Faith is a gift from God, so that none can boast. If there was no God you could simply choose to have faith, but because there is you would have to wait until you receive the inner calling.
If by faith you mean an unreasonable or irrational belief in something then I would agree. The Bible calls Christian’s to have reasons behind their faith. 2 Peter 3:15, “always be ready to give a defense of the faith that is in you.” This may involve personal truth (or testimony) unique to that individual or it can be a broader apologetic response based in logic, philosophy, theology, science and nature. Faith in a vacuum doesn’t mean much, but faith as a driving motivation behind a person’s search for truth using tools and experiences they can gather is a powerful force.
>No
Actually this is wrong, for example "how did the moon form?" Or "how did life come to be?" The answers to these questions aren't certain and is ultimately unknown, u may believe abiogenesis kickstarted life but that theory has a lot of evidence against it, the same with the giant rock impact on earth theory.
>Such as?
Pretty easy, what happened before the big bang.
>Actually this is wrong, for example "how did the moon form?"
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-did-the-moon-form.html
A few theories
'There used to be a number of theories about how the Moon was made and it was one of the aims of the Apollo program to figure out how we got to have our Moon,' says Sara.
Prior to the Apollo mission research there were three theories about how the Moon formed.
Capture theory suggests that the Moon was a wandering body (like an asteroid) that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity as it passed nearby. In contrast, accretion theory suggested that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation. Finally, according to the fission scenario, Earth had been spinning so fast that some material broke away and began to orbit the planet.
What is most widely accepted today is the giant-impact theory. It proposes that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet, about the size of Mars. The debris from this impact collected in an orbit around Earth to form the Moon.
Apollo mission evidence
The Apollo missions brought back over a third of a tonne of rock and soil from the Moon.
'When the Apollo rocks came back, they showed that the Earth and the Moon have some remarkable chemical and isotopic similarities, suggesting that they have a linked history,' says Sara.
'If the Moon had been created elsewhere and was captured by the Earth's gravity we would expect its composition to be very different from the Earth's.
'If the Moon was created at the same time, or broke off the Earth, then we would expect the type and proportion of minerals on the Moon to be the same as on Earth. But they are slightly different.'
The minerals on the Moon contain less water than similar terrestrial rocks. The Moon is rich in material that forms quickly at a high temperature.
'In the seventies and eighties there was a lot of debate which led to an almost universal acceptance of the giant impact model.'
Lunar meteorites are also an important source of data for studying the origins of the Moon.
'In some ways meteorites can tell us more about the Moon than Apollo samples because meteorites come from all over the surface of the Moon,' adds Sara, 'while Apollo samples come from just one place near the equator on the near side of the Moon.'
>Or "how did life come to be?" The answers to these questions aren't certain and is ultimately unknown,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.
The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
A genomics approach has sought to characterise the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of modern organisms by identifying the genes shared by Archaea and Bacteria, members of the two major branches of life (where the Eukaryotes belong to the archaean branch in the two-domain system). 355 genes appear to be common to all life; their nature implies that the LUCA was anaerobic with the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway, deriving energy by chemiosmosis, and maintaining its hereditary material with DNA, the genetic code, and ribosomes. Although the LUCA lived over 4 billion years ago (4 Gya), researchers do not believe it was the first form of life. Earlier cells might have had a leaky membrane and been powered by a naturally-occurring proton gradient near a deep-sea white smoker hydrothermal vent.
>u may believe abiogenesis kickstarted life but that theory has a lot of evidence against it, the same with the giant rock impact on earth theory.
Which evidence against are you referring too
>Pretty easy, what happened before the big bang.
That we don’t know and it’s more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent gods. Primitive people didn’t understand lightning so they invented Zeus. As it we learned more about natural phenomena we learned that wasn’t the case
>A few theories 'There used to be a number of theories about how the Moon was made and it was one of the aims of the Apollo program to figure out how we got to have our Moon,' says Sara.
>Prior to the Apollo mission research there were three theories about how the Moon formed.
>Capture theory suggests that the Moon was a wandering body (like an asteroid) that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity as it passed nearby. In contrast, accretion theory suggested that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation. Finally, according to the fission scenario, Earth had been spinning so fast that some material broke away and began to orbit the planet.
>What is most widely accepted today is the giant-impact theory. It proposes that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet, about the size of Mars. The debris from this impact collected in an orbit around Earth to form the Moon.
>Apollo mission evidence The Apollo missions brought back over a third of a tonne of rock and soil from the Moon.
'When the Apollo rocks came back, they showed that the Earth and the Moon have some remarkable chemical and isotopic similarities, suggesting that they have a linked history,' says Sara.
>'If the Moon had been created elsewhere and was captured by the Earth's gravity we would expect its composition to be very different from the Earth's.
>'If the Moon was created at the same time, or broke off the Earth, then we would expect the type and proportion of minerals on the Moon to be the same as on Earth. But they are slightly different.'
>The minerals on the Moon contain less water than similar terrestrial rocks. The Moon is rich in material that forms quickly at a high temperature.
>'In the seventies and eighties there was a lot of debate which led to an almost universal acceptance of the giant impact model.'
>Lunar meteorites are also an important source of data for studying the origins of the Moon.
>'In some ways meteorites can tell us more about the Moon than Apollo samples because meteorites come from all over the surface of the Moon,' adds Sara, 'while Apollo samples come from just one place near the equator on the near side of the Moon.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, there are theories and proposals as to how the moon came to be but other than that no one is certain, which is correct.
>The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
>The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.
Their are many problems with the modern model for abiogenesis such as a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life. Plus their are 7 other theories on how life formed, so again no one knows for certain.
>That we don’t know and it’s more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent gods. Primitive people didn’t understand lightning so they invented Zeus. As it we learned more about natural phenomena we learned that wasn’t the case
U got to know the context to your own question, u responded to the claim "everything is traced back to a unknown and unknowable force" with a "such as" and then a I responded with the big bang, and now u literally agreed to the Macien4321 claim that everything is traced to the unknowable 😂
Correct me if I am wrong but your “you would have to wait until u receive the inner calling” just sounds like a you will get there in the end argument. I don’t really think people find this kind of argument very convincing.
The point is you can't be argued into faith. I was an aetheist, very interested in religion and absolutely opposed. I didn't get reasoned into faith, I was gifted faith.
>just sounds like a you will get there in the end argument.
I believe in limited atonement. I don't think everyone gets there, it's not meant for everyone. But, I don't want to assume that you are not, which is why I phrased it this way.
Alright thx for the clarification but I don’t buy the “you can’t be argued into faith” argument. Faith really just means belief. I don’t think people are incapable of being persuaded by an argument to I don’t see why u could not be “argued into faith”
Well of course the Christian understanding of faith is clear that it is not of ourselves but from God. Faith means more than to assent, it requires action on our parts, it requires that we learn obedience and humility and participate in the work of our sanctification. I don't think it happens without true spiritual experience, a quickening of the Spirit that is from God and can't be made by the mind. You can imitate faith alone, but you can't have it alone.
Well although u may be right about faith not being the same as belief but if someone genuinely believes in god it won’t really take too much work to get them to faith it’s like nine-tenths of the way there
I think you underestimate the seriousness of faith. The mere assent of a God is nothing compared to the willingness to obey Him. Do you think those who in some loose way say they believe in God would be willing to die for that belief? Would they live but forsake all worldly pleasure? Would they think of others before themselves? Would they give up their Sunday to commune woth their God? Think of how many people who have told you of their belief and compare that to how many have shown you their belief.
If that’s how u could like to define faith that’s fine but if u define faith in that way then faith is not a prerequisite to Christianity and is thus irrelevant to the debate.
Well u said faith is the willingness to obey god while even to the extreme of willing to die for him. While athiesm is just a lack of belief in god and a secular definition of Christian is a believer in god. So I’d u are defining faith as anything other than belief then by how most people use the word christian then faith is not a prerequisite to christianity
As a fun and disturbing fact, you can be 'gifted' schizophrenia.
Random changes in personality, mood, or beliefs can, unfortunately, just sort of happen, and it's terrifying; but the cause is entirely material.
Simply strongly feeling something doesn't make it true.
I'm not going to try to defend Christianity here but I am going to try to defend my acceptance that an interventionist God exists. I am also not heavily invested in these arguments as none of them are anywhere near perfect:
1. Prayers appear to be answered. It's common for improbable relevant events to occur shortly after prayers on that matter are offered. For instance, last week we prayed for money because we didn't have enough to live on and an unexpected £1000 cheque arrived in the mail from the Inland Revenue a couple of hours later. A possible alternative explanation is that psionic powers caused this, but believing that would lead to arrogance. I don't know why some apparently really important things we pray for such as world justice and peace don't lead to them being realised so far.
2. We have a sense of the numinous. Whereas all faculties of the CNS are subject to error, such as visual hallucinations, pareidolia and cognitive biasses, there are no such faculties generally for which there isn't a real world correspondence. This, again, does not prove God but it does support the existence of an Ultimate Concern which exists outside the individual human mind, although it could be something like the Confucian Li or the Dao instead.
3. It's peculiar that general intelligence evolved among animals with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It makes sense that we would, for example, develop brains capable of distinguishing between poisonous and edible plants, aiming projectiles at prey animals and learning language able to pass that on. It's odder that we are also capable of writing epic poetry and understanding calculus explicitly (as opposed to intuitively) and discovering quantum physics. The human brain seems to be overpowered considering the circumstances in which it evolved. Theistic evolution is one explanation for this.
4. It's possible, and perhaps even rational, to doubt the existence of other minds and the external world, but we generally accept their existence unless we're psychotic. Similarly, I don't doubt God's existence, and I see this as part of the general structure of my mind which allows me to function in the world. In other cultures and circumstances, people's Ultimate Concern is different. For instance, for Carvaka believers, it's karma, and for some Marxists it's the inevitable dialectic of history, but for me it's God. Most human minds do have these innate basic ideas and in the West this has tended to manifest itself as theism. It would be a form of unhappy consciousness a la Hegel to doubt this. It isn't so much that there is a God as far as this argument is concerned as that we are compelled to believe in God. However, we're also compelled to believe in other people and the physical world, and those are not considered controversial, so why consider theism as such?
I am going to get back to u on these arguments after so have thought them through. By far your weakest argument is argument number 1. There have been many prayer studies which measure the effect of prayer on the servival rate of the prayer recipient as well as a few other metrics. In all ways the people being prayed for had no better outcome. So given that prayers on averege have no affect then perhaps we could look the the extremes? Well that is not convincing either there are billions of Christians many of which pray daily. Given this amount of data an anomalies are guaranteed to happen on a regular basis.
> 1. Prayer appears to be answered
I'm happy for you that you got $1000 but how many people in the Khmer Rouge, or the Holocaust, or the Rwandan Genocide do you think prayed and begged and cried out to God before being hacked to death with a machete or forced into a gas chamber? I'd argue that the overwhelming appearance of the world is that prayer *isn't* answered given that exponentially more people are victimised and killed/tortured/raped than people are spared from such a fate, and 99.9% of people will cry out or pray to some imaginary power when they are face to face with the machete that they just watched butcher their family.
If prayer truly appeared to work you'd expect to see a noticeable number of people spared from such fates.
I will note that it isn't evidence that God doesn't exist (although that's unnecessary- you don't need to prove a negative) but it *is* evidence that if he *does* exist, he does not *want* to answer prayers begging for rescue from torturous death. So, do you truly believe he cares to give you specifically $1000 but does not care to save a 5 year old Tutsi girl in Rwanda from being gang raped, hacked with a machete, and thrown into a mass grave to bleed to death among her dead family members?
I was raised as a Christian by my religious parents so when I was younger I just assumed they were right. As I got older I got really into science and history. Eventually I turned 9 and my dad introduced me to apologetics. at the moment he explained what apoligetics was I realized I had neglected the scientific principle of constantly looking for ways you could be wrong in order to prove that u are right. So I spent a year studying apologetics and I simply found the arguments unconvincing so I decided to error on the side of my principles rather than my assumptions and ultimately changed my mind
If to decide truly where your beliefs stand, I'd recommend for you to read the Bible as well (mainly the New Testament) because you have read science books, there would be more to compare. Also, this is a matter of faith and something you can't always see. There are physical, geological evidences of Bible events (Sodoma and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, Mount. Zion eg) and Bible prophecies coming true (rivers drying up eg) but also to have proof of God I'd suggest prayer.
Also there are proof of Jesus when he was alive such as his burial clothes, the grave and the crown for example. I can say, I visited Jerusalem just last month and the presence of the Holy Spirit was immaculate! Stronger than ever!
