nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PDN

tunedout wrote: »

I just read the first post in this thread and I'm a little confused. I see that the question "What evidence do you have for God?" is 'frequently off-topic' in a thread whose partial title is 'Existence of God' debate. Surely there is a mistake here? Or can someone explain the logic? Is it how this question is so tormenting/frustrating for those who make the claim or what is the idea?

Thanks

No, the mistake is that you are misreading the first post.

The question is not off-topic in this thread, it was off-topic in numerous other threads on other subjects that were being repeatedly interrupted.

The question is certainly not tormenting in an appropriate thread, but it was frustrating when it was constantly derailing other threads - hence the creation of this catch all thread.

tunedout

PDN wrote: »

tunedout wrote: »

I just read the first post in this thread and I'm a little confused. I see that the question "What evidence do you have for God?" is 'frequently off-topic' in a thread whose partial title is 'Existence of God' debate. Surely there is a mistake here? Or can someone explain the logic? Is it how this question is so tormenting/frustrating for those who make the claim or what is the idea?

Thanks

No, the mistake is that you are misreading the first post.

The question is not off-topic in this thread, it was off-topic in numerous other threads on other subjects that were being repeatedly interrupted.

The question is certainly not tormenting in an appropriate thread, but it was frustrating when it was constantly derailing other threads - hence the creation of this catch all thread.

read it again. Silly me. Thanks. Sorry.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It is the key question that people need to answer decisively one way or the other, that's why I keep coming back to it.

No it is what you want people to focus on because you want to focus on how kind you think God is for forgiving people and not sending them to hell. But before you get to that question you first have to view the set up that leads to this in the first place.

We would both agree, for example, that it is not "kind" for Saddam Hussain to decide he wasn't going to torture to death someone so long as they swore allegiance to him and his rule.

A supporter of Saddam saying that we should be grateful for Saddam's mercy would be bang out of order because the set up in the first place, where Saddam sends people who displease him to the depths of a prison to be tortured and executed is not justice in the first place.

If Saddam was actually kind and merciful he wouldn't send anyone to his torture prisons, not just the ones that please him or beg for forgiveness.

If hell as a concept of justice is nonsensical in the first place it doesn't matter how merciful God is by not sending us there since the true act of mercy and justice would be to not have the place exist at all for anyone.

philologos wrote: »

It's because in this world, we acknowledge (and indeed even Christians acknowledge) that people can change, and people can indeed repent and turn their lives around.

So we should surely then lock people up for an undefined amount of time until the repent. If you don't repent you do not get out of prison, no matter what you have done. Would you agree with that?

philologos wrote: »

This argument has to do with divine law, rather than civil law. Both have their place, and I have no position in undermining civil law, I just recognise that divine law should come first in an individuals life.

Surely divine law is better than civil law though. Why do you think we do not institute the examples given to us from divine law, such as infinite punishment for finite crimes?

philologos wrote: »

I think it's inherently fair. Nobody has any excuse, particularly not those who have consistently heard the Gospel.

I agree with it because I believe that God is right, and that His standards are the only ones that should be followed.

So if you were in charge of a designing a justice system you would work off the same principle, give people a chance to repent if they don't repent torture them for as long as physically possible (which in God's case is forever).

philologos wrote: »

No for the reasons I've mentioned above.

You didn't give a reason above, you simply said that civil and divine justice are different.

philologos wrote: »

Civil law, has an entirely different purpose to divine law. Justice, is simply put treating people according to the law. God in giving everyone His ethical principles, and Jesus judging mankind at the end of time according to those principles is entirely and wholly just and fair. Likewise, the courts judging people to the full extent of the law is just and fair.

But the law is responsible for ensuring the justice is served. For example we punish people who hurt others, and the law reflects what society believes is a just punishment for such actions.

Societies beliefs, that finite punishment is just for finite crime, is in conflict with God's notions that infinite punishment is just for finite crime.

Surely we are wrong and God is right?

philologos wrote: »

Read what I've said about the distinction between civil and divine law.

Can you point out where in what you have written about the distinction between civil and divine law you explained why civil law would have an entirely different notion of what it means to serve just punishment and why this is ok given that it is not in line with God's notion of what it means to serve just punishment.

philologos wrote: »

Where does Christianity state that criminals should have their hands chopped off? I have no interest in discussing any other faith with you.

