Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But this isnt any debate. With the proposed repurcussions of non belief, why cant there be 1 act of God that convinces us all that he is real? If God truely wants to save us, why cant he do that?

Because no act can convince every single person in the world of anything. The only way that could happen would be if God were to remove your free will and force you to believe something.

Christianity teaches that, if you genuinely seek God, then you will find him. There is sufficient evidence for that.

HamletOrHecuba

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But this isnt any debate. With the proposed repurcussions (i.e. hell) of non belief, why cant there be 1 act of God that convinces us all that he is real? If God truely wants to save us, why cant he do that?

In the age to come God will be all in all and fill the entire universe with His Glory, but that Glory will be torment for those who do hate Him, who dont want His rule. The overwhelming convincing proof you say that you seek will be Hell itself.

And it comes back to the question; do you want to be saved?

To be honest you would be better off reading the Gospels than arguing with people here.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

Because no act can convince every single person in the world of anything. The only way that could happen would be if God were to remove your free will and force you to believe something.

Christianity teaches that, if you genuinely seek God, then you will find him. There is sufficient evidence for that.

The raising of the oceans between countries, keeping the sun in the sky fixed for 2 days etc etc, this would convince a far greater amount than what we have currently imo. Ive seen debates with non believers on what would make them believe in a higher power and this kind of stuff comes up. Of course a few would argue they were under an illusion or dreaming if this stuff happened etc etc.

The problem is that some genuinely do seek God but cant find him, i.e uncover information that pushes them away from belief. Could God not help guide the non believers "into the light" by performing some tangible miraculous act to them. After 2000 years of debating it seems thats the existence of God has not been won convincingly by either side.

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

After 2000 years of debating it seems thats the existence of God has not been won convincingly by either side.

That depends what you mean by 'won convincingly'. Estimates vary as to the number of atheists in the world, I've seen some as low as 3% and others as high as 8%. But few people would argue that atheists comrise more than 10% of humanity.

So what would qualify in your book as winning convincingly? For example, in a debate at the Oxford Union would you say one side had won convincingly if they won over 90% of the vote?

(Btw, the popularity of a viewpoint is no guarantee of its truth - but it does show who is winning the argument, doesn't it?)

Barr125

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

In the age to come God will be all in all and fill the entire universe with His Glory,

''will be all in all...'' in all what? And the universe is a pretty big place...

but that Glory will be torment for those who do hate Him, who dont want His rule. The overwhelming convincing proof you say that you seek will be Hell itself.

I don't hate God, I just don't believe that he's there. Also when you say ''His rule'', are you talking about a totalitarian/dictator rule? Because one being ruling over all of Man and every aspect of their life is pretty much the definition of the two above.

And what you're saying is that when this God comes to Earth, he's going to send me to Hell for not believing he existed? (Please correct me if I'm wrong). What about the good things I've done in life, the people I loved and love me? Would he not take all of these things into account? Would he not forgive me? If it's ''worship me or suffer eternally'', I'll choose the suffer eternally than worship a being that has all this supposed power, but needs to be validated like a child.

And it comes back to the question; do you want to be saved?

Do I want to be saved from the threat from your God sending me to a pit of flame, because I did not believe in Him? Well, if he comes to Earth, then of course I will, but I think that a supernatural being as powerful as God would know that I'm simply worshiping him only now, because I'm afraid he'll banish me to the underworld, i.e. to save my own skin, and send me anyway.

To be honest you would be better off reading the Gospels than arguing with people here.

I have read a lot of the passages in the Gospels, and the Old Testment and all it really did was leave me with a lot of different questions than answers.....

Like it has been said before, it's all down to interpretation.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

That depends what you mean by 'won convincingly'. Estimates vary as to the number of atheists in the world, I've seen some as low as 3% and others as high as 8%. But few people would argue that atheists comrise more than 10% of humanity.

So what would qualify in your book as winning convincingly? For example, in a debate at the Oxford Union would you say one side had won convincingly if they won over 90% of the vote?

(Btw, the popularity of a viewpoint is no guarantee of its truth - but it does show who is winning the argument, doesn't it?)

I think its the "beyond reasonable doubt" situation for me - I think for that to come about I would need to be convinced that most (perhaps >80%) of the arguments come to solid conclusions that satisfy my instincts.

