Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Benny_Cake

Part one is here.

All debate/discussion regarding the existence of God should take place in this thread. Enjoy!

Manach

RikuoAmero

Huh, didn't know there was a 10,000 post limit on threads. Anyhoo, looking forward to the continued debate here in part 2.

ScumLord

If god is infallible why does he need to meddle in people's lives telling them what to do? Doesn't meddling imply that he made a mistake and has to correct it?

The universe and everything in it has worked like clockwork since it started. It could be argued that if something did create the universe they could have done so with the intention of it producing intelligent life of some sort. They could have set the conditions of the universe which would have meant it was pretty much inevitable that an intelligent species would evolve at some point.

With the universe being such a perfect and predictable piece of work how did he make such a mess of humans, as to have them instinctively doing all the things he doesn't want us to do?

Did god misjudge how humans would turn out? Did he make mistakes? Is god fallible? If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

RikuoAmero

Did god misjudge how humans would turn out? Did he make mistakes? Is god fallible? If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

Careful there. According to certain people who shall go un-named, questioning god's authority to do what the feck he wants merits an eternal punishment of some kind. I mean...who the heck do you think you are, you miserable low-life non-intelligent human you? You're not omniscient! You can't see the big picture! Therefore, you have no right whatsoever to complain if god wipes your town off the map, even if it seems completely wrong to you.

Safehands

ScumLord wrote: »

If god is infallible why does he need to meddle in people's lives telling them what to do? Doesn't meddling imply that he made a mistake and has to correct it?

The universe and everything in it has worked like clockwork since it started. It could be argued that if something did create the universe they could have done so with the intention of it producing intelligent life of some sort. They could have set the conditions of the universe which would have meant it was pretty much inevitable that an intelligent species would evolve at some point.

With the universe being such a perfect and predictable piece of work how did he make such a mess of humans, as to have them instinctively doing all the things he doesn't want us to do?

Did god misjudge how humans would turn out? Did he make mistakes? Is god fallible? If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

Maybe, if he does exist, he enjoys watching us make mistakes. Maybe he is only a young God and he is playing a young God's game. OR, maybe he didn't make us at all. Maybe we are like highly advanced snowflakes, a consequence of the environment we inhabit.

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

Maybe, if he does exist, he enjoys watching us make mistakes. Maybe he is only a young God and he is playing a young God's game. OR, maybe he didn't make us at all. Maybe we are like highly advanced snowflakes, a consequence of the environment we inhabit.

All very good arguments. There's more to getting me to believe in and be a member of Religion X than merely (somehow) proving that Religion X's god exists. After that, you must convince me that that god is a god worth worshipping/following.
In my discussions in Part 1, I see nothing that doesn't show the christian god to be a nice fellow at all. He repulses me and disgusts me.

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

All very good arguments. There's more to getting me to believe in and be a member of Religion X than merely (somehow) proving that Religion X's god exists. After that, you must convince me that that god is a god worth worshipping/following.
In my discussions in Part 1, I see nothing that doesn't show the christian god to be a nice fellow at all. He repulses me and disgusts me.

No Nick, the minds of the people who made up those fables should repulse you, the stories can also repulse you, all fairytale can be horrific. The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories. Three little pigs could never be real because pigs don't talk. Christian believing Mam and Dad do not confirm the logical queries that little Johnny may have about talking snakes or men living for nearly a thousand years. They tell little Johnny that it actually happened, because their Mam and Dads told them it actually happened when they were young. That is how the stories are perpetuated, so on it goes. All totally real, because Mam and Dad told them.

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

No Nick, the minds of the people who made up those fables should repulse you, the stories can also repulse you, all fairytale can be horrific. The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories. Three little pigs could never be real because pigs don't talk. Christian believing Mam and Dad do not confirm the logical queries that little Johnny may have about talking snakes or men living for nearly a thousand years. They tell little Johnny that it actually happened, because their Mam and Dads told them it actually happened when they were young. That is how the stories are perpetuated, so on it goes. All totally real, because Mam and Dad told them.

I know, but I'm talking from the perspective of the remote possibility of these stories being true. It is a possibility so remote that it might as well be called impossible.
Also...why call me Nick?

Safehands

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I know, but I'm talking from the perspective of the remote possibility of these stories being true. It is a possibility so remote that it might as well be called impossible.
Also...why call me Nick?