Christianity states that sinners should, justly, suffer torture in hell for all eternity. By comparison having your hand chopped off will seem merciful.

The point was that these concepts, ultimate punishment that is irreversible and eternal, are ancient concepts used in ancient civilisations. It seems reasonable to conclude that concepts like hell were made up by such people.

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately, that will mean condemnation at the end of time. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to go through that.

Yes but the question is why does it mean condemnation at the end of time. Why does God feel the need to torture me for eternity because I do not recognize him.

Or is it more of a case that this was made up by the followers of a religion in order to make it seem that it was very important that I join their religion.

philologos wrote: »

We all deserve it, because we've all rejected God's standards in His Creation. We've all rejected God and turned away from Him. None haven't. (Romans 3:23).

Ok, but take me specifically. What have I done that is deserving of eternal torture. You can assume that I've lead an average life, never been in trouble with the law, never commit a crime by Earthly standards, have had pre-marital sex, have lied, have hurt people, have been angry, have coveted other people's possessions etc.

Can you point out what of those, or which combination of those, means that you would send me to a place of eternal torture as punishment.

Don't worry I'm not in anyway going to be offended by what you say, I simply want you to stand over your original assertion that you agree with all this and properly think about what that means. So forget God, you agree this is justice so lets say you are doing the sentencing.

You are the judge standing over me. How would you explain to me why you are sending me to be tortured for all eternity based on what I have done in this life.

philologos wrote: »

Again, it has to do with the distinction and purpose between divine law and human law.

Is the purpose of both not to serve justice?

philologos wrote: »

If it weren't for Jesus coming into the world and rescuing me from my sin, then yes, I would be.

How does that mean you do not deserve punishment for what you did?

tommy2bad

I don't get the punishment thing?
If your image of God is a creator who, in the end will choose the good creation from the bad ,like a potter who examining the pots after firring, then casts aside the imperfect ones ,then OK God is a mad scientist of sorts and being unoposable we have to submit.
But that image isn't one I will submit to, neither is it one that Jesus described.
Substitute consequences for punishment and the picture fits better.

lmaopml

The difference is that Phil recognises Jesus has authority - whereas an Atheist does not know or recognise God. He doesn't reject them, they reject him and submit themselves to their own authority alone, and don't think they need their sins forgiven by God.

tommy2bad

Imaopml do you think that rejection leads to eternal punishment?

Jesus has authority, why?

lmaopml

I think when a person freely rejects Christ that the consequence of that is that they choose their own seperation from him. God will respect their decision.

Jesus has authority to forgive sins because Jesus is God - and became man in order to reconcile man with God who is Holy. His human nature touches our shore and his divine nature touches Gods shore, the only way is to cross the void from one to the other, and he represents the Sea that filled up the void - some people choose not to board the ship and don't even feel the need to - it's essential in order to reach the other side. On the other side is Holiness and no sin.

tommy2bad

"Jesus has authority to forgive sins"
Ahh I get you. Agreed.
Was wondering if by authority you were implying the right to punish and then how just can that be if the punishment is permanent for a temporary transgression. If Jesus/God is redemptive then how dose that square with eternal damnation but as you didn't go their neither will I

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Was wondering if by authority you were implying the right to punish and then how just can that be if the punishment is permanent for a temporary transgression.

Tommy, this is probably the wrong thread for that discussion. But I think the Christian position would be that there is no such thing as a temporary transgression. Sin is against an eternal God and its corrosive effect has eternal consequences.

Mohandas

I can understand and respect simple honest atheism, i.e. those who do not believe a God/Spirit of any sort can exists and can simply leave it at that.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I think when a person freely rejects Christ that the consequence of that is that they choose their own seperation from him. God will respect their decision.

The Bible does not describe a respectful separation from God. It describes God throwing sinners into a lake of fire to suffer torture for eternity as a punishment for they have done in this life.

What is it with modern Christians trying to soften what hell is actually described as? Surely that is an admission that even you guys think this concept is nonsense.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Tommy, this is probably the wrong thread for that discussion. But I think the Christian position would be that there is no such thing as a temporary transgression. Sin is against an eternal God and its corrosive effect has eternal consequences.