In relation to your references to athiesm world wide, we have to remember that religon uses fear / coercion. Its perhaps impossible to predict where religon would be in modern society if it did not have a threat of damnation, and so its not a level playing field in that regard imo. I reckon that if religon didnt have eternal damnation on the agenda, its popularity would be severely diminshed.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

You missed the point.

There is no objective way of claiming that a religion is right or wrong (and no Phil before you object I'm sorry there isn't).

You're practising the art of making assumptions before you examine the evidence. What I am suggesting is looking at how humans operate in ethical dilemmas, and then assess what that tells us about reality.

Humans for the most part, don't say when they are wronged that their morality could be wrong and that the wrongdoers morality could be right. Rather they argue that they have been objectively wronged. Humans for the most part have an innate sense of morality, it isn't something that's generally conjured up in the mind. Humans also have the uncanny ability to use dishonesty to conceal, hide, or distort the truth in order to do what is wrong. Ultimately, there's still the awareness even during wrongdoing that it is indeed wrongdoing.

The same applies at an international level countries don't claim that when one country is being attacked by another without basis and with indiscriminate human rights violations that their "subjective morality" could be wrong. The universal nature of human rights, the very idea that they are inalienable is based on the concept that human rights aren't ours to give, and ours to take away. Ergo, whose are they?

"Subjective morality" as a concept to me is just not real. Whenever I hear atheists arguing for it on this forum, something sinks within me. It's the most unconvincing argument that one can pose for atheism.

From looking at this reality.

Zombrex wrote: »

Which means the religion you pick, and thus the objective moral standard you believe is the correct one, is entirely subjective based on how you picked your religion and which claim of an objective moral standard makes sense to you personally.

Does it?

Ultimately, I think God formed the conscience, but I think people across the world irrespective of creed follow by muchly similar ethical standards in day to day existence.

Zombrex wrote: »

As Penn points out in order to have high confidence you picked correctly you yourself would have to already know as well or better than any god what the objective moral standard is.

Otherwise your pick will simply reflect your own personal subjective beliefs (which unsurprisingly is what actually happens when psychologists study what people actually do pick).

I agree it would. For the atheist, morality is subjective because there's not a hope that there is any objective standard external to us. That's a gonner as a solution to the problem.

For the Christian the refreshing thing is, it isn't based on what is in my mind. Ultimately if God exists, He Himself can speak, and indeed has through His word. If God hadn't spoke, I'd be much in the same position as you are concerning this. Since God as Christians see it has spoken, we have access to the objective truth of reality and aim to live on that basis.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way, because the choice is entirely subjective you yourself would have to already have the objective moral standard engrained in you in order to pick correctly.

I don't see what my decision to follow Jesus which I concede is subjective has to do with arguing against objective morality which I'm claiming that all men base their ethical behaviour in some way or another on. I don't choose the ethical standards, they have been with me from birth through the conscience. The only choices there are concerning ethical standards is the choice to warp them or run from them.

philologos

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But this isnt any debate. With the proposed repurcussions (i.e. hell) of non belief, why cant there be 1 act of God that convinces us all that he is real? If God truely wants to save us, why cant he do that?

People weren't even convinced when Jesus was on earth, why do you expect to be?

God truly has given us an abundance of evidence that He came in flesh to rescue us. History backs up His crucifixion.

Even the very fact you are living in this Creation, is evidence of God's existence.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But this isnt any debate. With the proposed repurcussions (i.e. hell) of non belief, why cant there be 1 act of God that convinces us all that he is real? If God truely wants to save us, why cant he do that?

People weren't even convinced when Jesus was on earth, why do you expect to be?

God truly has given us an abundance of evidence that He came in flesh to rescue us. History backs up His crucifixion.

Even the very fact you are living in this Creation, is evidence of God's existence.

History backs up the crucifixion of a man named Jesus. Not that he was the Son of God who died to rescue us.

And the fact that we are living in this creation, is no more evidence of God's existence than evidence of a Space Monkey who threw Cosmic Poo which turned into Earth and created us. The fact we are living in this "creation" is evidence of evolution.

ISAW

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I think its the "beyond reasonable doubt" situation for me - I think for that to come about I would need to be convinced that most (perhaps >80%) of the arguments come to solid conclusions that satisfy my instincts.

You just been shown where 90% do but you dont accept that!

