or that you yourself believe?

Believe.

You can't be leave in God without believing in the Bible. (This is only meant for MeantalDaemon)

Yes you can. Many monotheistic religion believe in God but not necessarily the Bible. The Bible itself says to believe in God not to be Christian or literally go to hell.

 

[Pikmin-ism42]

You can't be leave in God without believing in the Bible. (This is only meant for MeantalDaemon)

That's called intolerance.

 

[Foxus]

You also can't believe in God without believing in Satan (whom was a fallen angel). Ironic, I know.

 

[Deleted member]

You also can't believe in God without believing in Satan (whom was a fallen angel). Ironic, I know.

Not necessarily. Belief of God doesn't have much of a correlation with the belief of Satan.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Maybe there is some all knowing being out there but we haven't met/seen it yet? I mean, the universe is big, and there are potentially other universes as well and god knows what else out there. We have barely left our own planet, and the observable universe is only getting bigger, so what does that say about what we can definitively say about our universe? It'd be like saying you know a national government doesn't exist just because you are standing on top of a skyscraper and watching the people and cars. Sure, you can tell a lot from watching the patterns and interactions of people, but to find out for yourself, you have to go down there and ask somebody.

As fun as speculation might be, it's hard to go any further without anything more to act upon (e.g. experience, evidence, etc.).

As a result, possibility isn't very compelling as an actual argument. "God, or something like God, could exist in principle, ergo we should believe in the existence of God". You can substitute "God" with "Blorpnorks", and it would still amount to the same thing.

(Full disclosure: I believe in the existence of Blorpnorks)

 

[Powerman293]

As fun as speculation might be, it's hard to go any further without anything more to act upon (e.g. experience, evidence, etc.).

As a result, possibility isn't very compelling as an actual argument. "God, or something like God, could exist in principle, ergo we should believe in the existence of God". You can substitute "God" with "Blorpnorks", and it would still amount to the same thing.
(Full disclosure: I believe in the existence of Blorpnorks)

I'm not saying the possibility does prove its existence, but it doesn't disprove it either.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I'm not saying the possibility does prove its existence, but it doesn't disprove it either.

Precisely.

Which is why it isn't a very productive approach to the whole God debate. If we don't have something to tip the scale one way or another, we're better off just chillin' like villains and reconvening when someone finds something actionable.

 

[Powerman293]

Precisely.

Which is why it isn't a very productive approach to the whole God debate. If we don't have something to tip the scale one way or another, we're better off just chillin' like villains and reconvening when someone finds something actionable.

It's like what Etika said about Shovel Knight being a potential Smash Bros character "All of the positives Shovel Knight has, just make his stance neutral."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Once again I say, READ THE BIBLE.

I did. I also read spiderman, but I am under no delusions that Spiderman exists. The bible is a book filled with historical events and fantastical stories. It is not proof of any particular god.

I ask you this Budget Player Cadet_

What do do you think created the universe?

I don't know. I don't even know if that's the right question to ask, honestly - it could be that the universe wasn't created, and that it just is. Modern physics is still grappling with this problem. So I don't really have a good answer for you. Why do you ask? And what does this have to do with the thread topic? Please be explicit in your logic.

Plus, if there is no god, then what is the purpose of the human race?

I don't know. Again, I don't even know if that's the right question to ask. Whether we as a species have any purpose, or whether we each must individually search for a purpose, I don't know. I personally don't see any particular need for a purpose beyond "life is fun". Why do you ask? What does this have to do with the thread topic?

If you believe in the Big Bang theory and there is no existence of God, then how what was before the Big Bang theory, and what happens before that?

I don't know. I don't even know if that's the right question - if time began with the big bang as many people hypothesize, then saying "before the big bang" is like saying "less than zero apples" or "north of the north pole" - it doesn't make any sense. Fundamentally, you're trying to apply causation to a field where causation is known to break down.

And in the begining there was nothing except God. God is the infinite what is and was and what is to come. And the only reason I am still posting on this thread is because my God( the Father,Son, and Holly Spirit) is because I am trying to show you his magnificent creation and I am trying to tell you that the anti-crossy is comming and when this Earth dies I want to know that you all have been saved from the pit of HELL.