Welcome back

Yeah, it's kinda a follow on from how can their be a god when none of the things we are told make sense. The trouble is that if sin has consequences that God cant rectify then sin is more powerful than God and then it isn't God at all.
See where I'm getting stuck?

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Welcome back
Yeah, it's kinda a follow on from how can their be a god when none of the things we are told make sense. The trouble is that if sin has consequences that God cant rectify then sin is more powerful than God and then it isn't God at all.
See where I'm getting stuck?

I can see where you're getting stuck, but I don't think there's any need to be stuck.

I'd be happy to discuss it in a different thread. That's sort of the point of this catch all thread, so Christians can express differing opinions and discuss them in a less confrontational atmosphere in other threads.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

The Bible does not describe a respectful separation from God. It describes God throwing sinners into a lake of fire to suffer torture for eternity as a punishment for they have done in this life.

What is it with modern Christians trying to soften what hell is actually described as? Surely that is an admission that even you guys think this concept is nonsense.

I'm not sure it dose describe, maybe prescribe is a better term, what you claim.
The fiery pit is from revelations and even death gets thrown in in that phantasmagorical vision. I doubt it meant to be literally read.

Not trying to soften but to clarify. Yes, some of us do think it's nonsense and its not an unorthodox point of view. Their a large rump of almost universalism in Roman Catholicism.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not sure it dose describe, maybe prescribe is a better term, what you claim.
The fiery pit is from revelations and even death gets thrown in in that phantasmagorical vision. I doubt it meant to be literally read.

That is a modern myth. Hell is described as a lake of fire throughout the New Testament. For example

Matthew 13
49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Isaiah 66:24
24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
(referenced in Mark 9 as hell)

Hell is a concept in the Bible that seems to receive the most "spin" by modern Christians, I'm guessing because even they recognize that a God throwing you into a lake of eternal torture is not a particularly benevolent or just thing to do.

The most common re-interpretations are that a) it doesn't literally mean eternal suffering and torture, it merely means separation from God which causes one to feel like they are suffering because God's grace does not provide any pleasure or b) it is horrible but you decide to go their so it is not an action on God's part but yours and thus it is not a reflection on God.

Both those ideas are, aside from being nonsense, unBiblical. Really most modern Christians should have no problem understanding why atheists don't believe this stuff since they don't actually believe it either :P

tommy2bad

heronimus Bosch
Zombrex ;
Hell is a concept in the Bible that seems to receive the most "spin" by modern Christians,

It's not a modern thing to 'spin' hell tho. The eastern Orthodox have been doing so for a long time and the eternal torment is from the time of the reformation.
So far all speculation on hell is based on a few biblical texts and deduced from them. Their is no definitive biblical description of hell.
Not that that negates your point about Christianity's differing spins on hell through history.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's not a modern thing to 'spin' hell tho. The eastern Orthodox have been doing so for a long time and the eternal torment is from the time of the reformation.

I think you mean it is not exclusively a modern thing to do. That is some what beside the point though.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So far all speculation on hell is based on a few biblical texts and deduced from them. Their is no definitive biblical description of hell.

Lake of fire where you suffer eternal torment seems pretty definitive.

Or to put it another way, the description of hell in the New Testament is largely consistent. There are not a host of other notions competing for attention. Other notions were introduced later, presumably when people found such a concept abhorrent but still wanted to believe in heaven.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not that that negates your point about Christianity's differing spins on hell through history.

What is your notion of hell, if you don't mind me asking?

tommy2bad

I go with the orthodox view that its the pain of being in the presence of God for those that reject Him. It leaves the option of redemption open and puts no blame on God. Also as a parent I think that's what I would do with my children if they rejected me, I would not abandon them but neither would I compel them to repent.(not that that would work anyway, we are a stubborn bunch)

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I go with the orthodox view that its the pain of being in the presence of God for those that reject Him.

Firstly why would being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire? Who decided that? Why does it not feel like being snuggled by a bath tube of puppies?

Secondly I've "rejected" God (that is obviously not how I view it but that is beside the point) why am I not currently feeling like I'm in a lake of fire?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Also as a parent I think that's what I would do with my children if they rejected me, I would not abandon them but neither would I compel them to repent.(not that that would work anyway, we are a stubborn bunch)

Sorry what, you would throw them into the fire?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Firstly why would being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire? Who decided that? Why does it not feel like being snuggled by a bath tube of puppies?