Sorry Rik!!! No pun intended.

ScumLord

Safehands wrote: »

The difference with little Red Riding hood is that when a child reaches four or five logic kicks in and says that wolves don't talk. Mam and Dad confirm their doubts about talking animals, they are just stories.

That may happen today but it wasn't the case in the past. People could believe all kind of things, hallucinogenic drugs were often used as a gateway to god by many cultures. So maybe they did talk to animals when under the influence but they considered this a legitimate conversation because they saw themselves as being under the influence of god, not a chemical.


They could also spend days, weeks months on their own or in a very small group, the human mind can play tricks on you, I know people that have had waking dreams where they've seen and talked to people that weren't there, it's common enough. Today we have science and instant communication to debunk the tricks the mind can play on you but back then you believed what you saw and there was no one that could prove what you saw was anything but the truth.

Safehands

ScumLord wrote: »

That may happen today but it wasn't the case in the past. People could believe all kind of things, hallucinogenic drugs were often used as a gateway to god by many cultures. So maybe they did talk to animals when under the influence but they considered this a legitimate conversation because they saw themselves as being under the influence of god, not a chemical. They could also spend days, weeks months on their own or in a very small group, the human mind can play tricks on you, I know people that have had waking dreams where they've seen and talked to people that weren't there, it's common enough. Today we have science and instant communication to debunk the tricks the mind can play on you but back then you believed what you saw and there was no one that could prove what you saw was anything but the truth.

I agree with everything you say, but that leaves us with loads of obvious questions.

ScumLord

Safehands wrote: »

I agree with everything you say, but that leaves us with loads of obvious questions.

Does it?

The other thing we have to take into account is peoples acceptance of people in authority. I can't actually prove much of what science says. I technically could if I learned some advanced mathematics, but I'm not going to do that. For the majority of us lay people we're just believing what people in authority tell us.

So in reality we're no different than the people that believed what their priest told them 1000 years ago. Granted a scientist goes through an open learning process that we can clearly check for ourselves if we were bothered to do so, but humans delegate and once we trust the person put in charge of a particular task that's enough for us to believe everything they tell us.


The fact is we're exactly the same machine to those people in the past and if we were in the same position as them we would more than likely behave exactly like them and accept what everybody else in our community accepted.

RikuoAmero

Granted a scientist goes through an open learning process that we can clearly check for ourselves if we were bothered to do so

That's precisely it. We can check and verify for ourselves if we wanted to: we can't do that with religious claims. If Person A makes a claim and says "Go ahead and verify it for yourself, I don't mind, in fact I encourage it", that instantly brings up a level of trust. If Person B makes a claim and says "You have to believe this or God will throw you into hell!" and then doesn't provide compelling evidence, I can't help but distrust B.
The fact the opportunity and invitation is there for me to verify A's claims is enough for me...for now, that is.

ScumLord

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If Person A makes a claim and says "Go ahead and verify it for yourself, I don't mind, in fact I encourage it", that instantly brings up a level of trust. If Person B makes a claim and says "You have to believe this or God will throw you into hell!" and then doesn't provide compelling evidence, I can't help but distrust B.

Yes, today that's the sensible way of doing things, but in the past that just wasn't as much of an option. First of all Person A didn't really exist to give you an alternative. Unless you were born into the right class you probably didn't have the means to verify anything said by other people.

1000 years ago if I was living in land and someone told me the ocean was 2 days walk west, the only way I'd have of verifying that is to find someone else I trust and take their word for it, or actually spend two days walking to check. I probably wouldn't be able to read and check facts for myself, I'd probably have no formal education. It's just not fair to judge people in the past based on information that wasn't around at the time and that we've had handed to us by the generation that came before us.

RikuoAmero

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, today that's the sensible way of doing things, but in the past that just wasn't as much of an option. First of all Person A didn't really exist to give you an alternative. Unless you were born into the right class you probably didn't have the means to verify anything said by other people.

1000 years ago if I was living in land and someone told me the ocean was 2 days walk west, the only way I'd have of verifying that is to find someone else I trust and take their word for it, or actually spend two days walking to check. I probably wouldn't be able to read and check facts for myself, I'd probably have no formal education. It's just not fair to judge people in the past based on information that wasn't around at the time and that we've had handed to us by the generation that came before us.

I'm not judging people in the past: I'm talking of the people I had debated in Part 1 and those who share their beliefs: most of whom said I have to believe X or suffer punishment and gleefully rejected the burden of proof.