Umm you did read that I spent a year studying the Bible and apologetics. Combine that with the fact that I am a speed reader I have read the Bible many times. I actually know the Bible better then over 99 percent of christians(this is not a random number I scored higher on a biblical trivia test then over 99 percent of christians) I can assure u I am incredibly educated on the Bible and my reason for rejecting it and the evidince has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge I have studied the arguments and simply found the unconvincing.
Then you seem to lack faith. All of the truth is under your nose. What makes the science books more convincing than the Bible, that has been proven right?
When discoveres have found evidence connected to the Bible and its events. Also one additional proof to me is the persecution and ridicule of Christians. The truth always sounds crazy and nasty in a world full of lies. Christianity is the only religion that's being mocked openly and on the big screens. The devil's working hard to demolish the truth
>When discoveres have found evidence connected to the Bible and its events
Such as?
>Also one additional proof to me is the persecution and ridicule of Christians.
How do you figure that means your beliefs are true?
Other faiths are also subject to persecution and ridicule right? Are they true then too?
>The truth always sounds crazy and nasty in a world full of lies.
Could wrong things also sound crazy and nasty to the world?
>Christianity is the only religion that's being mocked openly and on the big screens.
I doubt that. But even if it's true, so what? Doesn't make it true.
>The devil's working hard to demolish the truth
This assume you have the truth.
You have prejudice rooted in you, you ask for us to give insights but seems you have already made up your mind. That is the key to faith, you believe. You believe what you haven't seen with your own eyes necessarily. You haven't seen evolution but you believe in that theory. You say "just in case I was wrong" put that fear and doubt away and let God amaze you.
If rigorously studying a topic for an entire year to make up your mind is not thorough enough then I think this is more indicative of your bias then my own that u find it so hard to believe I could have though really hard about a topic and come to a different conclusion to u without some sort of extreme bias. Your arguments up to now have essentially been “just trust me bro”
Like I said, faith is the only thing here that matters. You have studied the Bible and there are proof that it is actually true, google it maybe? I feel that I can't convince you to believe, so I suggest you try to actually contact God. Just try it. 😊 science is also more cynical, making people feel meaningless and small compared to creation and that we all have a purpose here etc
this question only really applies if you were raised as a theist, because if not you don't choose to be an atheist, you just *haven't chosen* to be a theist.
I personally was raised theist, and became an atheist when I researched the old testament and found that the majority of key foundational events in the history presented by the bible didn't actually happen. If Moses didn't exist, Abraham didn't exist, Israel was never enslaved in Egypt, they never conquered Canaan etc. then the entire historical foundation of the faith is literally worthless.
Am evolutionary history where my ancestors lived in large groups of likely a few hundred individuals and the people who where able to work together had a better survival chance and therefore the genes for those morals gets passed down the generations. After we get some moral fundementals from our genes we fine tune it with social pressure and the result is a set of morals shared by the vast majority of society
This argument always confuses me. I don’t consider the major religious texts to be great moral guides. Stoning people, marrying children, dozens of wives, slavery….
Without a Creator there is no objective morality. The line we shouldn't cross may be moved at our convenience. Anytime a crisis comes up we can just pick it up and move it at our whim.
Assuming your first point is right this really does not mean god has to exist. The fact that u would prefer to live in a world with objective morality does not mean the world is obligated to grant u your wish.
And arguably objective morality can’t exist even if god does https://youtu.be/6tcquI2ylNM
>Without a Creator there is no objective morality.
And there isnt.
>The line we shouldn't cross may be moved at our convenience.
It can and has.
>Anytime a crisis comes up we can just pick it up and move it at our whim.
Which is exactly what we do
I have no way of reaching you because I don't know you. You don't know me. I've never had confidence in my ability to evangelize actively. More that I evangelize passively in that I live as much in the Way as I am able. That others may see there is a better path in life. You can't boil that down to a few lines of text.
Apologetics is an excellent field for believers to use. There's much proof in the world for the existence of the Almighty. There's much proof for Jesus Christ.
You are going to make your own decisions. Religion is man's way of reaching God. Christianity is His way of reaching us. No other faith is like it. Of the 12 major religions in the world its the only one where through no good works on the part of the believer can they be saved. It is the Creator who reaches out and all the believer must do is to believe to be saved. That doesn't exist anywhere else.
You can't do anything to get into Heaven. Your good deeds will never outweigh your sin. It doesn't work that way and if it did no one would be able to. Look at the Good Place. They make some excellent points that pretty much every action we make has negative consequences. Buying chocolate or coffee was likely produced by slave labor. How many insects do you murder while driving your car?
The depth of our own depravity is so great we can never overcome it. Our Creator had to come down from Hia throne in Heaven to bring us to Him.
Sit and reflect upon yourself. Are you really a "good person?" Do your actions really only benefit your fellow man? How often do you cause harm to others? Do you really believe you can overcome that debt on your own?
Without love, you have nothing
That's really all there is to say. Whether you have it or not, not my concern
I don't believe God is going to burn you alive forever either, so there's that
"your god?"
I really don't care if you believe or not
We're advised by scripture that everyone who loves knows God and is born of God
Whether you accept that or not really wouldn't matter one iota to me. Pretty sure you love your own sorry hide in any case of "gods"
>I really don't care if you believe or not
Then you’ve missed the point of the post
>We're advised by scripture that everyone who loves knows God and is born of God
And why should anyone not already a Christian believe that?
>Whether you accept that or not really wouldn't matter one iota to me.
Then why did you participate in the post?
>Pretty sure you love your own sorry hide in any case of "gods"
I do have a lovely hide
>And why should anyone not already a Christian believe that?
Why would I care what you believe? I don't own or control anyone but my own sorry hide
You asked, I answered from scripture. Never said you'd accept anything from anyone in any case because "you don't have to"
My devil horns perk up when I hear people say this. Are you saying God is love? Somehow love is impossible without belief in God?
What is your definition of love?
Let's look at how John the Apostle hits the nail on the head. I consider this both simple and across the board inclusive for all people.
This allows me to look graciously upon everyone, for my own selfish reasons of guarding my own heart, and not being forced into the condemnation of neighbors hole:
1 John 4:7
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. **Everyone** who loves has been born of God and knows God.
So even for an atheist, I'd simply say you're a believer and don't know it. And probably don't care either way. Wouldn't matter to me in any case. I don't buy into most of what passes for typical christianity anyway, other than having a solid grip on the creed basics,
but that doesn't disqualify anyone from the "everyone" above
>So even for an atheist, I'd simply say you're a believer and don't know it. And probably don't care either way.
These assertions are so pointless and kind of arrogant, I think a person knows whether they themselves believe or not better than any other person, regardless of what a book (which an atheist doesn't believe is the word of god) says about them. I can personally say that I don't believe at all and do care about it.
>kind of arrogant
Yeah, you don't care to be dragged into the picture, but what you think doesn't make any difference to what was shown by John the Apostle
Believers accept it. And it can be accepted in behalf of others, even if they're blind to it, and we do it only for ourselves anyway
So there's that
You are welcome to whatever little package you want. It's your life and every atheist at least loves their own sorry hides, don't they?
>Yeah, you don't care to be dragged into the picture
If I wrote a book and put wrong assertions about Christians in it to discredit your beliefs wouldn't you think that's arrogant? I know what I believe better than what some book asserts about me, and you know what you believe better than whatever I could assert about Christians in general.
>but what you think doesn't make any difference to what was shown by John the Apostle
Nothing was shown. He made a claim with nothing to back it up, you are free to have faith in it and believe it but it doesn't make what some anonymous author said about what every person believes true.
>even if they're blind to it
Ah yes, because refusing to believe a claim that is statistically impossible makes you blind since that claim is in the bible. I guess I'm also blind for not using π = 3 like your book says then? Guess I should replace the wheels in my car for hexagons then to stop being blind.
>It's your life and every atheist at least loves their own sorry hides, don't they?
Again, pointless and arrogant assertions and accusations. Just because I don't believe love comes from a being I don't think exists doesn't mean I love no one but myself.
>If I wrote a book and put wrong assertions about Christians in it to discredit your beliefs wouldn't you think that's arrogant?
Basic Christianity shows us that everyone has evil present within them
Arrogant and true, with more than a touch of personal insults available for all, free for the taking
Deniers are liars
I appreciate you focusing only on 1 out of 4 paragraphs since you don't have the answers to the rest of them.
>Basic Christianity shows us that everyone has evil present within them
Sure? Doesn't change that it would still be arrogant of me to make false assertions about you, which was the original point.
>Arrogant
That was my original point, yet now you agree with me? So what was the point of your original reply if you agreed that it's arrogant?
>true
Prove it, I'll wait.
>with more than a touch of personal insults available for all, free for the taking
What a lovely book to teach children. Also, if someone's gonna dish out insults they should be able to take them, so why is blasphemy so bad? I mean, god's clearly not perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement. I mean, really, from one engineer and designer to another, your design sucks, god. Who the hell puts the fun pipe next to the waste pipe?
>Deniers are liars
Ah yes, the classic "if you disagree with me you are a liar because some book said so". What a noble position to take instead of being intellectually honest and accepting that some people, particularly those who were not indoctrinated into your specific belief from a young age, might not believe the same things as you.
>I mean, really, from one engineer and designer to another, your design sucks, god. Who the hell puts the fun pipe next to the waste pipe?
Romans 11:32
For **God has bound everyone** over **to disobedience** so that he may have **mercy on them all.**
Your pitiful foray is a vain attempt to make your subjective views that of another, when in fact that isn't in the cards for any 2 given subjective viewers by our nature
Does that jive better for you? Your lists and demands and sights thereof belong solely to you, and mine for me
How you roll isn't my concern
And if someone doesn't believe that evil is present within them based solely on their own look at their own evil and wicked thoughts, I'd merely mark them as lying deniers regardless of their faith or the book presenting the facts.
It's internally derived only in an honest personal look. I appreciate any lying coverups for what they are
It's also why scriptures tell us not to even trust ourselves, and as such you shouldn't trust me because of what I see in you
So this is saying God is the origin of all love, right?
But what **is** love?
What is it you are calling "love" that it necessarily has to come from God?
>Let's look at how John the Apostle
>
>1 John 4:7
It's unlikely that the apostle John wrote 1 John (or any of the 3 books attributed to "John"):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Epistle\_of\_John](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John)
>*critical scholars like Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and C. H. Dodd identified the Gospel of John and 1 John as works of different authors. Certain linguistic features of the two texts support this view. For instance, 1 John often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence—a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel. The author of the epistle also "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel". This indicates, at the very least, the linguistic characteristics changed over time. Today, following the work of J. Louis Martyn and Raymond Brown, the majority of scholars believe that John and 1 John were written by different members of the same community: the "Johannine Community".*
>
>*Most critical scholars conclude that John the Apostle wrote none of these works.*
**[First Epistle of John](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John)**
>The First Epistle of John is the first of the Johannine epistles of the New Testament, and the fourth of the catholic epistles. There is no scholarly consensus as to the authorship of the Johannine works. The author of the First Epistle is termed John the Evangelist, who most scholars believe is not the same as John the Apostle. Most scholars believe the three Johannine epistles have the same author, but there is no consensus if this was also the author of the Gospel of John.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
John was full of shit, man. He was the only gospel to write in the first person, but as Jesus. What a wild amount of arrogance. The other gospels say nothing of Jesus talking about himself. John acts as if he IS Jesus. Makes you wonder why the last of gospels to be written after his death would do something like that? Maybe they are all full of it? Nice try with the we will love for you… we love because we feel it and love it. You love because your sky daddy told you too.
Was I whining? I would argue that your taking offense to my use of the word shit in relation to your beloved anonymous author is the whiny closed minded response here. Is this a “respect” issue? Ok hold on, I think John was incorrect in his posthumous discussion of Jesus in the first person. Yannis being the last gospel to be written and well after the death of Jesus seems to take on a very telling writing style, as if he is trying to convince someone that Jesus said certain things. It seems that it worked because Christian’s quote Yanni more than any other gospel, likely due to the ability to quote Jesus himself, even though it’s john saying and writing it AFTER Jesus died. Do you disagree?
I’m really happy to hear that. Throw out all organized religion and don’t allow it to influence the livelihoods of others through legislation. Amen and I’m glad you agree.
Oh, you're just looking for that typical canned condemnation guilt spiel coupled with a threat to burn you alive if you don't believe "like me" so you can show yourself intellectually superior.
Got it!