...Anti-crossy. That might be my favorite euphemism ever. :D

That said, if you want to posit your specific God as some "first cause", it is up to you to provide positive evidence that that is the case. And appealing to hell isn't going to scare non-believers. You might as well say that Santa won't bring us gifts if we don't stop saying nasty things about god. Oh, speaking of nasty things about god, ever read Exodus 21?

The claim that "God can only exist if science proves it" I find unorthodox. Some things in this world cannot be unexplained, and this topic makes it so fascinating when I read these stories about near death experiences. Neuroscience tries to find some type of explanation for that, but I don't think there's an explanation to be had.

The problem here is that if something cannot be explained, it cannot be explained. It doesn't mean that some random answer "wins by default". Although neuroscience actually has a pretty strong explanation of NDEs - they're caused by anoxia as your brain struggles for oxygen, and hallucinations.

 

[TUMM11]

There is no proof that God exists, an there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[Whia]

There is no proof that God exists, an there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

Depends on how god is defined. God can be defined in such a broad, nebulous way so as to essentially be imperceptible, in which case, no, such a god concept couldn't be disproven. But the more rigid and full the definition, the more room for falsification there is, i.e. if god is defined in such a way wherein it has a set of internally contradictory or logically incoherent attributes (both perfectly just and perfectly merciful, for example), or is purported to manifest itself in reality in some demonstrable way (prayer, miracles, etc) yet doesn't. Such a god can in fact be disproven.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ TUMM11 Look, it's fine that you have faith, but faith alone isn't going to win a debate. If you want to debate successfully, you're going to need to use a better argument than "Because the Bible said so", or "You just need to believe". You and many others believe God exist, and that's fine, but how do we know he does? Can you prove it? Using the bible as a historical source to back up your argument is no different than someone using a book in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series to argue that dragons once flew over the skies, or Westeros was where England is today.

You can't expect people to take your word for anything, and you can't use an old book that actually has different versions of itself as proof. You'll need to provide something that can actually be measured, and so far, nothing that can prove God's existence exists. Yes, his existence can't be disproven either, but as of now, unless his existence can be proven, those without faith will always lean toward a God not existing, and there's nothing you can do to change their mindset.

The only ones who know for sure are those who have already died, and as the saying goes, dead men tell no tales. If all you're going to do is use arguments, like "Just believe", or "The bible said this and this happened", without anything solid to back those up, then perhaps the Debate Hall isn't the best place for you in the forums... or at the very least, this thread in particular.

EDIT: This was originally meant for TUMM11, not MentalDaemon. Carry on.

 

[Deleted member]

@MentalDaemon Look, it's fine that you have faith, but faith alone isn't going to win a debate. If you want to debate successfully, you're going to need to use a better argument than "Because the Bible said so", or "You just need to believe". You and many others believe God exist, and that's fine, but how do we know he does? Can you prove it? Using the bible as a historical source to back up your argument is no different than someone using a book in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series to argue that dragons once flew over the skies, or Westeros was where England is today.

You can't expect people to take your word for anything, and you can't use an old book that actually has different versions of itself as proof. You'll need to provide something that can actually be measured, and so far, nothing that can prove God's existence exists. Yes, his existence can't be disproven either, but as of now, unless his existence can be proven, those without faith will always lean toward a God not existing, and there's nothing you can do to change their mindset.

The only ones who know for sure are those who have already died, and as the saying goes, dead men tell no tales. If all you're going to do is use arguments, like "Just believe", or "The bible said this and this happened", without anything solid to back those up, then perhaps the Debate Hall isn't the best place for you in the forums... or at the very least, this thread in particular.

I have not used the Bible as the source of my argument. If anything, I was against it being a legitimate source and I myself said that I do not believe it. Perhaps you should not assume that everyone who has faith in God will use the Bible as a verifiable source of evidence. I was consistently using logic and theoretical evidence as opposed to citing the Bible.

I blatantly said that there is no solid evidence that God exists, but that there is theoretical evidence that God can exist but it does not prove that God does exist.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I have not used the Bible as the source of my argument. If anything, I was against it being a legitimate source and I myself said that I do not believe it. Perhaps you should not assume that everyone who has faith in God will use the Bible as a verifiable source of evidence. I was consistently using logic and theoretical evidence as opposed to citing the Bible.