ScumLord

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not judging people in the past: I'm talking of the people I had debated in Part 1 and those who share their beliefs: most of whom said I have to believe X or suffer punishment and gleefully rejected the burden of proof.

I think we're still in a transition period. The advances that happened in the last 50, even 15 years have been astonishing. Once humans reach adulthood they're pretty entrenched in their belief system and it's difficult to get an adult human to stop using beliefs that have apparently worked for them.

Each new generation has more and more faith in science though. The benefits of a scientific approach are vast and unending and humans will always eventually go with the most productive option it can just take time. The rate of change we're going through in the modern world is unheard of in human history. Most humans went generations without any new technology being introduced. So the modern world is just something that we're unprepared for.

The benefit of humans is that children instantly adapt to the world they are born in too. So in another generation or two, children and more to the point their parents will have lived in a scientific society and they won't know religion as we knew it growing up. The tide is turning, religion will become utterly redundant, we may even see it in our lifetimes if things progress as they've been progressing.

The bottom line is you're not going to convince a religious person to change all that easily. They're set in their ways and will be until the day they die. Their children on the other hand will automatically adapt to the modern world and religion will have little to no benefit to their survival. So basically don't worry about it. Let them believe what they want to believe while they have the opportunity to believe it.

homer911

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

Stealthfins

homer911 wrote: »

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

Lol the Atheists just like a good debate now and again, they're always right you know :-)

BMMachine

the problem is there is just far too much evidence that God doesn't exist and the whole Christianity/Pretty much any religion are just stories.
the other problem is that people really truly invest in these stories and tend to end up needing them, so will ignore really basic things in order to justify it in their head.

then a bigger problem emerges when people use these stories to commit abhorrent inhuman acts. I'd argue that a lot of those people would be evil anyway and it would show in different ways, but religion is a mental fast track for them.
Its all a story. That won't go away. In the communication age people are learning more, they are learning faster and that overwhelming weight of evidence is crashing against those stories and eroding them back to what they came from.

ScumLord

homer911 wrote: »

Are there actually any Christians on this thread or are the atheists debating with themselves?

If you are an atheist, why post here at all? unless you have doubts..? like a Christian..

I have a great interest in religion, it was such an influential part of human development. I think it's fascinating how it changed our species and I think it changed it for the better considering what we were before religion. But it is redundant now.

BMMachine wrote: »

the problem is there is just far too much evidence that God doesn't exist and the whole Christianity/Pretty much any religion are just stories.

I don't know that there is loads of evidence that there is no god at all in any shape or form, but there's certainly enough evidence to show that the holy books were written by people and are limited by peoples understanding of the world at the time. The god as described by any of the holy books is certainly made up and again limited by what people of the time thought a god would be. Basically a king that couldn't be questioned.

Perhaps something created the universe, but I'm not going to worship whatever it is and I don't think it actively administers the universe, if it's there at all.

I'd argue that a lot of those people would be evil

There's no such thing as evil in my head.

Defender OF Faith

ScumLord wrote: »

If he's not fallible and knew humans would break all his rules, why did he bother at all?

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

Just makes him incompetent in the first place

Defender OF Faith

marienbad wrote: »

Just makes him incompetent in the first place

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

marienbad

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

And the teachers role is to teach which it appears he/she has have failed to do.

ScumLord

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

sorry I couldn't understand. but who's incompetent the teacher of the student?

If its the student I understand, but how is the teacher being incompetent for giving a test? isn't it the student role to prepare for this test?

If the student keeps failing the tests then you clearly have to start to question the teachers ability to do their job.

I can kind of see what your getting at, in that life is the test and god can't do it for us. But if he made us an animal with animal instinct needs and wants, then teaches us all those things we were built with were wrong, then tries to teach us with some vague text that he won't clarify most are obviously going to fail.

It's a system rigged against the majority who take it. It's not even like peaceful society can't be done, we've developed one of the most peaceful societies in history (given the amount of people included in it) here in the west and much of it was based on scientific understanding and communication. Not strict rules and treats of never ending violence.

Even before modern society there have been civilizations that lived in peace with a lot of equality that weren't based on Christianity. The fact humans can develop better ways of living cooperatively than the bible can shows it's highly flawed for something an infallible god supposedly wrote.