In relation to your references to atheism world wide, we have to remember that religion uses fear / coercion.

Mainstream christianinty doesnt!
And like atheistic regimes with there "there is no god and that is central to our philosophy didnt use fear?

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism.satire/msg/22a6c8d8cbbc9580?hl=en&dmode=source

it did strike me that religions cannot be, in the words of Christopher Hitchins, "the source of the poison of everything",
...
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

that isnt spreading fear?

Its perhaps impossible to predict where religon would be in modern society if it did not have a threat of damnation, and so its not a level playing field in that regard imo. I reckon that if religon didnt have eternal damnation on the agenda, its popularity would be severely diminshed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/12/religion-for-atheists-de-botton-review

The book assumes that religious beliefs are a lot of nonsense, but that they remain indispensible to civilised existence. One wonders how this impeccably liberal author would react to being told that free speech and civil rights were all bunkum, but that they had their social uses and so shouldn't be knocked. Perhaps he might have the faintest sense of being patronised.

And back to fasgnadhs (source above) review above (de Button in "quotes")

" How do you live a good life outside of a religious structure?"

Well that's silly, when the good life you want to emulate
exists WITHIN that moral framework and claims that the SPIRITUAL
values are what brings life to the attempts at self-transformation!

It's like you want the Light from a lightbulb, using only
the physical MATTER, not invisible, electromagnetic ENERGY!

It's been tried in EVERY atheist state and failed!

How can these atheist 'thinkers' be so dumb?

"This is THE question facing modern society, and we haven't
necessarily answered it that well."

You atheists have NEVER answered it, but the majority
religious societies that you want to emulate clearly have!

"I think it's a legitimate question and my book is an
attempt to answer that question."

Sure, the hilarious part is that you think atheism needs
to copy religion ...because it HAS the answer already!!!!

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

History backs up the crucifixion of a man named Jesus. Not that he was the Son of God who died to rescue us.

And the fact that we are living in this creation, is no more evidence of God's existence than evidence of a Space Monkey who threw Cosmic Poo which turned into Earth and created us. The fact we are living in this "creation" is evidence of evolution.

How did human values and judgement "evolve"?
what makes someone a human being?
In what way will these elements "evolve" in future?

Andrewf20

ISAW wrote: »

You just been shown where 90% do but you dont accept that!

I was refering to how I come to my own personal opinions on the matter. To be clear, im not a hardened athiest.

ISAW wrote: »

Mainstream christianinty doesnt! And like atheistic regimes with there "there is no god and that is central to our philosophy didnt use fear?

All over the bible it suggests a lack of belief results in damnation. Alot of people in this forum seem to agree.

ISAW wrote: »

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism.satire/msg/22a6c8d8cbbc9580?hl=en&dmode=source

that isnt spreading fear?

Yes, it perhaps is, but nothing can compare to the almost unimaginable threat of eternal damnation which religon brings to the table.

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/12/religion-for-atheists-de-botton-review

And back to fasgnadhs (source above) review above (de Button in "quotes")

If the bible was a rock solid moral guide, the arguments about it being divinely inspired would not still be raging centuries later.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

People weren't even convinced when Jesus was on earth, why do you expect to be?

God truly has given us an abundance of evidence that He came in flesh to rescue us. History backs up His crucifixion.

Even the very fact you are living in this Creation, is evidence of God's existence.

If people werent convinced when Jesus was on earth, well that is perhaps another reason to be skeptical of his divine stature.

As Penn says, it doesnt prove he was the son of God or that his mother was a virgin etc.

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I think its the "beyond reasonable doubt" situation for me - I think for that to come about I would need to be convinced that most (perhaps >80%) of the arguments come to solid conclusions that satisfy my instincts.

I see, so when you made a statement that "After 2000 years of debating it seems thats the existence of God has not been won convincingly by either side." you weren't referring to any objective standard by which a debate could be counted as won convincingly? You define 'won convincingly' as meaning 'satisfying Andrew's instincts'?

Again, if we apply that same subjective standard to other debates then Wolfsbane can truthfully state that "the debate over evolution has not been won convincingly by either side", because the arguments for evolution don't satisfy Wolfsbane's instincts.

Similarly, a geocentrist could argue that the debate over whether the earth orbits around the sun or vice versa has not been won convincingly since the heliocentric arguments haven't statisfied their own subjective instincts.