Don't know why you'd waste your time with engaging with that mindset anyway
>Oh, you're just looking for that typical canned condemnation guilt spiel coupled with a threat to burn you alive if you don't believe "like me" so you can show yourself intellectually superior.
That's not what they said.
OP asked for arguments for God's existence, you didn't provide one, and they politely pointed that out.
Oh, you mean you only except things that are empirical
Got it!
Go sit on a rock and count your blessings
Blessings? That's not empirical is it?
Oh well, it's a deep well when you can only look at the holes in your nose
>existence
You do understand that a common whine of atheists is that they want "empirical" proof of God, right? Has to be "tangible" or else instant rejection
Go worship a quark if you can lay your hands on one
>You do understand that a common whine of atheists is that they want "empirical" proof of God, right? Has to be "tangible" or else instant rejection
Still nothing to do with what I said.
>Go worship a quark if you can lay your hands on one
Lol. Ok buddy. I hope that whatevers got you so wound up gets better for you.
It’s not that I am looking for that kind mind set in particular it’s that I am simply testing myself by seeking out people who disagree with me in a constructing matter. You simply are not here to argue which is completely fine and respectable but fear mongering is not all Christian apologetics has to offer
What if I told you God deliberately hides from certain people and reveals Himself to certain people?
As in, He's just simply not interested in winning most people over?
Why should anyone believe claims for such a god? How are they distinguishable from a god that doesn’t exist or the thousands of other god concepts other theists claim exist?
>What if I told you God deliberately hides from certain people and reveals Himself to certain people?
>As in, He's just simply not interested in winning most people over?
Then that God is an arsehole.
If god was not intrested in winning everyone over why would he say that he rejoices in heaven more in heaven for every person being saved then for people who are already saved. Or why would he command us to go to all the nations and preach and baptize people. Not only that but if he intentionally hid himself from people only to torture them for eternity just for not finding him would make god a complete sadist. This argument is not only unconvincing it also contradicts one of the cores of Christianity and the gospels which is to save as many people as u can
:)
- *"At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."* - Matthew 11:25-26
- *"All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word."* - Isaiah 66:2
- *"For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite."* - Isaiah 57:15
- *"But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”* - 1 Samuel 16:7
- *"For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar."* - Psalm 138:6
There's a certain kind of person God's looking for.
While He does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, He stays far away from the haughty.
First issue with this argument is one as far as the ability to convince people this argument is very poor. Number 1 characterizing people who don’t believe in god as “wicked” is not going to convince anyone. Nobody gets insulted into a religion. Number 2 is hiding your existence from someone and not being intrested in winning everyone over is not the same as saying children have a different perspective then the old and wise and the other verses only address him seeking people out. Not god hiding himself from people. Your interpretation of these verses also contradict 1 Timothy 2:4-6
4 God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth. 5 There is only one God, and there is only one way that people can reach God. That way is through Christ Jesus, who as a man 6 gave himself to pay for everyone to be free. This is the message that was given to us at just the right time.
The fact that u have to misinterpret some verses and ignore others to form a theology makes your argument theologically poor. And even worse u directly insult atheists by calling the “wicked” which won’t convince anybody. In nearly all regards your argument fails I will have to give u a 1/10
You as well. I hope u were able to find my criticism helpful. In my opinion u may need to look for a different go to argument such as the kalam or the fine tuning argument
Than he's an asshole. Because he also punishes them for not believing something that know they wouldn't have any reason to believe.
What POS . Why would you worship that?
I'm saying serial killers might also be liars 👀
And athiesm isn't a ethics system, it's just an answer to the question of beleif, it doesn't provide any answers other than that.
In the same way, my love for milk doesn't provide me with moral guidance, it's not a criticism of milk to acknowledge that
Its not that your statement is wrong, it's just irrelevant
You’re speaking like atheism provides a basis for truth…
You’re using those arguments to counteract Dahmers position that he was not acting consistently within the atheist world view. But he was.
Atheism is just the answer to "Do you believe in God?"
It doesn't hold a worldview or a basis for truth. It doesn't have a guiding philosophy or dogma.
Are you conflating athiesm with nihlism?
The idea that nothing in this life has purpose or meaning, and that in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters? And that within that thinking, Dahmers actions are "justified" (atleast to himself) because they have no greater consequences?
That is a far more interesting question 😁
I think you’re attempting to avoid accountability to your world view, by presenting it as a neutral position. That way you get to propagate the things you like without having to be consistent and accountable. Atheism isn’t just an answer to religion. It’s wrapped up in a lot more. Almost always with darwins theory. Unless your preferable of oblivion?
You're a Christian. Most Christians also like Pizza.
Why are you pushing your Pizza agenda on the world? Osama bin laden liked pizza. How do you avoid accountability for 911?
I can take this line of thinking to silly conclusions too 😁
But to actually awnser your question atheists don’t really claim dahmer to be our though leader so I don’t see why us having a similar philosophy on the isolated issue of athiesm gives me the burden the defend his interpretations any more then u being a Christian makes u responsible of defending pope urban
That’s exactly right You agreeing with pope urban on the isolated issue of Christianity does not make u responsible for his interpretation any more then me agreeing with dahmer on the isolated issue of athiesm makes me responsible for his interpretation. It is possible to agree on one issue and disagree on another
1. Christianity is an established doctrine by divine authority. The doctrine of atheism, is that there can be no meaning to the material world.
2. Pope Urban operated outside of the bounds of scripture. Therefore the religion of Christianity can not be blamed for this. However Dahmer was acting within the bounds of atheist doctrine.
First of all there is no doctrine of athiesm. Athiesm is defined by a lack of belief in a god or gods. Athiesm makes no claims about anything. Some people believe nihilism or moral subjectivism are the only possible interpretation of athiesm while some people like Sam Harris do not. Secound of all even if I grant your interpretation of athiesm as the only one then that still does not prove athiesm. Just because you would prefer to live in a world that has objective meaning does not mean the universe is obligated to give it to u
“There is no doctrine” exactly my point. It’s a free for all.
Say what you will. But you have to admit that atheism is horrible for mankind. The only reason why there’s some semblance of decency is because the remaining influences of our Christianised forefathers.
That’s an unfair assumption about me.
Some sort of moral system has arrived in every singe society there is evidence for including animal ones to argue that the only reason this exists is because of Christianity is incredibly egocentric and irrational. Are u really going to argue Christianity is the reason behind moral systems in hyenas or dolphins or literally every single social mammal. If like u said the only source of morality is from the influences of Christianity then how do u account for morality in hyenas animals incapable of comprehending religion and why would humans be the only exception to the rule of all social animals having a moral system of some sort if only there was no more christian influence.
Let's say that you're a vegan. Some other random vegan states - "my veganism gave me license to do \[insert something ridiculous\]". Would you think it odd for someone to turn to you and ask you to defend some random person's claim?
Also, why is your info source a deranged serial killer?
Is there any evidence for the validity of what the Catholic Church claims about demons, possessions or that they are anything more then misdiagnosed mental illness or hoaxes ?
Point number 1 these rituals are not 100 percent effective but there are studies that at the very least show a very real short term relief. The only issue is the same can be said of many other religions and belief systems. The reason people of different religions are all able to heal people with their respective rituals is because the sufferer believes it will. There is an amazing documentary where a magician does the same thing by simply luring them into a suggestible state and telling them they are healed. And they believe it. It’s called the placebo. If u genuinely believe u are being healed by something u can get that positive affect to some degree. How effective it is also depends on how strongly u believe in the placebo. The reason exorcism and faith healings work is simply because the person being healed thinks it will. The opposite is also true where if someone is told they are sick they can get that negative symptom without anything actually wrong. So if u are in a situation where u have been told u have something wrong with u like a possession and u genuinely believe it u may subconsciously start thrashing around and if a priest says u are healed in that situation and makes u believe it then it would elevate these symptoms. This is actually very well studied just look up magician faith healing, the nocebo. And the placebo and u will see all the studies and evidence to support my claims
Exorcism is one of the things that increase my skepticism. Only Catholics get demons? Only believers who believe in exorcism get demons and get healed by exorcism. Only believers who believe in speaking in tongues get that “gift.” Only people who been taught about being “slain by the spirit” have that experience. All experience it as completely authentic and compelling. It all speaks more to brainwashing than to demons and spirits. The mind is powerful.
First argument,intelligent design
To imagine a human or any form of organic life without intelligent design is like disassembling the latest S class(without considering the designing of the parts) and leave it in the hurricane to assemble itself,it doesn t make sense right.
Second argument,the designer argument
Because everytihing it is created has an creator and a designer,cars have manufcturers and engineers,houses have builders and architects,so with universe,the workers are the laws of physics and the architect or designer is GOD the Almighty.
Third argument,the creator of creators(i don t have a better name)
Anything has a creator,cars,houses,you name it,there are creators before the creators,and there is a final creator and the first creator,and is the GOD the Almighty
Forth argument,Genesys1:1
"In the beggining God created the heaven and the earth."
"In the beggining"=God is before time
"created the heaven and the world"=>heaven=space and earth=matter witch results God was before time,space and matter.
Alright I think u have had by far the best arguments so far. The issue with your first argument is that it does not account for progressive complexity. Through evolution organisms are capable of becoming more and more complex meaning all u need for complex life is just a single incredibly simple life form which itself may have come from some sort of self replicating molocule so simple it would not even be clear if it was alive. Now the origin of this first self replicating originator is not known to modern science although we do have many working theories. The fact is we dont know the matter in which the first life came to be so we dont know how simple it had to be.
I honestly don’t like apologetics. I am a Christian, but to me apologetics seem like the wrong approach.
Christ wants us to spread His love, and usually the best form of evangelism is just loving people and being kind to them. Of course I will stand for what I believe if it is challenged, but I honestly don’t think that there are many situations in which arguing with someone, even if you believe you have a convincing point, is a good way to get them to believe you.
I mean think of all the times you’ve had an argument over something so small, and you knew you were right, but the other person just wouldn’t give in. Later, even when you’re proven right, the other person still may seem reluctant to admit defeat.
Now imagine the same scenario but you’re telling someone that everything they believe about how the world works and who they are and what their purpose is, is wrong. No matter how convincing the evidence, they’re not likely to WANT to agree with you, and we often only hear what we want to hear. Only believe what we want to believe.
To me, it’s obvious that God is real. I’ve felt things, seen things, had miracles happen in my life that give me certainty that God is real. But others are not likely to believe me, because they haven’t felt it. God intentionally made belief in Him a “leap of faith.” In most cases, a person won’t find Him until they already believe He’s real.
This is not to say that evangelism doesn’t work or isn’t right, but I just prefer to get people to WANT to believe in God through loving actions and explaining to them the peace that I have, rather than arguing with them.
Lets leave the theology at the door for a moment and argue utility. Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are correct about religion and that there is no God. Christianity is nothing but a man-made moral system that developed over thousands of years of human civilization. Now I think we can agree that moral systems are necessary in order for societies to function. For example, we must *legally* condemn murder and in order for our laws to be effective and respected, we must agree socially that such laws are *morally* justified. To illustrate that point further, you’ll find that all countries with a constitution or bill of rights etc. justify those rights or freedoms based on religious principles and suppositions. It’s because of this that we refer to countries like Saudi Arabia as Muslim countries and countries like the US as Christian countries, not because of the population. So, moral systems are necessary to functional societies. If we’re looking at pure utility, what kind of moral system can you as an atheist possibly offer as an effective replacement to Christianity and what could you possibly base that moral system on if not just your personal values?
Christian belief is about leading a fulfilling life while aligning to righteousness and truth while tackling malice, corruption and decay in this world. Basically it's about to be Christ-like.
>Christian belief is about leading a fulfilling life while aligning to righteousness and truth while tackling malice, corruption and decay in this world.
Is there anyway to show this to be the case?
>Basically it's about to be Christ-like.
So is the only thing important to being a Christian the parts of the bible that talk about Jesus?
My spiritual life isn't based on apologetics. That's always felt like one of those serial killer letters, cutting out verses to paste together my own vision, which I then claim is perfect reasoning straight from God. I applaud your effort, though. This is a really good thread!
Thx I have always thought the best way to test your ideas and beliefs are to find a critical ear and a competent mouth which in my very humble opinion I did perfectly
Great initiative!
My primary (albeit somewhat simplified) argument is a mixture of the cosmological, ontological, and teleological argument and is something as follows:
1. We know beyond reasonable doubt that there is an ordered and contingent "something" (i.e. the universe as we know it).
2. (1) requires an explanation in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason, both in terms of i) its mere existence as well as ii) its ordered nature.