Defender OF Faith

ScumLord wrote: »

I can kind of see what your getting at, in that life is the test and god can't do it for us. But if he made us an animal with animal instinct needs and wants, then teaches us all those things we were built with were wrong, then tries to teach us with some vague text that he won't clarify most are obviously going to fail.

I am not sure were did you get the assumption that God declared all the things he built into us were wrong, am assuming you are pointing to the desires that God created within the human such as lust,greed,gluttony and envy.

But isn't this what differentiates Humans from Animals? that we have an intellect and mind to control these desires and find options around them? isn't that what makes this life really a test? to see who among us will do the best deeds, while recognising his infallibility to fall a victim to his desires, but repent once he remembers.

BMMachine

yeah there could be some sort of divine being or omnipotent lifeform but we are so unbelievably far away from understanding anything like that at this time.

What we can be certain of though is that it is 100% not the God depicted in the bible or any other form of God depicted in the stories on this planet. For that 100% certainty there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, and very basic and easy to understand evidence at that.

People that have faith in those stories need it and the people that defend those stories need to do that, they need to constantly convince themselves in subconscious ways. Why? Many reasons for many people, the most common in my experience is that they just don't like being wrong and like to feel above others in this very roundabout way. I seem the exact same attitudes and passion appear about many things in other people, whether its football, video games, political views.. Its all the same thing, all the same type of thinking, just with a different subject

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

What we can be certain of though is that it is 100% not the God depicted in the bible or any other form of God depicted in the stories on this planet. For that 100% certainty there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, and very basic and easy to understand evidence at that.

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

RikuoAmero

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I like to use the analogy of a student well known for failing his exams, sitting an exam while the teacher is in front of him, looking down at his answers the teacher know they are clearly wrong, but the teacher cannot intervene and correct the student during the test. Does that makes the teacher infallible for examining the student while knowing he will most likely fail?

I'll add my thoughts to this piece - more than likely, when homer911 asked why atheists continue to post here, it's a fair bet s/he was thinking of me specifically (given my stance, and given that I am perhaps the most vocal of the debaters in this thread over the past few months).

First, I like to make sure of my own stance. I said it before - I want someone to convince me, to prove me wrong. I like being proven wrong. This doesn't mean though that anyone can recite any old theological argument and expect me to accept it right then and there. No, I will attack that argument and attempt to falsify it is as many ways as possible. If the theist's arguments stand up to as intense a scrutiny as I can throw at it, then they've passed.
Second, I like listening to the other side, to see how they think and view the world. It certainly is an eye-opener when someone you've been talking to for a while reveals that they think so little of themselves that they're okay with the thought of a cosmic overlord toying with them, or of being casually wiped off the map for reasons that are not divulged to them.

Now, as for your analogy, it is flawed in several ways. First off, according to christianity, with the garden of eden scenario, that was a setup or a stacked deck. If the Eden story is true, then Adam and Eve had no choice but to fail. They may well have been told by god to not eat the magic apple, but since they don't know of good or evil before they eat it, how could they know it was "wrong" to eat it? How could they have known not to trust the snake? When god turns up and punishes them, he is punishing them for his own actions - his action in making them innocent and naive.
Second, I am not aware that I actually am taking a test of any kind. In that scenario, the student is fully conscious of and aware of the fact he is at a desk, writing his answers on a desk, and aware of the proctor.
Thirdly, if I fail a test, the resultant consequences are usually restricted to me alone. I might not get the job, or get into college or whatever. What if the test was to not use nuclear weapons? Well, the guy who pressed the launch button failed the test, and it was hundreds of thousands of other people who paid the price.

RikuoAmero

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

Simple. The bible is said to have been written by people inspired by an all-knowing god. That is the claim. Therefore, if that claim is true, we should expect it to not contain any contradictions or errors. If there is even just one error, then the bible is disqualified and the god it posits is false.
In the Old Testament, it is claimed that bird's blood cures leprosy. We know for a fact that that is not true. That is one error. Therefore, the bible is disqualified and the god it posits is false.

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You mentioned overwhelming, would you mind giving a number of examples?

Fossil Record.


here, I'll make a deal. Because I have so many examples I'll just give you one at a time so you can focus on convincing yourself that "that isn't true because x" without just throwing a load of them out there for you.

mister gullible

God doesn't exist.
Oh yes he does
Oh no he doesn't.
Oh yes he does.
Oh no he doesn't.