You see the problem?

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

If the bible was a rock solid moral guide, the arguments about it being divinely inspired would not still be raging centuries later.

If people werent convinced when Jesus was on earth, well that is perhaps another reason to be skeptical of his divine stature.

You're still doing it. Using this 'logic' you can claim anything is dodgy unless 100% of humanity agree about it.

Let's use it in other spheres:

Andrewf20 wrote: »

If the bible was a rock solid moral guide Darwin's theories were true, the arguments about it being divinely inspired evolution would not still be raging centuries later.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

You're still doing it. Using this 'logic' you can claim anything is dodgy unless 100% of humanity agree about it.

Let's use it in other spheres:

But Darwins theory of evolution doesnt say - if you dont believe this evolutionary stuff you will be punished for eternity.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

How did human values and judgement "evolve"?
what makes someone a human being?
In what way will these elements "evolve" in future?

They evolved in the same way everything else evolved: slowly over a long period of time

What makes someone a human being? DNA, biology etc. not sure how that's relevant.

How will these elements evolve in the future? I don't know. I can't see into the future.

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But Darwins theory of evolution doesnt say - if you dont believe this evolutionary stuff you will be punished for eternity.

And that bit of special pleading is totally irrelevant. Bad logic is bad logic. It doesn't change whether the subject you apply it to is eternal issues or the mating characteristics of the fruit fly.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

I see, so when you made a statement that "After 2000 years of debating it seems thats the existence of God has not been won convincingly by either side." you weren't referring to any objective standard by which a debate could be counted as won convincingly? You define 'won convincingly' as meaning 'satisfying Andrew's instincts'?

Again, if we apply that same subjective standard to other debates then Wolfsbane can truthfully state that "the debate over evolution has not been won convincingly by either side", because the arguments for evolution don't satisfy Wolfsbane's instincts.

Similarly, a geocentrist could argue that the debate over whether the earth orbits around the sun or vice versa has not been won convincingly since the heliocentric arguments haven't statisfied their own subjective instincts.

You see the problem?

For Wolfsbane, if he doesnt believe or isnt fully convinced in evolution well then, fair enough if thats how he feels. Also, a geo ccentrist may believe the sun goes around the earth, again so be it even it doesnt make sense to me or others. A difference of opinion is an everyday occurance on possibly anything between rational people. And so a person may come to the conclusion that they dont believe in God - no no!, you must believe, else you are damned to hell for eternity. This is the difference between this and any other argument as I see it.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

And that bit of special pleading is totally irrelevant. Bad logic is bad logic. It doesn't change whether the subject you apply it to is eternal issues or the mating characteristics of the fruit fly.

A quote sticks in my mind - extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Surely a fair question or proposition to ask for.

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

A quote sticks in my mind - extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. Surely a fair question or proposition to ask for.

That's got nothing to do with what you're doing here.

You are using demonstrably bad logic, then claiming it is ok to do so because you are applying that bad logic to an extraordinary case.

Your bad logic remains bad, irrespective of whether you apply it to God's existence or Darwin's theories, or indeed to heliocentrism.

Andrewf20

PDN wrote: »

That's got nothing to do with what you're doing here.

You are using demonstrably bad logic, then claiming it is ok to do so because you are applying that bad logic to an extraordinary case.

Your bad logic remains bad, irrespective of whether you apply it to God's existence or Darwin's theories, or indeed to heliocentrism.

How is it bad logic? Im not implying that something is dodgy unless 100% of the population agrees with it. That’s not my point. As I said in a previous post, difference of opinion is common worldwide on pretty much any topic and its an acceptable part of life. But Christianity is different, I or anybody can research it and come to our own personal conclusions, independent of what others think. If that conclusion is non belief in religon, then a threat of hell is present. Where as non belief in relation to anything else has banal implications relatively speaking.

Its claimed God has revealed himself in the past to others, why not reveal himself somehow to all non believers / people genuinely searching for answers? If he loves us and wants to save us, I cant see why this cant be done.

Sonics2k

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I believe Christ's resurrection from the dead is extremely tangible.

I also believe the transformation through whole societies leaving aside the lives of the saints that it has wrought is also very tangible.

But....

"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Luke 16:27-31.