Secondly I've "rejected" God (that is obviously not how I view it but that is beside the point) why am I not currently feeling like I'm in a lake of fire?

Sorry what, you would throw them into the fire?

Firstly why did Elvis sing about burning love or Fleetwood Mac sing Drowning in a sea of love? Its a metaphore.
Secondly how do you know you've rejected God? You are an atheist, you don't even believe in God

I don't buy the 'accept Jesus as your personal Saviour' brand of Christianity, I think it works differently, not biblical but then as people keep pointing out biblical is not consistent either. To reject God you must actually oppose Him as Lucifer did, otherwise too much collateral damage for the God of love to be running the show.

Lastly, tempting as that would be, thats not what I meant. I would wait, forever if need be, for them to return, then we kill a calf and party

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Firstly why did Elvis sing about burning love or Fleetwood Mac sing Drowning in a sea of love? Its a metaphore.

Is the only reason to think it is a metaphor that it would be too horrific to contemplate otherwise?

Just because Elvis sings about his heart being on fire doesn't mean people don't actually burn to death. I see nothing in the Bible to even suggest that it isn't a place of literal suffering and torture.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Secondly how do you know you've rejected God? You are an atheist, you don't even believe in God

Apparently that doesn't stop me rejecting him :P

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't buy the 'accept Jesus as your personal Saviour' brand of Christianity, I think it works differently, not biblical but then as people keep pointing out biblical is not consistent either. To reject God you must actually oppose Him as Lucifer did, otherwise too much collateral damage for the God of love to be running the show.

If you reject the Biblical concept of God why not just become an atheist? Why continue believing in a fuzzy self invented notion of God?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Lastly, tempting as that would be, thats not what I meant. I would wait, forever if need be, for them to return, then we kill a calf and party

Again that is the point. You love your children you would never throw them in a fire, even as punishment. Yet we are supposed to believe God loves us and throws us into, literal, fires.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Imaopml do you think that rejection leads to eternal punishment?

Jesus has authority, why?

Jesus is fully divine. God the Father gave Him all authority. I've been reading John quite a bit over the last while:

John 5:18-24 wrote:

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God.
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He Himself is doing. And greater works than these will He show Him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Jesus and God are intertwined as concepts. Largely due to the concept of the Trinity. So also is the Spirit if you read on to John 6. John is a fantastic Gospel in so far as it explains the mechanics of Christianity.

Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, fulfilling Daniel 7:

“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Now, if people regard me to be extreme in holding fast to the Biblical text, or regarding me as fundamentalist or so. Let it be so, the problem in denying these truths is that they are Biblically evident. They are present, and if one is not getting their Christianity from God's word, are they getting it from mans word?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Firstly why would being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire? Who decided that? Why does it not feel like being snuggled by a bath tube of puppies?

While I don't hold to the Eastern Orthodox view (I rather believe hell to be separation from God) I understand their thinking.

At the moment, the only reason you are happy to be a sinner is because your twisted and deformed conscience causes you to minimise and rationalise your guilt - similar to the way in which some paedophiles convince themselves that children actually enjoy being raped. (nothing personal here - you share this characteristic with every other human being).

However, when you see God as He truly is (perfect holiness and love) then you are confronted with your own moral filthiness, and that is unbearable. This would be similar to the paedophile who has an epiphany of how much torment they have caused to children and subsequently commit suicide. Except, in eternity, suicide is not an option.

I would point out that in the Eastern Orthodox view, and indeed in IMHO the more biblical concept of hell as separation from God, these are not nicer alternatives to literal fire. A metaphor describes something more extreme than the metaphor itself, not something more benign. So, seeing your sin as it really is would be such a horrifying experience that you would crave fire as a more tolerable alternative to the shame and self-reproach you would feel.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

While I don't hold to the Eastern Orthodox view (I rather believe hell to be separation from God) I understand their thinking.

At the moment, the only reason you are happy to be a sinner is because your twisted and deformed conscience causes you to minimise and rationalise your guilt - similar to the way in which some paedophiles convince themselves that children actually enjoy being raped. (nothing personal here - you share this characteristic with every other human being).