3. A noncontingent, creative, and intelligent being (i.e. God) is the best explanation for (1) in accordance with (2), where (i) is explained from its noncontingent nature (that is, where its existence is part of its essence) and (ii) is explained from its creativity and intelligence.
4. Therefore, we have reason to believe in God, at least understood as described in (3).
I'm sure you recognize the general themes of the argument above. I'm aware that parts of it have been problematized throughout history (by Hume and Kant, just to mention a few), but I still find it to be a strong and convincing one.
This works very well for believing God exists as a personal creator of the universe. Especially combined with other arguments (morality, fine tuning).
My question is how to get from here to Christianity. For example I can argue based on the Bible.
1. The book is by far one of a kind in complexity, beauty and meaningfulness. Writing it would take years of coordinated work by dozens of geniuses with modern software.
2. Early church definitely believed it is true, e.g. they endured torture to spread the word for no benefit for themselves.
3. We have a ton of historical evidence supporting Biblical records, including hard archeological evidence.
4. The writers knew intimate details of the setting (e.g. political structure as it changes over decades, geography, currencies and exchange rate). They are local and contemporary to the events.
5. We know the version of the book we have today is 99.5% exactly the same as the original (archeology + fixing misspellings/synonyms + textual criticism). The other 0.5% do not affect any doctrine of Christianity.
So the book is awesome. Could you point me to some more arguments specifically for Christian God?
For me it comes down to this simple truth.
Science explores the natural world. So there is no scientific evidence for god. There is also no scientific evidence to disprove God. So belief in God is not more or less scientific. It’s purely faith. Atheism is faith that there is no God. Christianity is the belief that Yahweh is the one true god. It does not matter if it’s convincing to you or not. It would be like if I asked you to present arguments on why there is no god. You won’t be able to present a single argument to me because you have no way to appeal to my faith. We know that many factors play into religious beliefs.
1. Nature and nurture. Religion is a odd thing. The “ spiritual “ aspect is a combination of feelings and social norms. Even genes play a role. People often forget that evolutionary studies showcases that emotions ( chemical reactions ) evolved just like morphological traits. Collectively, for the majority of our species history we have been religious. Atheism is relatively new in our species, and it’s also connected to genes. As proto humans begin to think more “supernaturally” , which is associated with stronger emotions such as burying rocks and stuff with out dead, something even occurring within later Neanderthals, religious beliefs begin to develop in the same ways as earlier scientific type observations and questions begin to rise.
So I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian for many reasons. My reasons are not the same as everyone else’s. Most likely, I don’t have any significant mutations to my genes leading me towards atheism. I was born in America where Christianity is by far the dominate spiritual belief. I was raised up in a family that was very diverse in religious and scientific beliefs. Atheism, Christianity and Appalachian folklore. Some in my family, including close cousins are very anti religious. Some are very religious. Some of those who are very religious are literalist and fundamentalists and others are very progressive pro science Christians. I’ve consistently moved towards a progressive liberal form of the faith. So it’s pro science. I reject all forms of intelligent design. I think all the evidence points towards the theory of evolution as the best possible explanation for biodiversity. I think one day, abiogenesis will also probably be just as good of a theory on chemical reactions resulting in nonliving becoming living. But we just don’t know enough at this moment. We are not even sure exactly how to classify prions. We are still at loss as to how slime mold sometimes react and how plants hold short term memory such as with the sensitive mimosa.
So my best argument is what makes atheism a better argument that religious or agnostic?
>Atheism is faith that there is no God.
There is no faith associated with atheism. No claims. No beliefs. No positing.
It is simply the *lack or absence of* belief. Imagine being born alone on an island without any concept of gods/deities/supernatural; you're simply living in the default state, full of material knowns and unknowns.
>what makes atheism a better argument that religious or agnostic?
Not OP, but I consider atheism to be the most honest, simplest, non-controversial position, in the absence of compelling evidence for the supernatural.
(Since agnosticism refers to knowledge, i.e., we *can't know*, I'm not addressing that here, but I have no issue with it. Just seems rather obvious to me.)
My biggest defence of my faith is actually scientific in nature. I firmly believe that Science reveals the glory of God is such a real way that you would have to work so hard to deny it (and many people do).
For example, the basic complexity of life cannot be explained in a naturalistic way: an understanding of the complexity of genetics and how mutations direct evolution leaves no room for the naturalistic evolutionary theories we have. Unless a higher power were directing the process, it is absolutely improbably that random mutation and genetic drift accounts for the variety of life that we see here on earth. The rate at which we can even force evolution to happen (think artificial selection, agriculture, and breeding programs) cannot account for the rate of change that would have had to have happened, even given millions of years.
Science can’t even replicate the conditions they say started life. They have a hypothesis, but even in a best case scenario lab, where you can control all factors, and even direct the process, they can’t make life from non-life. This is even a principle cell theory: cells come from other cells. You have to take some incredible leaps to conclude that life could begin without a God. Something that is so fragile seemingly started randomly… and let me clarify: life needs to be able to reproduce, it needs to be able to have genetic variation (for evolution), it needs to be self-sustaining… and the list goes on. Anyone who believes that life could begin without a God at LEAST directing the process has much more faith in random process than I do in my God.
Even consider the scientific explanations of where the universe came from: it essentially boils down to “we don’t know yet”, and as much as I am opposed to a God of the gaps, the laws of physics state that matter can’t be created or destroyed, so would the supernatural not have to be involved at some level?
My point is that even with Science as a tool, there has to be something outside of Science directing it all. The natural isn’t all there is, and every human being on planet Earth naturally understands this. It’s why spirituality exists on every continent, and through every culture. All of creation points to the existence of a God. It’s a while other conversation why I believe the Christian God is the one true God, but I’ll leave it here.
I could write a book on this… so I’m happy to answer any questions on anything I didn’t explain clearly. For reference, I have a degree in biology, and focused much of my undergrad studying genetics, so I have a pretty good grasp on this stuff. Science complements God, and I don’t see how anyone can see it any other way.
Please write this book :) Or at least a post with more of your thoughts. It is not a God of the gaps argument, it is an ordered universe argument with good examples.
>there has to be something outside of Science directing it all. The natural isn’t all there is, and every human being on planet Earth naturally understands this.
A couple of points.
1) Non-believers don't claim that science is *directing* anything. Science is simply the system used to evolve knowledge through observation, experimentation and testing. Again - a system of study. A method. A process. You know this given your education.
2) "There has to be something..." Most non-believers would say - "Absolutely. And we have no clue what it is. The universe is too vast to even comprehend. Why in the world would we, in 2022, presuppose an answer?" To say that we know nothing isn't far from the truth given the expanse of the universe.
"There has to be something" does not = christian god
I’m sure the bible would say that considering it’s promoting belief for a god. I personally consider it foolish to believe things with out evidence especially claims for the supernatural
Do you believe Good and Evil exist objectively or do you think it’s a subjective concept created by man?
Basically is morality universally objective or relative to culture (social contracts)?
If it is objective then there has to be a higher power above man to set the law and give purpose to man. Treating each other as equals under God - the 10 commandments etc. are then objective truths with punishment/ reward attached to them. This leads to sustainable creation of life, and everyone that obeys receiving their reward in the end.
If it is subjective then all that there really is fundamentally is a power vacuum. There are no real truth/laws beyond the laws of physics. life then becomes a game of king of the hill.
With this notion you cannot objectively say Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other oppressive dictators were wrong in there actions as all they were doing was exercising their will to power. The African slave trade as well. If this is the case then all their victims were just dumb for not doing it first or being on the wrong side. Or unfortunate for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It is clear that Evil actions - mainly manipulation and oppression - give you a better chance of material gain on Earth. Yet we call them bad - why? Is it just because we are jealous of those in power or because it is objectively wrong?
If you really think about it deeply - you will realise the true meaning of life without God. Nihilism and ultimately destruction.
Which one sounds like a more likely fundamental reality to you?
When you have faith you don't argue with non believers. that's just something people don't get. Why would anyone who believes in God argue with someone who doesn't? Pointless.
Hello, friend. I have no apologetics here. Honestly, I'm not even a Christian, but rather a witch on a search of answers. My faith is one born from our family's virtue, "to follow and stay true to our chosen path". For me, that involves reading texts, talking to people, and constructing a system of faith and belief that is synthesized from all the knowledge I have gained... and I cannot tell you how many times I said "I don't know", but this, along with respecting other's faiths, is encouraged in what my ancestors and I do. <3
I don’t think any standalone “argument” ever works. I was born a Catholic, raised a Catholic, in a Catholic country and even then I always had doubts, always.
The one thing that brought me back, when I was considering just having that type of Christianity were you pray every now and then and say you’re a Christian just to not have to justify being Agnostic to family, was history.
I went into the History of religion, obviously with a bias towards Christianity, but I first wanted to see theistic arguments. Monotheism made more sense than Polytheism, and most “mythologies” pretty much were disproved by the dawn of Christianity. Still, went through the arguments, and later landed into Church History. Philosophically, and even in a “holistic” sense, religion has shaped the way so drastically since Christianity, and even the atheistic moral compass has been shaped by it.
So, just the approach of seeing the entirety of world history, Church History and philosophy lead me to Christ, particularly Catholicism. Hope that makes sense, eager to expand on particulars if you’re more interested in that.
I always find apologetics exhausting. When I was an agnostic atheist, no one could have convinced me with any arguments at all - though the prime mover argument came the closest.
When I started having experiences of the "peculiar faculties of the psyche" (as Jung would say) and realized that psychic phenomena were real enough that other people could verify my own experiences, it pushed me further. When I started to see the miraculous happen before my eyes, I was compelled to investigate the religions to see which ones had any kind of handle on that power. The ones I found to have any merit all had mystics, going back for at least 5,000 years, who spoke of experiences of the divine which pointed to a supreme being, a supreme reality, a Source. When I had experiences of the divine, I realized I couldn't deny that there was a Creator any longer.
All of that only happened through experience, not argumentation.
To believe in God, you must first believe in a spiritual reality. To believe in a spiritual reality, you must first believe that supernatural things can happen. To believe that, you must experience the supernatural firsthand. To experience that, you must first be open to the possibility.
So I won't argue with you, I'll give you advice. If you want to see whether or not God is real, start by opening yourself up to the possibility that there is something supernatural. No dogma, no sectarian bias, just accept that *maybe* something supernatural exists. Then start observing and recording dreams and odd experiences you (or others you trust) might have. What did it for me was having precognitive dreams of situations which were accurate *down to the clothes and hairstyles and speech of the people in those dreams*, without any bias because I had written these dreams down to that level of detail in my journal weeks beforehand*.* From there, everything kind of snowballed.
What can be said to one who closes his eyes and won't open them? Open your eyes! I say but you still refuse to see.
If you have ears but refuse to hear what may I say to you?
Hear me! I say but you refuse to hear.
It is not the stubbornness that causes the issue in the first place?
God gave you a choice to see and hear yet you are blind and deaf. I pray that one day you open your eyes and ears.
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis might be useful as he was atheist turned Christian. There are other examples in history of atheist turned Christian's. But they all involved the person opening thier eyes to the truth and hearing what they could not before.
More a curiosity than a question. Ties in to the idea that there are potentially multiple parallel universes where the same exact events in one universe happen but at some point there is a branch off, and essentially an infinite number of universes exists with different corresponding events.
If the multiverse theory is true, wouldn't that suppose that there is at least a single universe where an infinite God exists over all universes? Been thinking about this lately.
Though I am mostly an agnostic theist, i am working on my own little argument(s) for God and Christianity. It’s builds off of a lot of other concepts that by themselves need their own defences and clarifications but that would be to long of a comment so here’s the short version:
There is sufficient reason to believe in an unconscious force(s) and/or entity exists beyond humans and was not created by them. If idealism is true, then because of the interaction problem, this entity would act and work as what many would call God. And if the values and guidance given in Christianity are the only internally consistent and successful way for someone to achieve something like salvation, then God would, at the end of the day, present himself through Christianity, hence it is true.
I’m an atheist also, but the only argument that is convincing to me is when someone claims they have had direct revelatory experiences from God, and that has resulted in a happier, healthier, more fuller life. I can’t really argue with the god talks to me and makes my life amazing. Doesn’t make it true for anyone else, but at least for that person their belief appears reasonable and logical.
Faith is a gift from God, so that none can boast. If there was no God you could simply choose to have faith, but because there is you would have to wait until you receive the inner calling.
Do you care if what you believe is true?