10,030 odd posts and NOBODY KNOWS!! It's all speculation.

BMMachine

mister gullible wrote: »

It's all speculation.

this is the problem. its not speculation. These Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Judaism/Norse stories are just that, stories. It is definite - God as followers of those stories know him does not exist. That is a fact.

mister gullible

BMMachine wrote: »

this is the problem. its not speculation. These Christian/Islamic/Hindu/Judaism/Norse stories are just that, stories. It is definite - God as followers of those stories know him does not exist. That is a fact.

So your common sense tells you (I agree with you as regards all the above superstitions). But outside of our own realm we know nothing. How can we?

BMMachine

mister gullible wrote: »

So your common sense tells you (I agree with you as regards all the above superstitions). But outside of our own realm we know nothing. How can we?

true, and if thats the case then Ryan Tubridy has an equal chance of being God as does the one depicted in the stories

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

First, I like to make sure of my own stance. I said it before - I want someone to convince me, to prove me wrong. I like being proven wrong. This doesn't mean though that anyone can recite any old theological argument and expect me to accept it right then and there. No, I will attack that argument and attempt to falsify it is as many ways as possible. If the theist's arguments stand up to as intense a scrutiny as I can throw at it, then they've passed.

This is great and wonderful I think a lot of people nowadays follow their faith blindly, they are Christian because their parents are so, Muslims because their parents are Muslims, however every atheist became so, because he questioned and did not follow the belief he was raised with blindly, which is something I highly respect.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If the Eden story is true, then Adam and Eve had no choice but to fail. They may well have been told by god to not eat the magic apple, but since they don't know of good or evil before they eat it, how could they know it was "wrong" to eat it? How could they have known not to trust the snake? When god turns up and punishes them, he is punishing them for his own actions - his action in making them innocent and naive.

Before God created Adam, he already decided to place mankind generations after generations on earth, but how was it possible for Adam to have committed such a mistake? The reality was that Adam did not have any experience with the whisperings and ploys of Satan. Adam had seen the arrogance of Satan when he refused to follow the commands of God; he knew that Satan was his enemy but had no familiarity with how to resist Satan’s tricks and schemes.

God tested Adam so that he could learn and gain experience. In this way God prepared Adam for his role on earth as a caretaker and a Prophet of God. From this experience, Adam learned the great lesson that Satan is cunning, ungrateful and the avowed enemy of mankind. Adam, Eve and their descendants learned that Satan caused their expulsion from heaven, and that obedience to God and enmity towards Satan is the only path back to Heaven.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Second, I am not aware that I actually am taking a test of any kind. In that scenario, the student is fully conscious of and aware of the fact he is at a desk, writing his answers on a desk, and aware of the proctor.

If your an atheist this argument was not for you, instead it was directed at people who already believe in god but think he might be fallible for creating us knowing some of us will make mistakes.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What if the test was to not use nuclear weapons? Well, the guy who pressed the launch button failed the test, and it was hundreds of thousands of other people who paid the price.

Someone who launches a nuclear weapon, aware of the destruction and death it will bring, will be held responsible in the day of resurrection for every soul that died, and those thousands that perished due to his actions, will receive a compensation as we believe one of the characteristic of God is absolute justice.

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This is great and wonderful I think a lot of people nowadays follow their faith blindly, they are Christian because their parents are so, Muslims because their parents are Muslims, however every atheist became so, because he questioned and did not follow the belief he was raised with blindly, which is something I highly respect.



Before God created Adam, he already decided to place mankind generations after generations on earth, but how was it possible for Adam to have committed such a mistake? The reality was that Adam did not have any experience with the whisperings and ploys of Satan. Adam had seen the arrogance of Satan when he refused to follow the commands of God; he knew that Satan was his enemy but had no familiarity with how to resist Satan’s tricks and schemes.

God tested Adam so that he could learn and gain experience. In this way God prepared Adam for his role on earth as a caretaker and a Prophet of God. From this experience, Adam learned the great lesson that Satan is cunning, ungrateful and the avowed enemy of mankind. Adam, Eve and their descendants learned that Satan caused their expulsion from heaven, and that obedience to God and enmity towards Satan is the only path back to Heaven.


If your an atheist this argument was not for you, instead it was directed at people who already believe in god but think he might be fallible for creating us knowing some of us will make mistakes.