However, when you see God as He truly is (perfect holiness and love) then you are confronted with your own moral filthiness, and that is unbearable.

Why though? What decides that?

For example, when I place my hand over a flame it is very painful. But we know why it is very painful. That is not something that just happens. It is very painful because we have evolved nerve cells on our skin to trigger a very strong negative feeling in our brains to cause us both to stop doing what we are doing and also to re-enforce the negative aspects of ever doing it in the future.

This is an evolved response, we have it because those that didn't stuck their hands in fires and died, leaving only those who adapted to the negative feelings. Or to put it another way this doesn't just happen, it happens for evolutionary reasons that relate back to protecting the human body from things that can harm it. Sticking your hand under a feather for example that merely tickles you don't trigger this response, for the same reasons, it is harmless and thus we have never evolved a response that produces anything close to the response fire causes.

Why would be confronted by God do one thing over another thing? As I asked tommy why is being confronted by God not like being cuddled by a pile of puppies in a bath? That seems as reasonable as any other sensation it might be.

PDN wrote: »

This would be similar to the paedophile who has an epiphany of how much torment they have caused to children and subsequently commit suicide. Except, in eternity, suicide is not an option.

We know why the paedophile feels guilty, it doesn't just happen. It happens for explainable reasons that relate back even more explainable reasons. I mean the biological process that triggers guilt, not He feels guilty cause he did something wrong. But why he thinks it is wrong in the first place and why guilt would be triggered in his head.

Here on Earth what is painful and what isn't painful is not something that just is, or randomly is assigned. There are reasons why somethings cause physical or emotional pain, and why somethings don't. These reasons are never just cause.

PDN wrote: »

So, seeing your sin as it really is would be such a horrifying experience.

Again the question is why would it be that as opposed to something else (a mildly boring experience for example, or an itchy feeling like having a bite on your leg).

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Secondly I've "rejected" God (that is obviously not how I view it but that is beside the point) why am I not currently feeling like I'm in a lake of fire?

Biblically, this isn't that good a question. Simply because the reason that this isn't the case is because God is sparing all from His wrath until Jesus returns. This is because God desires for all to be saved through Jesus' death and resurrection and be born again. That was in the passage I linked to earlier.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Why though? What decides that?

For example, when I place my hand over a flame it is very painful. But we know why it is very painful. It is very painful because we have evolved nerve cells on our skin to trigger a very strong negative feeling in our brains to cause us both to stop doing what we are doing and also to re-enforce the negative aspects of ever doing it in the future.

This is an evolved response, we have it because those that didn't stuck their hands in fires and died, leaving only those who adapted to the negative feelings. Or to put it another way this doesn't just happen, it happens for evolutionary reasons.

Why would be confronted by God do one thing over another thing? As I asked why is being confronted by God not like being cuddled by a pile of puppies in a bath? That seems as reasonable as any other sensation it might be. .

Because, in a universe with moral absolutes, sin is not cuddly. You might reject this - but to base an argument against Christians on your rejection of moral absolutes would be entirely circular (not that that has stopped you in the past

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Because, in a universe with moral absolutes, sin is not cuddly.

Why?

PDN wrote: »

You might reject this

Reject it? I haven't got a reason to reject yet :P

PDN wrote: »

- but to base an argument against Christians on your rejection of moral absolutes would be entirely circular (not that that has stopped you in the past ).

I haven't mentioned moral absolute. I'm asking why any of these things cause the reaction they do, as opposed to any other reaction.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Biblically, this isn't that good a question. Simply because the reason that this isn't the case is because God is sparing all from His wrath until Jesus returns.

So I will only feel like I'm in a lake of fire when God decides to inflict his wrath on me?

Would this not imply that rejection of God in of itself does not cause someone to feel like they are in a lake of fire, it is only when God decides that it is going to fell like that then someone does feel like that?

philologos

It can do. Doing what is wrong can induce guilt. People can suppress their consciences, and the truth throughout their lives.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

So I will only feel like I'm in a lake of fire when God decides to inflict his wrath on me?

No, you will only feel like you're in a lake of fire when God removes the wilful distortion by which you have avoided looking at your own moral nature. Once that comfort blanket is taken away from you, then you face reality.

(And I genuinely hope you never find yourself in that position. I would be very glad to be wrong on this point.)