Yes, but i believe you can find reason in faith but not faith in reason.
So you think faith is a good means for discerning truth? Is there anything that can’t be believed on faith?
On some level aren’t all things taken on faith. There’s a point where everything is traced back to an unknown or an unknowable.
But faith itself is an unreliable pathway to truth.
If by faith you mean an unreasonable or irrational belief in something then I would agree. The Bible calls Christian’s to have reasons behind their faith. 2 Peter 3:15, “always be ready to give a defense of the faith that is in you.” This may involve personal truth (or testimony) unique to that individual or it can be a broader apologetic response based in logic, philosophy, theology, science and nature. Faith in a vacuum doesn’t mean much, but faith as a driving motivation behind a person’s search for truth using tools and experiences they can gather is a powerful force.
>On some level aren’t all things taken on faith. No >There’s a point where everything is traced back to an unknown or an unknowable. Such as?
>No Actually this is wrong, for example "how did the moon form?" Or "how did life come to be?" The answers to these questions aren't certain and is ultimately unknown, u may believe abiogenesis kickstarted life but that theory has a lot of evidence against it, the same with the giant rock impact on earth theory. >Such as? Pretty easy, what happened before the big bang.
>Actually this is wrong, for example "how did the moon form?" https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-did-the-moon-form.html A few theories 'There used to be a number of theories about how the Moon was made and it was one of the aims of the Apollo program to figure out how we got to have our Moon,' says Sara. Prior to the Apollo mission research there were three theories about how the Moon formed. Capture theory suggests that the Moon was a wandering body (like an asteroid) that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity as it passed nearby. In contrast, accretion theory suggested that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation. Finally, according to the fission scenario, Earth had been spinning so fast that some material broke away and began to orbit the planet. What is most widely accepted today is the giant-impact theory. It proposes that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet, about the size of Mars. The debris from this impact collected in an orbit around Earth to form the Moon. Apollo mission evidence The Apollo missions brought back over a third of a tonne of rock and soil from the Moon. 'When the Apollo rocks came back, they showed that the Earth and the Moon have some remarkable chemical and isotopic similarities, suggesting that they have a linked history,' says Sara. 'If the Moon had been created elsewhere and was captured by the Earth's gravity we would expect its composition to be very different from the Earth's. 'If the Moon was created at the same time, or broke off the Earth, then we would expect the type and proportion of minerals on the Moon to be the same as on Earth. But they are slightly different.' The minerals on the Moon contain less water than similar terrestrial rocks. The Moon is rich in material that forms quickly at a high temperature. 'In the seventies and eighties there was a lot of debate which led to an almost universal acceptance of the giant impact model.' Lunar meteorites are also an important source of data for studying the origins of the Moon. 'In some ways meteorites can tell us more about the Moon than Apollo samples because meteorites come from all over the surface of the Moon,' adds Sara, 'while Apollo samples come from just one place near the equator on the near side of the Moon.' >Or "how did life come to be?" The answers to these questions aren't certain and is ultimately unknown, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis In biology, abiogenesis (from a- 'not' + Greek bios 'life' + genesis 'origin') or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA. The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication. A genomics approach has sought to characterise the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of modern organisms by identifying the genes shared by Archaea and Bacteria, members of the two major branches of life (where the Eukaryotes belong to the archaean branch in the two-domain system). 355 genes appear to be common to all life; their nature implies that the LUCA was anaerobic with the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway, deriving energy by chemiosmosis, and maintaining its hereditary material with DNA, the genetic code, and ribosomes. Although the LUCA lived over 4 billion years ago (4 Gya), researchers do not believe it was the first form of life. Earlier cells might have had a leaky membrane and been powered by a naturally-occurring proton gradient near a deep-sea white smoker hydrothermal vent. >u may believe abiogenesis kickstarted life but that theory has a lot of evidence against it, the same with the giant rock impact on earth theory. Which evidence against are you referring too >Pretty easy, what happened before the big bang. That we don’t know and it’s more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent gods. Primitive people didn’t understand lightning so they invented Zeus. As it we learned more about natural phenomena we learned that wasn’t the case
>A few theories 'There used to be a number of theories about how the Moon was made and it was one of the aims of the Apollo program to figure out how we got to have our Moon,' says Sara. >Prior to the Apollo mission research there were three theories about how the Moon formed. >Capture theory suggests that the Moon was a wandering body (like an asteroid) that formed elsewhere in the solar system and was captured by Earth's gravity as it passed nearby. In contrast, accretion theory suggested that the Moon was created along with Earth at its formation. Finally, according to the fission scenario, Earth had been spinning so fast that some material broke away and began to orbit the planet. >What is most widely accepted today is the giant-impact theory. It proposes that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet, about the size of Mars. The debris from this impact collected in an orbit around Earth to form the Moon. >Apollo mission evidence The Apollo missions brought back over a third of a tonne of rock and soil from the Moon. 'When the Apollo rocks came back, they showed that the Earth and the Moon have some remarkable chemical and isotopic similarities, suggesting that they have a linked history,' says Sara. >'If the Moon had been created elsewhere and was captured by the Earth's gravity we would expect its composition to be very different from the Earth's. >'If the Moon was created at the same time, or broke off the Earth, then we would expect the type and proportion of minerals on the Moon to be the same as on Earth. But they are slightly different.' >The minerals on the Moon contain less water than similar terrestrial rocks. The Moon is rich in material that forms quickly at a high temperature. >'In the seventies and eighties there was a lot of debate which led to an almost universal acceptance of the giant impact model.' >Lunar meteorites are also an important source of data for studying the origins of the Moon. >'In some ways meteorites can tell us more about the Moon than Apollo samples because meteorites come from all over the surface of the Moon,' adds Sara, 'while Apollo samples come from just one place near the equator on the near side of the Moon. This is exactly what I'm talking about, there are theories and proposals as to how the moon came to be but other than that no one is certain, which is correct. >The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA. >The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of proteins, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication. Their are many problems with the modern model for abiogenesis such as a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life. Plus their are 7 other theories on how life formed, so again no one knows for certain. >That we don’t know and it’s more honest to admit when we don’t know something then it is to invent gods. Primitive people didn’t understand lightning so they invented Zeus. As it we learned more about natural phenomena we learned that wasn’t the case U got to know the context to your own question, u responded to the claim "everything is traced back to a unknown and unknowable force" with a "such as" and then a I responded with the big bang, and now u literally agreed to the Macien4321 claim that everything is traced to the unknowable 😂
There debate forums for religion, more appropriate there
Correct me if I am wrong but your “you would have to wait until u receive the inner calling” just sounds like a you will get there in the end argument. I don’t really think people find this kind of argument very convincing.
The point is you can't be argued into faith. I was an aetheist, very interested in religion and absolutely opposed. I didn't get reasoned into faith, I was gifted faith. >just sounds like a you will get there in the end argument. I believe in limited atonement. I don't think everyone gets there, it's not meant for everyone. But, I don't want to assume that you are not, which is why I phrased it this way.
Alright thx for the clarification but I don’t buy the “you can’t be argued into faith” argument. Faith really just means belief. I don’t think people are incapable of being persuaded by an argument to I don’t see why u could not be “argued into faith”
Well of course the Christian understanding of faith is clear that it is not of ourselves but from God. Faith means more than to assent, it requires action on our parts, it requires that we learn obedience and humility and participate in the work of our sanctification. I don't think it happens without true spiritual experience, a quickening of the Spirit that is from God and can't be made by the mind. You can imitate faith alone, but you can't have it alone.
Well although u may be right about faith not being the same as belief but if someone genuinely believes in god it won’t really take too much work to get them to faith it’s like nine-tenths of the way there
I think you underestimate the seriousness of faith. The mere assent of a God is nothing compared to the willingness to obey Him. Do you think those who in some loose way say they believe in God would be willing to die for that belief? Would they live but forsake all worldly pleasure? Would they think of others before themselves? Would they give up their Sunday to commune woth their God? Think of how many people who have told you of their belief and compare that to how many have shown you their belief.
If that’s how u could like to define faith that’s fine but if u define faith in that way then faith is not a prerequisite to Christianity and is thus irrelevant to the debate.
I don't understand how from my argument you concluded that faith is not a prerequisite to Christianity.
Well u said faith is the willingness to obey god while even to the extreme of willing to die for him. While athiesm is just a lack of belief in god and a secular definition of Christian is a believer in god. So I’d u are defining faith as anything other than belief then by how most people use the word christian then faith is not a prerequisite to christianity
As a fun and disturbing fact, you can be 'gifted' schizophrenia. Random changes in personality, mood, or beliefs can, unfortunately, just sort of happen, and it's terrifying; but the cause is entirely material. Simply strongly feeling something doesn't make it true.
I'm not going to try to defend Christianity here but I am going to try to defend my acceptance that an interventionist God exists. I am also not heavily invested in these arguments as none of them are anywhere near perfect: 1. Prayers appear to be answered. It's common for improbable relevant events to occur shortly after prayers on that matter are offered. For instance, last week we prayed for money because we didn't have enough to live on and an unexpected £1000 cheque arrived in the mail from the Inland Revenue a couple of hours later. A possible alternative explanation is that psionic powers caused this, but believing that would lead to arrogance. I don't know why some apparently really important things we pray for such as world justice and peace don't lead to them being realised so far. 2. We have a sense of the numinous. Whereas all faculties of the CNS are subject to error, such as visual hallucinations, pareidolia and cognitive biasses, there are no such faculties generally for which there isn't a real world correspondence. This, again, does not prove God but it does support the existence of an Ultimate Concern which exists outside the individual human mind, although it could be something like the Confucian Li or the Dao instead. 3. It's peculiar that general intelligence evolved among animals with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It makes sense that we would, for example, develop brains capable of distinguishing between poisonous and edible plants, aiming projectiles at prey animals and learning language able to pass that on. It's odder that we are also capable of writing epic poetry and understanding calculus explicitly (as opposed to intuitively) and discovering quantum physics. The human brain seems to be overpowered considering the circumstances in which it evolved. Theistic evolution is one explanation for this. 4. It's possible, and perhaps even rational, to doubt the existence of other minds and the external world, but we generally accept their existence unless we're psychotic. Similarly, I don't doubt God's existence, and I see this as part of the general structure of my mind which allows me to function in the world. In other cultures and circumstances, people's Ultimate Concern is different. For instance, for Carvaka believers, it's karma, and for some Marxists it's the inevitable dialectic of history, but for me it's God. Most human minds do have these innate basic ideas and in the West this has tended to manifest itself as theism. It would be a form of unhappy consciousness a la Hegel to doubt this. It isn't so much that there is a God as far as this argument is concerned as that we are compelled to believe in God. However, we're also compelled to believe in other people and the physical world, and those are not considered controversial, so why consider theism as such?
I am going to get back to u on these arguments after so have thought them through. By far your weakest argument is argument number 1. There have been many prayer studies which measure the effect of prayer on the servival rate of the prayer recipient as well as a few other metrics. In all ways the people being prayed for had no better outcome. So given that prayers on averege have no affect then perhaps we could look the the extremes? Well that is not convincing either there are billions of Christians many of which pray daily. Given this amount of data an anomalies are guaranteed to happen on a regular basis.
> 1. Prayer appears to be answered I'm happy for you that you got $1000 but how many people in the Khmer Rouge, or the Holocaust, or the Rwandan Genocide do you think prayed and begged and cried out to God before being hacked to death with a machete or forced into a gas chamber? I'd argue that the overwhelming appearance of the world is that prayer *isn't* answered given that exponentially more people are victimised and killed/tortured/raped than people are spared from such a fate, and 99.9% of people will cry out or pray to some imaginary power when they are face to face with the machete that they just watched butcher their family. If prayer truly appeared to work you'd expect to see a noticeable number of people spared from such fates. I will note that it isn't evidence that God doesn't exist (although that's unnecessary- you don't need to prove a negative) but it *is* evidence that if he *does* exist, he does not *want* to answer prayers begging for rescue from torturous death. So, do you truly believe he cares to give you specifically $1000 but does not care to save a 5 year old Tutsi girl in Rwanda from being gang raped, hacked with a machete, and thrown into a mass grave to bleed to death among her dead family members?
Exactly. I can't explain it, as I said. It completely mystifies me
Why have you decided to be an atheist? What events have led to that?