Someone who launches a nuclear weapon, aware of the destruction and death it will bring, will be held responsible in the day of resurrection for every soul that died, and those thousands that perished due to his actions, will receive a compensation as we believe one of the characteristic of God is absolute justice.

Fossil Record.

RikuoAmero

Adam had seen the arrogance of Satan when he refused to follow the commands of God;

Where is this in the bible, please? There is no mention of the snake saying to Adam "God told me not to eat the fruit too". In fact, the way the story is worded in Genesis, the snake gives the very strong implication that the fruit are forbidden to Adam and Eve only, but that god said it's quite all-right for him to eat it.

he knew that Satan was his enemy

Again, this is before eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Lacking such knowledge, how could Adam even think of the concept of enemy?

Adam, Eve and their descendants learned that Satan caused their expulsion from heaven

Nope, in the story, that is God who does that. It is God who says "Don't eat the fruit" and it is God who says what the penalty will be. There is nothing binding on God for him to actually set that penalty, he could have easily not done it and there would be no-one to tell him otherwise.

and that obedience to God and enmity towards Satan is the only path back to Heaven.

Why is that the only path? If God is truly all-loving, why not wave a hand and have Satan vanish or become good, and just allow people into heaven, without going through the unnecessarily complicated process of living in the mortal world and then dying? What is so special about being obedient?

Someone who launches a nuclear weapon, aware of the destruction and death it will bring, will be held responsible in the day of resurrection for every soul that died, and those thousands that perished due to his actions, will receive a compensation as we believe one of the characteristic of God is absolute justice.

Evidence please. Simply claiming that this entity (whom you have yet to prove exists) has this quality of absolute justice (which you have yet to prove) is not enough. Plus, tell me, what could possibly "compensate" me for my lost life? Pretend I'm one of the Japanese at Hiroshima, pretend I'm a simple office-worker or some other low level job, with no ties to the government or the Japanese war-effort. Suddenly, along comes the American plane with the nuke, wiping me out along with well over a hundred thousand others instantly.
In that instant, my life is over. Ended. Kaput. I have no potential anymore to attempt to do good, or to attempt to find out the truth or to convert to the one true religion.
If you say I would have been allowed into heaven in that scenario, I have to remind you that that is not what the bible says - in many places, it says that only believers in Jesus go there, and as a Japanese person in 1945, it is extremely unlikely I would have even been aware of the christian religion, if I'd heard of it at all.

Before God created Adam, he already decided to place mankind generations after generations on earth,

Then this means I have no reason whatsoever to feel grateful for Jesus "sacrificing" himself for me and mankind. It becomes a situation where God deliberately sets up a fallen earth, only to come down and "fix" it so as to show off how great he is, not an earnest effort by someone to fix a genuine mistake or problem.

mister gullible

BMMachine wrote: »

Fossil Record.

Ronan Collins has all the fossil records :pac:

RikuoAmero

I am sorry I should of stated my position when I mentioned these points, since I am a Muslim and while this thread is in the Christian forum, I did not think it was restricted to them since the debate is about the general existence of God. The basics of creation are very similar between Judaism Islam and Christianity, however we do have differences, what I have said is in line with my belief as a Muslim.

Remind me please - is the Garden of Eden story in islam much the same, if not identical, to the one written in the bible? If so, my points still stand (except for the Jesus being god part of course), if not, tell me what differences there are.

Also, as I've told countless other people before, simply quoting an old book alone is not sufficient evidence for me. That book could have been completely made up, only for everyone else to believe it wasn't. I won't believe that your god exists or, (if he does) that he is just and he will charge people accordingly, simply because an old book says so.
I need more than that.

Defender OF Faith

Reposted on Request

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Where is this in the bible, please? There is no mention of the snake saying to Adam "God told me not to eat the fruit too". In fact, the way the story is worded in Genesis, the snake gives the very strong implication that the fruit are forbidden to Adam and Eve only, but that god said it's quite all-right for him to eat it.

Again, this is before eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Lacking such knowledge, how could Adam even think of the concept of enemy?

Nope, in the story, that is God who does that. It is God who says "Don't eat the fruit" and it is God who says what the penalty will be. There is nothing binding on God for him to actually set that penalty, he could have easily not done it and there would be no-one to tell him otherwise.