I blatantly said that there is no solid evidence that God exists, but that there is theoretical evidence that God can exist but it does not prove that God does exist.

Read my edit in my last post. You were likely looking at the page as I made the edit. At least I know you're quite quick with a response.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There is no proof that God exists, an there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

There is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Claire Diviner]

There is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Seriously? You're going to use that kind of blaspheming? Everyone knows it's the Flying Pizza Monster. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a term used to insult the holy circle of deliciousness, because some people prefer pasta over pizza.

 

[M15t3R E]

Arguably the touchiest debate of all time and actually my strong suit. I know more about the Bible and Jesus's teachings than most Christians do even though I don't identify as Christian.
Think logically. Anything that could only necessarily be explained by a God could count as evidence for said God. Why? Because something totally irrational could occur but it could always be chalked up to the unknown of modern science today. Arguments from ignorance argue for the ignorance of the presenter rather than for a God. The ancient Greeks and Romans thought it was their gods' personal intervention causing the apparent (not actual) rotation of the sun and thunderstorms. Now we know better.
Literally what would need to happen is that God himself would need to come down and introduce himself to us personally. If God is omniscient, he already knows this but refuses to do so on Earth. So my take on this is that if said God exists, he's not too concerned about our awareness of him/her. This would also follow with the line of reasoning that he/she is all-loving and perfect. A jealous god can't be a good god, unless you believe in the whimsical polytheistic deities.
P.S. You're all gonna burn in the flaming marinara sauce of hell unless you let His noodly appendage touch your life.

 

[GenNyan]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[Pikmin-ism42]

Oi mate, I already quoted that.

 

[GenNyan]

Oi mate, I already quoted that.

Sry m8, its a long thread and I only read the last 2 pages.

You can't expect people to take your word for anything, and you can't use an old book that actually has different versions of itself as proof. You'll need to provide something that can actually be measured, and so far, nothing that can prove God's existence exists. Yes, his existence can't be disproven either, but as of now, unless his existence can be proven, those without faith will always lean toward a God not existing, and there's nothing you can do to change their mindset.

The bible is actually amazingly well preserved in fact. Ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

I'll just say that all science depends on faith in some measure, (ex. You can't prove that your eyes are showing you reliable information). Science can't actually exist without faith, and neither can the big guy. The big bang theory cannot be proven/disproven either, since its impossible to go back in time and look, however it is generally accepted because it makes fewer assumptions than any other theory (Occam's razor).

Not trying to convert you/anyone or any BS like that, just showing a different mindset.

There is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Ehhhh, for that you can simply wait. I don't know if they put an ETA on the world's destruction though. Waiting was one of the most popular strategies for determining if a prophet was worth his salt thousands of years ago.

 

[M15t3R E]

Sry m8, its a long thread and I only read the last 2 pages.




The bible is actually amazingly well preserved in fact. Ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

I'll just say that all science depends on faith in some measure, (ex. You can't prove that your eyes are showing you reliable information). Science can't actually exist without faith, and neither can the big guy. The big bang theory cannot be proven/disproven either, since its impossible to go back in time and look, however it is generally accepted because it makes fewer assumptions than any other theory (Occam's razor).

Not trying to convert you/anyone or any BS like that, just showing a different mindset.




Ehhhh, for that you can simply wait. I don't know if they put an ETA on the world's destruction though. Waiting was one of the most popular strategies for determining if a prophet was worth his salt thousands of years ago.

Science relies on the observable world and on demonstration. Religious faith relies on an old book and believe 'just because'.
Btw, the dead sea scrolls doesn't help the case. It states that God is one of many. Look into it. It's from before the Jews decided upon monotheism.

 

[GenNyan]

Science relies on the observable world and on demonstration. Religious faith relies on an old book and believe 'just because'.
Btw, the dead sea scrolls doesn't help the case. It states that God is one of many. Look into it. It's from before the Jews decided upon monotheism.

The world is only observable because we have faith that it is. Science and religion aren't polar opposites like many people claim they are. You seem to have a somewhat narrow view of religion, but many religions don't believe in any sacred texts (Read: Deists). Religious faith can exist in many forms.