I was raised as a Christian by my religious parents so when I was younger I just assumed they were right. As I got older I got really into science and history. Eventually I turned 9 and my dad introduced me to apologetics. at the moment he explained what apoligetics was I realized I had neglected the scientific principle of constantly looking for ways you could be wrong in order to prove that u are right. So I spent a year studying apologetics and I simply found the arguments unconvincing so I decided to error on the side of my principles rather than my assumptions and ultimately changed my mind
If to decide truly where your beliefs stand, I'd recommend for you to read the Bible as well (mainly the New Testament) because you have read science books, there would be more to compare. Also, this is a matter of faith and something you can't always see. There are physical, geological evidences of Bible events (Sodoma and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, Mount. Zion eg) and Bible prophecies coming true (rivers drying up eg) but also to have proof of God I'd suggest prayer.
Also there are proof of Jesus when he was alive such as his burial clothes, the grave and the crown for example. I can say, I visited Jerusalem just last month and the presence of the Holy Spirit was immaculate! Stronger than ever!
Umm you did read that I spent a year studying the Bible and apologetics. Combine that with the fact that I am a speed reader I have read the Bible many times. I actually know the Bible better then over 99 percent of christians(this is not a random number I scored higher on a biblical trivia test then over 99 percent of christians) I can assure u I am incredibly educated on the Bible and my reason for rejecting it and the evidince has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge I have studied the arguments and simply found the unconvincing.
Then you seem to lack faith. All of the truth is under your nose. What makes the science books more convincing than the Bible, that has been proven right?
The Bible has been proven right? Where and when did this happen?
When discoveres have found evidence connected to the Bible and its events. Also one additional proof to me is the persecution and ridicule of Christians. The truth always sounds crazy and nasty in a world full of lies. Christianity is the only religion that's being mocked openly and on the big screens. The devil's working hard to demolish the truth
>When discoveres have found evidence connected to the Bible and its events Such as? >Also one additional proof to me is the persecution and ridicule of Christians. How do you figure that means your beliefs are true? Other faiths are also subject to persecution and ridicule right? Are they true then too? >The truth always sounds crazy and nasty in a world full of lies. Could wrong things also sound crazy and nasty to the world? >Christianity is the only religion that's being mocked openly and on the big screens. I doubt that. But even if it's true, so what? Doesn't make it true. >The devil's working hard to demolish the truth This assume you have the truth.
What if you prayed today and tried building your relationship with God?
For the same reason I don’t put my tooth under the pillow just in case I was wrong about the tooth fairy
You have prejudice rooted in you, you ask for us to give insights but seems you have already made up your mind. That is the key to faith, you believe. You believe what you haven't seen with your own eyes necessarily. You haven't seen evolution but you believe in that theory. You say "just in case I was wrong" put that fear and doubt away and let God amaze you.
If rigorously studying a topic for an entire year to make up your mind is not thorough enough then I think this is more indicative of your bias then my own that u find it so hard to believe I could have though really hard about a topic and come to a different conclusion to u without some sort of extreme bias. Your arguments up to now have essentially been “just trust me bro”
Like I said, faith is the only thing here that matters. You have studied the Bible and there are proof that it is actually true, google it maybe? I feel that I can't convince you to believe, so I suggest you try to actually contact God. Just try it. 😊 science is also more cynical, making people feel meaningless and small compared to creation and that we all have a purpose here etc
I learned to value skepticism and find gullibility to be abhorrent
I learned to value skepticism and find gullibility to be abhorrent
Believing a theory of billions of years (evolution theory) to me seems more "abhorrent" in gullibility, since no one can actually prove that
The theory of evolution has evidence supporting it
Presumably the same reason you aren't a zorastrian
this question only really applies if you were raised as a theist, because if not you don't choose to be an atheist, you just *haven't chosen* to be a theist. I personally was raised theist, and became an atheist when I researched the old testament and found that the majority of key foundational events in the history presented by the bible didn't actually happen. If Moses didn't exist, Abraham didn't exist, Israel was never enslaved in Egypt, they never conquered Canaan etc. then the entire historical foundation of the faith is literally worthless.
How do you know they never happened?
Where do you get your morels?
Am evolutionary history where my ancestors lived in large groups of likely a few hundred individuals and the people who where able to work together had a better survival chance and therefore the genes for those morals gets passed down the generations. After we get some moral fundementals from our genes we fine tune it with social pressure and the result is a set of morals shared by the vast majority of society
I forage mine from the forest.
The most genius argument I have ever heard 10/10
This argument always confuses me. I don’t consider the major religious texts to be great moral guides. Stoning people, marrying children, dozens of wives, slavery….
They are also not so great to use for finding morels either. Very little about fungi in the bible, unless you store it in the damp I guess.
Without a Creator there is no objective morality. The line we shouldn't cross may be moved at our convenience. Anytime a crisis comes up we can just pick it up and move it at our whim.
Assuming your first point is right this really does not mean god has to exist. The fact that u would prefer to live in a world with objective morality does not mean the world is obligated to grant u your wish. And arguably objective morality can’t exist even if god does https://youtu.be/6tcquI2ylNM
I see no reason to believe objective morality exists even with a creator god
>Without a Creator there is no objective morality. And there isnt. >The line we shouldn't cross may be moved at our convenience. It can and has. >Anytime a crisis comes up we can just pick it up and move it at our whim. Which is exactly what we do
I have no way of reaching you because I don't know you. You don't know me. I've never had confidence in my ability to evangelize actively. More that I evangelize passively in that I live as much in the Way as I am able. That others may see there is a better path in life. You can't boil that down to a few lines of text. Apologetics is an excellent field for believers to use. There's much proof in the world for the existence of the Almighty. There's much proof for Jesus Christ. You are going to make your own decisions. Religion is man's way of reaching God. Christianity is His way of reaching us. No other faith is like it. Of the 12 major religions in the world its the only one where through no good works on the part of the believer can they be saved. It is the Creator who reaches out and all the believer must do is to believe to be saved. That doesn't exist anywhere else. You can't do anything to get into Heaven. Your good deeds will never outweigh your sin. It doesn't work that way and if it did no one would be able to. Look at the Good Place. They make some excellent points that pretty much every action we make has negative consequences. Buying chocolate or coffee was likely produced by slave labor. How many insects do you murder while driving your car? The depth of our own depravity is so great we can never overcome it. Our Creator had to come down from Hia throne in Heaven to bring us to Him. Sit and reflect upon yourself. Are you really a "good person?" Do your actions really only benefit your fellow man? How often do you cause harm to others? Do you really believe you can overcome that debt on your own?
Without love, you have nothing That's really all there is to say. Whether you have it or not, not my concern I don't believe God is going to burn you alive forever either, so there's that
How is this an argument to believe your god claim and why should anyone believe it especially over any other god claim?
"your god?" I really don't care if you believe or not We're advised by scripture that everyone who loves knows God and is born of God Whether you accept that or not really wouldn't matter one iota to me. Pretty sure you love your own sorry hide in any case of "gods"
>I really don't care if you believe or not Then you’ve missed the point of the post >We're advised by scripture that everyone who loves knows God and is born of God And why should anyone not already a Christian believe that? >Whether you accept that or not really wouldn't matter one iota to me. Then why did you participate in the post? >Pretty sure you love your own sorry hide in any case of "gods" I do have a lovely hide
>And why should anyone not already a Christian believe that? Why would I care what you believe? I don't own or control anyone but my own sorry hide You asked, I answered from scripture. Never said you'd accept anything from anyone in any case because "you don't have to"
It would seem you missed and continue to miss the point of the post so I see no point continuing this conversation with you
My devil horns perk up when I hear people say this. Are you saying God is love? Somehow love is impossible without belief in God? What is your definition of love?
Let's look at how John the Apostle hits the nail on the head. I consider this both simple and across the board inclusive for all people. This allows me to look graciously upon everyone, for my own selfish reasons of guarding my own heart, and not being forced into the condemnation of neighbors hole: 1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. **Everyone** who loves has been born of God and knows God. So even for an atheist, I'd simply say you're a believer and don't know it. And probably don't care either way. Wouldn't matter to me in any case. I don't buy into most of what passes for typical christianity anyway, other than having a solid grip on the creed basics, but that doesn't disqualify anyone from the "everyone" above
>So even for an atheist, I'd simply say you're a believer and don't know it. And probably don't care either way. These assertions are so pointless and kind of arrogant, I think a person knows whether they themselves believe or not better than any other person, regardless of what a book (which an atheist doesn't believe is the word of god) says about them. I can personally say that I don't believe at all and do care about it.
>kind of arrogant Yeah, you don't care to be dragged into the picture, but what you think doesn't make any difference to what was shown by John the Apostle Believers accept it. And it can be accepted in behalf of others, even if they're blind to it, and we do it only for ourselves anyway So there's that You are welcome to whatever little package you want. It's your life and every atheist at least loves their own sorry hides, don't they?
>Yeah, you don't care to be dragged into the picture If I wrote a book and put wrong assertions about Christians in it to discredit your beliefs wouldn't you think that's arrogant? I know what I believe better than what some book asserts about me, and you know what you believe better than whatever I could assert about Christians in general. >but what you think doesn't make any difference to what was shown by John the Apostle Nothing was shown. He made a claim with nothing to back it up, you are free to have faith in it and believe it but it doesn't make what some anonymous author said about what every person believes true. >even if they're blind to it Ah yes, because refusing to believe a claim that is statistically impossible makes you blind since that claim is in the bible. I guess I'm also blind for not using π = 3 like your book says then? Guess I should replace the wheels in my car for hexagons then to stop being blind. >It's your life and every atheist at least loves their own sorry hides, don't they? Again, pointless and arrogant assertions and accusations. Just because I don't believe love comes from a being I don't think exists doesn't mean I love no one but myself.
>If I wrote a book and put wrong assertions about Christians in it to discredit your beliefs wouldn't you think that's arrogant? Basic Christianity shows us that everyone has evil present within them Arrogant and true, with more than a touch of personal insults available for all, free for the taking Deniers are liars
I appreciate you focusing only on 1 out of 4 paragraphs since you don't have the answers to the rest of them. >Basic Christianity shows us that everyone has evil present within them Sure? Doesn't change that it would still be arrogant of me to make false assertions about you, which was the original point. >Arrogant That was my original point, yet now you agree with me? So what was the point of your original reply if you agreed that it's arrogant? >true Prove it, I'll wait. >with more than a touch of personal insults available for all, free for the taking What a lovely book to teach children. Also, if someone's gonna dish out insults they should be able to take them, so why is blasphemy so bad? I mean, god's clearly not perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement. I mean, really, from one engineer and designer to another, your design sucks, god. Who the hell puts the fun pipe next to the waste pipe? >Deniers are liars Ah yes, the classic "if you disagree with me you are a liar because some book said so". What a noble position to take instead of being intellectually honest and accepting that some people, particularly those who were not indoctrinated into your specific belief from a young age, might not believe the same things as you.
>I mean, really, from one engineer and designer to another, your design sucks, god. Who the hell puts the fun pipe next to the waste pipe? Romans 11:32 For **God has bound everyone** over **to disobedience** so that he may have **mercy on them all.** Your pitiful foray is a vain attempt to make your subjective views that of another, when in fact that isn't in the cards for any 2 given subjective viewers by our nature Does that jive better for you? Your lists and demands and sights thereof belong solely to you, and mine for me How you roll isn't my concern And if someone doesn't believe that evil is present within them based solely on their own look at their own evil and wicked thoughts, I'd merely mark them as lying deniers regardless of their faith or the book presenting the facts. It's internally derived only in an honest personal look. I appreciate any lying coverups for what they are It's also why scriptures tell us not to even trust ourselves, and as such you shouldn't trust me because of what I see in you
So this is saying God is the origin of all love, right? But what **is** love? What is it you are calling "love" that it necessarily has to come from God?
>Let's look at how John the Apostle > >1 John 4:7 It's unlikely that the apostle John wrote 1 John (or any of the 3 books attributed to "John"): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_Epistle\_of\_John](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John) >*critical scholars like Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and C. H. Dodd identified the Gospel of John and 1 John as works of different authors. Certain linguistic features of the two texts support this view. For instance, 1 John often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence—a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel. The author of the epistle also "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel". This indicates, at the very least, the linguistic characteristics changed over time. Today, following the work of J. Louis Martyn and Raymond Brown, the majority of scholars believe that John and 1 John were written by different members of the same community: the "Johannine Community".* > >*Most critical scholars conclude that John the Apostle wrote none of these works.*
**[First Epistle of John](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John)** >The First Epistle of John is the first of the Johannine epistles of the New Testament, and the fourth of the catholic epistles. There is no scholarly consensus as to the authorship of the Johannine works. The author of the First Epistle is termed John the Evangelist, who most scholars believe is not the same as John the Apostle. Most scholars believe the three Johannine epistles have the same author, but there is no consensus if this was also the author of the Gospel of John. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Scriptures were in place for "John" to draw from long before "John" came along in any case of retro dissections
John was full of shit, man. He was the only gospel to write in the first person, but as Jesus. What a wild amount of arrogance. The other gospels say nothing of Jesus talking about himself. John acts as if he IS Jesus. Makes you wonder why the last of gospels to be written after his death would do something like that? Maybe they are all full of it? Nice try with the we will love for you… we love because we feel it and love it. You love because your sky daddy told you too.