I am sorry I should of stated my position when I mentioned these points, since I am a Muslim and while this thread is in the Christian forum, I did not think it was restricted to them since the debate is about the general existence of God. The basics of creation are very similar between Judaism Islam and Christianity, however we do have differences, what I have said is in line with my belief as a Muslim.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Evidence please. Simply claiming that this entity (whom you have yet to prove exists) has this quality of absolute justice (which you have yet to prove) is not enough. Plus, tell me, what could possibly "compensate" me for my lost life? Pretend I'm one of the Japanese at Hiroshima, pretend I'm a simple office-worker or some other low level job, with no ties to the government or the Japanese war-effort. Suddenly, along comes the American plane with the nuke, wiping me out along with well over a hundred thousand others instantly.
In that instant, my life is over. Ended. Kaput. I have no potential anymore to attempt to do good, or to attempt to find out the truth or to convert to the one true religion.
If you say I would have been allowed into heaven in that scenario, I have to remind you that that is not what the bible says - in many places, it says that only believers in Jesus go there, and as a Japanese person in 1945, it is extremely unlikely I would have even been aware of the christian religion, if I'd heard of it at all

Yes, as Muslims we believe that one of the characteristics of God is justice and that in the day of Judgement no soul will be treated unjustly."And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant"(24:47) We believe that God does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity, those killed unfairly due to the consequences of others will be treated with the uttermost justice and fairness, I cannot determine a compensation as I am not God to decide, similarly those who committed such act out of their own free will knowing the consequences will be punished with accordingly.

Those who had died without knowing God due to the circumstances in their life that prevented them from searching for him, will be treated fairly. Some scholars of Islam say that such people will be presented in front of God and as a test of their obedience to him, will be asked to enter hell fire, and if they obey God and enter it they will find it to be paradise, this is one of the many opinions on the matter but regardless one of the 99 attributes of God is "The Just" and thus every soul will be treated fairly and justly.[/QUOTE]

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Remind me please - is the Garden of Eden story in islam much the same, if not identical, to the one written in the bible? If so, my points still stand (except for the Jesus being god part of course), if not, tell me what differences there are.

I think I pretty much summed up the differences in post number 37.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also, as I've told countless other people before, simply quoting an old book alone is not sufficient evidence for me. That book could have been completely made up, only for everyone else to believe it wasn't. I won't believe that your god exists or, (if he does) that he is just and he will charge people accordingly, simply because an old book says so.
I need more than that.

Ah of course I understand as an atheist no scripture is an authority for you, however I was not brining this as an argument to prove to you God existence, but rather as information to show what we believe God to be, as the questions you asked with regard to the bible necessitated me to give my understanding of God which stems from my faith.

RikuoAmero

Defender, I won't debate you on Islamic theology or its mythology at this time, since I don't as of yet have a good understanding of those topics. Due to my heritage, I focused the vast majority of my attention on christianity. Feel free to ask the other commenters though - surely someone among them feels confident to take you on.

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

Fossil Record.

I didn't understand this point properly would you mind elucidating further?

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I didn't understand this point properly would you mind elucidating further?

for this, I will need to know when you think the Earth was formed. In years, how old is this planet?

homer911

There's a new Ethan Hawke movie out in the states, dont know if it will make it to Ireland, called Predestination - you should take a look if you get the opportunity..

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/january-web-only/predestination.html

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

for this, I will need to know when you think the Earth was formed. In years, how old is this planet?

Islam does not have a set position on the actual age of the Earth. The Qur'an does describe the creation of the universe in "six days."Nobody knows the precise period of time and most Muslims accept modern scientific theories about the age of the Earth.

RikuoAmero

homer911 wrote: »

There's a new Ethan Hawke movie out in the states, dont know if it will make it to Ireland, called Predestination - you should take a look if you get the opportunity..

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/january-web-only/predestination.html

Just because I'm an evil git, I'm going to spoil the movie. I don't know if it keeps this detail from the story it's based on, but in the original story, every character you see in the movie is the same person, just at different moments throughout their life.
There is only the one character.

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Islam does not have a set position on the actual age of the Earth. The Qur'an does describe the creation of the universe in "six days."Nobody knows the precise period of time and most Muslims accept modern scientific theories about the age of the Earth.

can you tell me, roughly, how long ago you think the earth was formed.

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

can you tell me, roughly, how long ago you think the earth was formed.

approximately 4.54 billion years ago according to the scientists, which I have no reason to reject or object to.