The dead sea scrolls are an interesting topic because they have exact biblical passages as they appear today, along with works of other cultures.

"The majority of the texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are non-biblical in nature and were thought to be insignificant for understanding the composition or canonization of the Biblical books, but a different consensus has emerged which sees many of these works as being collected by the Essene community instead of being composed by them. Scholars now recognize that some of these s were composed earlier than the Essene period, when some of the Biblical books were still being written or redacted into their final form."

1. Nóra Dávid; Armin Lange; Kristin De Troyer; Shani Tzoref (2012). The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-3-525-53555-4. Retrieved 16 March 2013.

And regardless of the dead sea scrolls, it is well known and accepted by historians that the Jewish people were monotheistic long before the 2nd century B.C.E., when the scrolls were found. So I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that.

 

[M15t3R E]

The world is only observable because we have faith that it is. Science and religion aren't polar opposites like many people claim they are. You seem to have a somewhat narrow view of religion, but many religions don't believe in any sacred texts (Read: Deists). Religious faith can exist in many forms.

The dead sea scrolls are an interesting topic because they have exact biblical passages as they appear today, along with works of other cultures.

"The majority of the texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are non-biblical in nature and were thought to be insignificant for understanding the composition or canonization of the Biblical books, but a different consensus has emerged which sees many of these works as being collected by the Essene community instead of being composed by them. Scholars now recognize that some of these s were composed earlier than the Essene period, when some of the Biblical books were still being written or redacted into their final form."

1. Nóra Dávid; Armin Lange; Kristin De Troyer; Shani Tzoref (2012). The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-3-525-53555-4. Retrieved 16 March 2013.

And regardless of the dead sea scrolls, it is well known and accepted by historians that the Jewish people were monotheistic long before the 2nd century B.C.E., when the scrolls were found. So I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that.

You're speaking solipsistic nonsense. Accepting that we aren't in a dream world has to be the starting point for everything else, the concept of a deity does not.
And I said religious faith. Deists have no religious faith because they have no religion as they aren't even theists. Got it?
You haven't really looked into the lore that the dead sea scrolls contain, have you? Google "dead sea scrolls polytheism". Have a good day.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The world is only observable because we have faith that it is.

I'll just say that all science depends on faith in some measure, (ex. You can't prove that your eyes are showing you reliable information). Science can't actually exist without faith, and neither can the big guy. [...]

Not trying to convert you/anyone or any BS like that, just showing a different mindset.

It's a phenomenally poor philosophical mindset.

Fundamentally, we must make certain assumptions about reality in order to function. "My senses at offer me at least partially accurate data" is one such assumption. "the laws of logic work" is another. However, to conflate these basal assumptions with faith in a deity is, to put it mildly, nutterbutters. If your defense of faith in god is an appeal to solipsism, then I feel entirely justified in saying that you don't really have much of an argument. Even if we assume that empiricism (not science, science is derivative) depends on faith in the same way god does, you need empiricism to be able to make any statements about the reality around you, whether or not you presuppose the existence of a god. God is an additional entity that must be presumed, and may fall victim to Occam's razor.

The big bang theory cannot be proven/disproven either, since its impossible to go back in time and look

What a bizarre contradiction. You just got done telling us that we cannot prove that our eyes show us reliable information, and here you are saying that the big bang theory could be proven by direct observation.

Of course, we can observe the big bang. The present is the key to the past, and much like we can justifiably convict a man of murder without having witnessed the crime, we can piece together evidence which points to an undeniable conclusion. It's not just "generally accepted because it makes fewer assumptions than any other theory"; no matter what model replaces it, it will necessarily look like the big bang model because it necessarily must account for the expansion of the universe, the microwave background radiation, and numerous other repeatable observations that went into building the big bang model.

 

[M15t3R E]

When someone asks the question that is the title of this thread, I think of the scene in The Avengers in which Loki comes to Earth and displays his power and makes all but a couple of dissenters bow before him.
God would need to appear before us like that... but hopefully in a peaceful manner.

 

[Sucumbio]

Technically God did that already (if you believe dogma). And when he comes again, it will be the "end of days." (again, if you buy into that). That's why the Bible is purported to be proof because it recounts the times in which God came to Earth in the form of Jesus.