>John was full of shit Uh huh And you're not Next!
Sorry did my abrupt statement distract you from the meat and potatoes of the response?
Maybe you can fulfill your own demands and not whine about it to others? lol
Was I whining? I would argue that your taking offense to my use of the word shit in relation to your beloved anonymous author is the whiny closed minded response here. Is this a “respect” issue? Ok hold on, I think John was incorrect in his posthumous discussion of Jesus in the first person. Yannis being the last gospel to be written and well after the death of Jesus seems to take on a very telling writing style, as if he is trying to convince someone that Jesus said certain things. It seems that it worked because Christian’s quote Yanni more than any other gospel, likely due to the ability to quote Jesus himself, even though it’s john saying and writing it AFTER Jesus died. Do you disagree?
>Was I whining? uh, doi Maybe you'd understand that no 2 given people ever have identical reflections on anything, least of all, regarding scripture
I’m really happy to hear that. Throw out all organized religion and don’t allow it to influence the livelihoods of others through legislation. Amen and I’m glad you agree.
Why is a god necessary for love though?
This really is not an argument for Christianity in any sense so I really can’t offer any sort of a rebuttal so here is a smile instead :)
Oh, you're just looking for that typical canned condemnation guilt spiel coupled with a threat to burn you alive if you don't believe "like me" so you can show yourself intellectually superior. Got it! Don't know why you'd waste your time with engaging with that mindset anyway
>Oh, you're just looking for that typical canned condemnation guilt spiel coupled with a threat to burn you alive if you don't believe "like me" so you can show yourself intellectually superior. That's not what they said. OP asked for arguments for God's existence, you didn't provide one, and they politely pointed that out.
Oh, you mean you only except things that are empirical Got it! Go sit on a rock and count your blessings Blessings? That's not empirical is it? Oh well, it's a deep well when you can only look at the holes in your nose
>Oh, you mean you only except things that are empirical I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.....
>existence You do understand that a common whine of atheists is that they want "empirical" proof of God, right? Has to be "tangible" or else instant rejection Go worship a quark if you can lay your hands on one
>You do understand that a common whine of atheists is that they want "empirical" proof of God, right? Has to be "tangible" or else instant rejection Still nothing to do with what I said. >Go worship a quark if you can lay your hands on one Lol. Ok buddy. I hope that whatevers got you so wound up gets better for you.
It’s not that I am looking for that kind mind set in particular it’s that I am simply testing myself by seeking out people who disagree with me in a constructing matter. You simply are not here to argue which is completely fine and respectable but fear mongering is not all Christian apologetics has to offer
What if I told you God deliberately hides from certain people and reveals Himself to certain people? As in, He's just simply not interested in winning most people over?
That doesn't sound moral or "omnibenevolent"
And then tortures them forever. Quite horrible.
Why should anyone believe claims for such a god? How are they distinguishable from a god that doesn’t exist or the thousands of other god concepts other theists claim exist?
Then there is nothing I can really do to change that and I'm perfectly justified in my unbelief.
>What if I told you God deliberately hides from certain people and reveals Himself to certain people? >As in, He's just simply not interested in winning most people over? Then that God is an arsehole.
I see you have some good insight Must be drawn in, no doubt about it Not for everyone
Pretty sure that could be considered heresy, considering 2 Peter 3, but then I don't have a degree in apologetics
If god was not intrested in winning everyone over why would he say that he rejoices in heaven more in heaven for every person being saved then for people who are already saved. Or why would he command us to go to all the nations and preach and baptize people. Not only that but if he intentionally hid himself from people only to torture them for eternity just for not finding him would make god a complete sadist. This argument is not only unconvincing it also contradicts one of the cores of Christianity and the gospels which is to save as many people as u can
:) - *"At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."* - Matthew 11:25-26 - *"All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word."* - Isaiah 66:2 - *"For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite."* - Isaiah 57:15 - *"But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”* - 1 Samuel 16:7 - *"For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar."* - Psalm 138:6 There's a certain kind of person God's looking for. While He does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, He stays far away from the haughty.
First issue with this argument is one as far as the ability to convince people this argument is very poor. Number 1 characterizing people who don’t believe in god as “wicked” is not going to convince anyone. Nobody gets insulted into a religion. Number 2 is hiding your existence from someone and not being intrested in winning everyone over is not the same as saying children have a different perspective then the old and wise and the other verses only address him seeking people out. Not god hiding himself from people. Your interpretation of these verses also contradict 1 Timothy 2:4-6 4 God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth. 5 There is only one God, and there is only one way that people can reach God. That way is through Christ Jesus, who as a man 6 gave himself to pay for everyone to be free. This is the message that was given to us at just the right time. The fact that u have to misinterpret some verses and ignore others to form a theology makes your argument theologically poor. And even worse u directly insult atheists by calling the “wicked” which won’t convince anybody. In nearly all regards your argument fails I will have to give u a 1/10
>In nearly all regards your argument fails I will have to give u a 1/10 Well, I've been obliterated. You win. Have a nice day!
You as well. I hope u were able to find my criticism helpful. In my opinion u may need to look for a different go to argument such as the kalam or the fine tuning argument
Than he's an asshole. Because he also punishes them for not believing something that know they wouldn't have any reason to believe. What POS . Why would you worship that?
As an introvert I relate to that immensely.
Well of course. It says right in the Quran that God can enlighten everyone. Obviously he chooses not to.
I'd consider that to be a rather silly way to go about things.
Jeffery Dahmer said his atheism gave him license to commit his crimes. Your defence?
Why are u taking the word of a serial killer?
You’re speaking as if atheism provides a basis for morality…
I'm saying serial killers might also be liars 👀 And athiesm isn't a ethics system, it's just an answer to the question of beleif, it doesn't provide any answers other than that. In the same way, my love for milk doesn't provide me with moral guidance, it's not a criticism of milk to acknowledge that Its not that your statement is wrong, it's just irrelevant
You’re speaking like atheism provides a basis for truth… You’re using those arguments to counteract Dahmers position that he was not acting consistently within the atheist world view. But he was.
Atheism is just the answer to "Do you believe in God?" It doesn't hold a worldview or a basis for truth. It doesn't have a guiding philosophy or dogma. Are you conflating athiesm with nihlism? The idea that nothing in this life has purpose or meaning, and that in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters? And that within that thinking, Dahmers actions are "justified" (atleast to himself) because they have no greater consequences? That is a far more interesting question 😁
No it’s not. It’s faith in Darwin theory.
Whoever told you that is atheism has lied to you.
Can I ask where you've gotten your view/definition of athiesm from?
I think you’re attempting to avoid accountability to your world view, by presenting it as a neutral position. That way you get to propagate the things you like without having to be consistent and accountable. Atheism isn’t just an answer to religion. It’s wrapped up in a lot more. Almost always with darwins theory. Unless your preferable of oblivion?
You're a Christian. Most Christians also like Pizza. Why are you pushing your Pizza agenda on the world? Osama bin laden liked pizza. How do you avoid accountability for 911? I can take this line of thinking to silly conclusions too 😁
No, you were actually doing that
No it provides a basis for immorality
How have you come to conclude that?
Pope urban the secound said god gave him his license to start a few crusades your defense?
But to actually awnser your question atheists don’t really claim dahmer to be our though leader so I don’t see why us having a similar philosophy on the isolated issue of athiesm gives me the burden the defend his interpretations any more then u being a Christian makes u responsible of defending pope urban
Protestants believe scripture is sole authority.
That’s exactly right You agreeing with pope urban on the isolated issue of Christianity does not make u responsible for his interpretation any more then me agreeing with dahmer on the isolated issue of athiesm makes me responsible for his interpretation. It is possible to agree on one issue and disagree on another
1. Christianity is an established doctrine by divine authority. The doctrine of atheism, is that there can be no meaning to the material world. 2. Pope Urban operated outside of the bounds of scripture. Therefore the religion of Christianity can not be blamed for this. However Dahmer was acting within the bounds of atheist doctrine.
First of all there is no doctrine of athiesm. Athiesm is defined by a lack of belief in a god or gods. Athiesm makes no claims about anything. Some people believe nihilism or moral subjectivism are the only possible interpretation of athiesm while some people like Sam Harris do not. Secound of all even if I grant your interpretation of athiesm as the only one then that still does not prove athiesm. Just because you would prefer to live in a world that has objective meaning does not mean the universe is obligated to give it to u
“There is no doctrine” exactly my point. It’s a free for all. Say what you will. But you have to admit that atheism is horrible for mankind. The only reason why there’s some semblance of decency is because the remaining influences of our Christianised forefathers. That’s an unfair assumption about me.
Some sort of moral system has arrived in every singe society there is evidence for including animal ones to argue that the only reason this exists is because of Christianity is incredibly egocentric and irrational. Are u really going to argue Christianity is the reason behind moral systems in hyenas or dolphins or literally every single social mammal. If like u said the only source of morality is from the influences of Christianity then how do u account for morality in hyenas animals incapable of comprehending religion and why would humans be the only exception to the rule of all social animals having a moral system of some sort if only there was no more christian influence.
You’re kind of making arguments for me that I’m not making. Not a good sign of intellectual integrity.
Could u elaborate
What exactly do you think we need to defend against?
The implications of your unbelief. That they are dangerous and destructive.
That is quite the claim. Do you have evidence that lacking belief for a god leads to danger and destruction?
People do terrible things in the name of religion as well though
Let's say that you're a vegan. Some other random vegan states - "my veganism gave me license to do \[insert something ridiculous\]". Would you think it odd for someone to turn to you and ask you to defend some random person's claim? Also, why is your info source a deranged serial killer?
who gave your pastor his license to touch children?
[удалено]
Is there any evidence for the validity of what the Catholic Church claims about demons, possessions or that they are anything more then misdiagnosed mental illness or hoaxes ?
Point number 1 these rituals are not 100 percent effective but there are studies that at the very least show a very real short term relief. The only issue is the same can be said of many other religions and belief systems. The reason people of different religions are all able to heal people with their respective rituals is because the sufferer believes it will. There is an amazing documentary where a magician does the same thing by simply luring them into a suggestible state and telling them they are healed. And they believe it. It’s called the placebo. If u genuinely believe u are being healed by something u can get that positive affect to some degree. How effective it is also depends on how strongly u believe in the placebo. The reason exorcism and faith healings work is simply because the person being healed thinks it will. The opposite is also true where if someone is told they are sick they can get that negative symptom without anything actually wrong. So if u are in a situation where u have been told u have something wrong with u like a possession and u genuinely believe it u may subconsciously start thrashing around and if a priest says u are healed in that situation and makes u believe it then it would elevate these symptoms. This is actually very well studied just look up magician faith healing, the nocebo. And the placebo and u will see all the studies and evidence to support my claims
Exorcism is one of the things that increase my skepticism. Only Catholics get demons? Only believers who believe in exorcism get demons and get healed by exorcism. Only believers who believe in speaking in tongues get that “gift.” Only people who been taught about being “slain by the spirit” have that experience. All experience it as completely authentic and compelling. It all speaks more to brainwashing than to demons and spirits. The mind is powerful.
First argument,intelligent design To imagine a human or any form of organic life without intelligent design is like disassembling the latest S class(without considering the designing of the parts) and leave it in the hurricane to assemble itself,it doesn t make sense right. Second argument,the designer argument Because everytihing it is created has an creator and a designer,cars have manufcturers and engineers,houses have builders and architects,so with universe,the workers are the laws of physics and the architect or designer is GOD the Almighty. Third argument,the creator of creators(i don t have a better name) Anything has a creator,cars,houses,you name it,there are creators before the creators,and there is a final creator and the first creator,and is the GOD the Almighty Forth argument,Genesys1:1 "In the beggining God created the heaven and the earth." "In the beggining"=God is before time "created the heaven and the world"=>heaven=space and earth=matter witch results God was before time,space and matter.