I'm sorry, but no.
That's a belief. Christians think Jesus rose from the dead, there is absolutely nothing other than the Bible, written some hundred years after his death as 'proof' of this.

It's no more a fact that Hercules being the son of Zeus, or Moses speaking to God and writing the 10 commandments.

None of this is proof or fact. It is a belief.

ISAW

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, but no.
That's a belief. Christians think Jesus rose from the dead, there is absolutely nothing other than the Bible, written some hundred years after his death as 'proof' of this.

It's no more a fact that Hercules being the son of Zeus, or Moses speaking to God and writing the 10 commandments.

None of this is proof or fact. It is a belief.

So you believe that socrates existed or Alexander the Great was referred to as a God?

Sonics2k

ISAW wrote: »

So you believe that socrates existed or Alexander the Great was referred to as a God?

Both of these people are proven to have existed, their deeds are proven to have happened. This is obvious through direct evidence and proof of their words and actions.

The key difference here is that neither of them have had followers claiming they have since risen from the dead, are the messiah or the son of God or actually God himself and raised massive followings after them. It'd be quite different if people started claiming that Alexander the Great had risen from the dead and so on.

You may as well of asked me if Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra or Henry VI existed.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

They evolved in the same way everything else evolved: slowly over a long period of time

so social entities undergo the same rules as DNA even thought they are not made of amino acids? how does that work then?

funny how you cant accept the Church "evolves" over long periods isnt it?

What makes someone a human being? DNA, biology etc. not sure how that's relevant.

So the mind doesnt exist as a gestalt entity? Where is the judgement stored

How will these elements evolve in the future? I don't know. I can't see into the future.

But genetics can! it can predict things in the future? so if your science applied to society is the same how come it cant?

ISAW

Sonics2k wrote: »

Both of these people are proven to have existed, their deeds are proven to have happened. This is obvious through direct evidence and proof of their words and actions.

really?
what evidence would that be?

The key difference here is that neither of them have had followers claiming they have since risen from the dead, are the messiah or the son of God or actually God himself and raised massive followings after them.

Actually that was quite Frequent for Amlexander. As im sure you will accept if and whan you produce "evidence" for him. what evidence do you have?

It'd be quite different if people started claiming that Alexander the Great had risen from the dead and so on.

they claimed he was a god.

You may as well of asked me if Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra or Henry VI existed.

N because they didnt exist 2000 years ago in the ancient worlmd like jesus Socrates and alexander the Great are sup^posed to have.
Of course Cleopatra is a bit of an exception and was the last of a dynasty set up by a general in Alexanders army 300 years Earlier. But I still have to see your evidence for Alexander. Maybe Ptolemy also set up and Alexander myth?

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

They evolved in the same way everything else evolved: slowly over a long period of time

so social entities undergo the same rules as DNA even thought they are not made of amino acids? how does that work then?

funny how you cant accept the Church "evolves" over long periods isnt it?

What makes someone a human being? DNA, biology etc. not sure how that's relevant.

So the mind doesnt exist as a gestalt entity? Where is the judgement stored

How will these elements evolve in the future? I don't know. I can't see into the future.

But genetics can! it can predict things in the future? so if your science applied to society is the same how come it cant?

How do you think language evolved? Why do you think there are so many different languages in the world? As humanity evolved, the way we communicated over time became more complex and we could create more sounds and syllables to verbalise what we wanted to say. This became language, and the reason there are so many different languages was because people in each region chose different sounds to verbalise what they wanted to say. Again, a slow process over many generations.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

So you believe that socrates existed or Alexander the Great was referred to as a God?

You are very fond of this argument ISAW, how about I give you a different figure for comparision- The Emperor Tiberius. After all he was contemporaneous with Jesus and also worshipped as a God .

Would you care to compare the evidence for the existance of Jesus with that of Tiberius ?

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

How do you think language evolved? Why do you think there are so many different languages in the world?
As humanity evolved, the way we communicated over time became more complex and we could create more sounds and syllables to verbalise what we wanted to say. This became language, and the reason there are so many different languages was because people in each region chose different sounds to verbalise what they wanted to say. Again, a slow process over many generations.

Language is a complicated subject and i really would prefer not to go there. suffice it to say the primary function of languages isnt communication.

But i asked about judgement, morals, values. where are your genetic "building blocks" or social "atoms" or "force laws" which show how values are made or evolve?