 

[M15t3R E]

Technically God did that already (if you believe dogma). And when he comes again, it will be the "end of days." (again, if you buy into that). That's why the Bible is purported to be proof because it recounts the times in which God came to Earth in the form of Jesus.

The problem with accepting this dogma at face value can be summarized by the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Then, anyone with internet access (i.e. all of us here) can google the contradictions found within the books of the New Testament such as how the accounts of the miracles differed, people Jesus met, and even some relatively trivial events leading up to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.
Or... one can use logic and deduce that there's no reason an omnipotent deity would need to humanize himself and have himself killed in order to allow himself to forgive humanity for conducting themselves in the fashion that he knew they would and designed them to act, given that he is omniscient.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well to be fair God need not justify his actions least of all one such as seemingly convoluted as the Holy Trinity, or the sacrifice of Jesus. But even still there are those authorized to make those explanations available. Who also will provide reasons for the various discrepancies you mention. Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against, just pointing out the issues I see with the floor's current against argument.

 

[M15t3R E]

And I see people who have the dubious honor of being God's mouthpiece because they understand God's will as ordinary people like you and I.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Technically God did that already (if you believe dogma). And when he comes again, it will be the "end of days." (again, if you buy into that). That's why the Bible is purported to be proof because it recounts the times in which God came to Earth in the form of Jesus.

The problem here is that we're talking about a God who knows everything, and who as a result must understand that stories handed down over generations necessarily become more and more unbelievable as time goes by, and that a great number of such stories, stories which cannot all be true, will exist. If that God believed that one such event a long time in the past with no tangible evidence would be good enough, then that God was irreparably stupid.

In fact, the dilemma is really fairly straightforward. I don't know what would convince me of any specific deity. What I do know is that anything worthy of calling itself "God" would know. If God wanted me to know about him, then I would know about him. So one of two things is going on: either God doesn't want me to know, in which case he is cruel and sadistic for sending me to hell for this, or God doesn't exist.

 

[M15t3R E]

The problem here is that we're talking about a God who knows everything, and who as a result must understand that stories handed down over generations necessarily become more and more unbelievable as time goes by, and that a great number of such stories, stories which cannot all be true, will exist. If that God believed that one such event a long time in the past with no tangible evidence would be good enough, then that God was irreparably stupid.

In fact, the dilemma is really fairly straightforward. I don't know what would convince me of any specific deity. What I do know is that anything worthy of calling itself "God" would know. If God wanted me to know about him, then I would know about him. So one of two things is going on: either God doesn't want me to know, in which case he is cruel and sadistic for sending me to hell for this, or God doesn't exist.

Or this God is indifferent about our awareness of him. However, I do not know that any religious people would insist that their God(s) do not care about us knowing about him. That's at least not a commonplace view. In the Bible, God explicitly states that he is a jealous god (the word 'jealous' is actually used depending on your version you are reading) and he punishes people for not keeping the Sabbath holy, as it is one of the Ten Commandments. An example of this is in the Old Testament when he smites a man for collecting firewood on the day of the Sabbath. There are similar stories in the scriptures of other religious holy texts outlining their God(s)' jealous and controlling nature.
This leads one to believe that either the deity does not exist, or that based upon Jesus' own teachings of how to avoid Hell you must believe as instructed. The latter would dictate, as you blatantly put it, that this God is cruel and sadistic. This is not a deity I would wish to serve.
Good thing It does not exist!

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I always have wondered with debates like these if god intended to make himself dubious on purpose to infer more that people act on their own with their choices.

This keep reminding me of that Futurama episode where Bender meets god.

Of course this is assuming you believe in a deity or not. It is something I do consider when I see this debate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

New I always have wondered with debates like these if god intended to make himself dubious on purpose to infer more that people act on their own with their choices.

That seems like a stupid decision. Keep in mind that in the bible, quite a few people see god, get a direct vocal command from god, and then disobey it. Most notably Jonah and Satan. Simply because God is there doesn't mean people won't act on their own decisions. They simply will have more complete information on which to base those decisions. Meanwhile, him not being here but expecting us to act like he is anyways is just a colossally unfair kick in the teeth to any skeptical-minded people!