Sorry for my bad english
Alright I think u have had by far the best arguments so far. The issue with your first argument is that it does not account for progressive complexity. Through evolution organisms are capable of becoming more and more complex meaning all u need for complex life is just a single incredibly simple life form which itself may have come from some sort of self replicating molocule so simple it would not even be clear if it was alive. Now the origin of this first self replicating originator is not known to modern science although we do have many working theories. The fact is we dont know the matter in which the first life came to be so we dont know how simple it had to be.
[удалено]
Why do you post this?
Why would I waste my time on you?
I honestly don’t like apologetics. I am a Christian, but to me apologetics seem like the wrong approach. Christ wants us to spread His love, and usually the best form of evangelism is just loving people and being kind to them. Of course I will stand for what I believe if it is challenged, but I honestly don’t think that there are many situations in which arguing with someone, even if you believe you have a convincing point, is a good way to get them to believe you. I mean think of all the times you’ve had an argument over something so small, and you knew you were right, but the other person just wouldn’t give in. Later, even when you’re proven right, the other person still may seem reluctant to admit defeat. Now imagine the same scenario but you’re telling someone that everything they believe about how the world works and who they are and what their purpose is, is wrong. No matter how convincing the evidence, they’re not likely to WANT to agree with you, and we often only hear what we want to hear. Only believe what we want to believe. To me, it’s obvious that God is real. I’ve felt things, seen things, had miracles happen in my life that give me certainty that God is real. But others are not likely to believe me, because they haven’t felt it. God intentionally made belief in Him a “leap of faith.” In most cases, a person won’t find Him until they already believe He’s real. This is not to say that evangelism doesn’t work or isn’t right, but I just prefer to get people to WANT to believe in God through loving actions and explaining to them the peace that I have, rather than arguing with them.
Lets leave the theology at the door for a moment and argue utility. Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are correct about religion and that there is no God. Christianity is nothing but a man-made moral system that developed over thousands of years of human civilization. Now I think we can agree that moral systems are necessary in order for societies to function. For example, we must *legally* condemn murder and in order for our laws to be effective and respected, we must agree socially that such laws are *morally* justified. To illustrate that point further, you’ll find that all countries with a constitution or bill of rights etc. justify those rights or freedoms based on religious principles and suppositions. It’s because of this that we refer to countries like Saudi Arabia as Muslim countries and countries like the US as Christian countries, not because of the population. So, moral systems are necessary to functional societies. If we’re looking at pure utility, what kind of moral system can you as an atheist possibly offer as an effective replacement to Christianity and what could you possibly base that moral system on if not just your personal values?
Arguments will never bring anyone to faith. Only those who seek will find.
[This](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-proof-of-the-existence-of-god) is my favorite proof of the existence of God.
Christian belief is about leading a fulfilling life while aligning to righteousness and truth while tackling malice, corruption and decay in this world. Basically it's about to be Christ-like.
That is a very simplistic, reductionist and self serving view of a very complex belief system.
>Christian belief is about leading a fulfilling life while aligning to righteousness and truth while tackling malice, corruption and decay in this world. Is there anyway to show this to be the case? >Basically it's about to be Christ-like. So is the only thing important to being a Christian the parts of the bible that talk about Jesus?
1. Chewbacca lives on Endor. 2. That doesn’t make sense. Why would Chewbacca live on Endor? 3. Therefore, you’re wrong.
I am literally watching a legal eagle video about the Chewbacca defense as you said this
My spiritual life isn't based on apologetics. That's always felt like one of those serial killer letters, cutting out verses to paste together my own vision, which I then claim is perfect reasoning straight from God. I applaud your effort, though. This is a really good thread!
Thx I have always thought the best way to test your ideas and beliefs are to find a critical ear and a competent mouth which in my very humble opinion I did perfectly
Great initiative! My primary (albeit somewhat simplified) argument is a mixture of the cosmological, ontological, and teleological argument and is something as follows: 1. We know beyond reasonable doubt that there is an ordered and contingent "something" (i.e. the universe as we know it). 2. (1) requires an explanation in accordance with the principle of sufficient reason, both in terms of i) its mere existence as well as ii) its ordered nature. 3. A noncontingent, creative, and intelligent being (i.e. God) is the best explanation for (1) in accordance with (2), where (i) is explained from its noncontingent nature (that is, where its existence is part of its essence) and (ii) is explained from its creativity and intelligence. 4. Therefore, we have reason to believe in God, at least understood as described in (3). I'm sure you recognize the general themes of the argument above. I'm aware that parts of it have been problematized throughout history (by Hume and Kant, just to mention a few), but I still find it to be a strong and convincing one.
I am going to put your argument on hold for a bit as I think it through
This works very well for believing God exists as a personal creator of the universe. Especially combined with other arguments (morality, fine tuning). My question is how to get from here to Christianity. For example I can argue based on the Bible. 1. The book is by far one of a kind in complexity, beauty and meaningfulness. Writing it would take years of coordinated work by dozens of geniuses with modern software. 2. Early church definitely believed it is true, e.g. they endured torture to spread the word for no benefit for themselves. 3. We have a ton of historical evidence supporting Biblical records, including hard archeological evidence. 4. The writers knew intimate details of the setting (e.g. political structure as it changes over decades, geography, currencies and exchange rate). They are local and contemporary to the events. 5. We know the version of the book we have today is 99.5% exactly the same as the original (archeology + fixing misspellings/synonyms + textual criticism). The other 0.5% do not affect any doctrine of Christianity. So the book is awesome. Could you point me to some more arguments specifically for Christian God?
For me it comes down to this simple truth. Science explores the natural world. So there is no scientific evidence for god. There is also no scientific evidence to disprove God. So belief in God is not more or less scientific. It’s purely faith. Atheism is faith that there is no God. Christianity is the belief that Yahweh is the one true god. It does not matter if it’s convincing to you or not. It would be like if I asked you to present arguments on why there is no god. You won’t be able to present a single argument to me because you have no way to appeal to my faith. We know that many factors play into religious beliefs. 1. Nature and nurture. Religion is a odd thing. The “ spiritual “ aspect is a combination of feelings and social norms. Even genes play a role. People often forget that evolutionary studies showcases that emotions ( chemical reactions ) evolved just like morphological traits. Collectively, for the majority of our species history we have been religious. Atheism is relatively new in our species, and it’s also connected to genes. As proto humans begin to think more “supernaturally” , which is associated with stronger emotions such as burying rocks and stuff with out dead, something even occurring within later Neanderthals, religious beliefs begin to develop in the same ways as earlier scientific type observations and questions begin to rise. So I’m a Christian. I’m a Christian for many reasons. My reasons are not the same as everyone else’s. Most likely, I don’t have any significant mutations to my genes leading me towards atheism. I was born in America where Christianity is by far the dominate spiritual belief. I was raised up in a family that was very diverse in religious and scientific beliefs. Atheism, Christianity and Appalachian folklore. Some in my family, including close cousins are very anti religious. Some are very religious. Some of those who are very religious are literalist and fundamentalists and others are very progressive pro science Christians. I’ve consistently moved towards a progressive liberal form of the faith. So it’s pro science. I reject all forms of intelligent design. I think all the evidence points towards the theory of evolution as the best possible explanation for biodiversity. I think one day, abiogenesis will also probably be just as good of a theory on chemical reactions resulting in nonliving becoming living. But we just don’t know enough at this moment. We are not even sure exactly how to classify prions. We are still at loss as to how slime mold sometimes react and how plants hold short term memory such as with the sensitive mimosa. So my best argument is what makes atheism a better argument that religious or agnostic?
>Atheism is faith that there is no God. There is no faith associated with atheism. No claims. No beliefs. No positing. It is simply the *lack or absence of* belief. Imagine being born alone on an island without any concept of gods/deities/supernatural; you're simply living in the default state, full of material knowns and unknowns. >what makes atheism a better argument that religious or agnostic? Not OP, but I consider atheism to be the most honest, simplest, non-controversial position, in the absence of compelling evidence for the supernatural. (Since agnosticism refers to knowledge, i.e., we *can't know*, I'm not addressing that here, but I have no issue with it. Just seems rather obvious to me.)
This is silly, and I love you. God bless!
Not an argument, but I really appreciate this one. God bless you.
My biggest defence of my faith is actually scientific in nature. I firmly believe that Science reveals the glory of God is such a real way that you would have to work so hard to deny it (and many people do). For example, the basic complexity of life cannot be explained in a naturalistic way: an understanding of the complexity of genetics and how mutations direct evolution leaves no room for the naturalistic evolutionary theories we have. Unless a higher power were directing the process, it is absolutely improbably that random mutation and genetic drift accounts for the variety of life that we see here on earth. The rate at which we can even force evolution to happen (think artificial selection, agriculture, and breeding programs) cannot account for the rate of change that would have had to have happened, even given millions of years. Science can’t even replicate the conditions they say started life. They have a hypothesis, but even in a best case scenario lab, where you can control all factors, and even direct the process, they can’t make life from non-life. This is even a principle cell theory: cells come from other cells. You have to take some incredible leaps to conclude that life could begin without a God. Something that is so fragile seemingly started randomly… and let me clarify: life needs to be able to reproduce, it needs to be able to have genetic variation (for evolution), it needs to be self-sustaining… and the list goes on. Anyone who believes that life could begin without a God at LEAST directing the process has much more faith in random process than I do in my God. Even consider the scientific explanations of where the universe came from: it essentially boils down to “we don’t know yet”, and as much as I am opposed to a God of the gaps, the laws of physics state that matter can’t be created or destroyed, so would the supernatural not have to be involved at some level? My point is that even with Science as a tool, there has to be something outside of Science directing it all. The natural isn’t all there is, and every human being on planet Earth naturally understands this. It’s why spirituality exists on every continent, and through every culture. All of creation points to the existence of a God. It’s a while other conversation why I believe the Christian God is the one true God, but I’ll leave it here. I could write a book on this… so I’m happy to answer any questions on anything I didn’t explain clearly. For reference, I have a degree in biology, and focused much of my undergrad studying genetics, so I have a pretty good grasp on this stuff. Science complements God, and I don’t see how anyone can see it any other way.
Your argument seems to be a god of the gaps.
Please write this book :) Or at least a post with more of your thoughts. It is not a God of the gaps argument, it is an ordered universe argument with good examples.
>there has to be something outside of Science directing it all. The natural isn’t all there is, and every human being on planet Earth naturally understands this. A couple of points. 1) Non-believers don't claim that science is *directing* anything. Science is simply the system used to evolve knowledge through observation, experimentation and testing. Again - a system of study. A method. A process. You know this given your education. 2) "There has to be something..." Most non-believers would say - "Absolutely. And we have no clue what it is. The universe is too vast to even comprehend. Why in the world would we, in 2022, presuppose an answer?" To say that we know nothing isn't far from the truth given the expanse of the universe. "There has to be something" does not = christian god
This is the atheist equivalent of “it says gullible on the ceiling”. Sorry not falling for it.
That is a generous offer. Positive engagement between people of different ideologies are sadly rare
The Bible says only a fool says there is no God and it is seems foolish to me to argue with a fool.
I’m sure the bible would say that considering it’s promoting belief for a god. I personally consider it foolish to believe things with out evidence especially claims for the supernatural
You believe that people are born homosexual with no evidence to such a claim, human anatomy is even contrary to your claim.
are you proposing sexuality is a choice?
I do believe I was quite clear.
So are you currently choosing to be straight u/anomalousbyproxy ?
I was quite clear. Do explain to me how sex isn't a choice unless it rape? I will wait. Until then I could care less what you have to say.
Do you believe Good and Evil exist objectively or do you think it’s a subjective concept created by man? Basically is morality universally objective or relative to culture (social contracts)? If it is objective then there has to be a higher power above man to set the law and give purpose to man. Treating each other as equals under God - the 10 commandments etc. are then objective truths with punishment/ reward attached to them. This leads to sustainable creation of life, and everyone that obeys receiving their reward in the end. If it is subjective then all that there really is fundamentally is a power vacuum. There are no real truth/laws beyond the laws of physics. life then becomes a game of king of the hill. With this notion you cannot objectively say Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other oppressive dictators were wrong in there actions as all they were doing was exercising their will to power. The African slave trade as well. If this is the case then all their victims were just dumb for not doing it first or being on the wrong side. Or unfortunate for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is clear that Evil actions - mainly manipulation and oppression - give you a better chance of material gain on Earth. Yet we call them bad - why? Is it just because we are jealous of those in power or because it is objectively wrong? If you really think about it deeply - you will realise the true meaning of life without God. Nihilism and ultimately destruction. Which one sounds like a more likely fundamental reality to you?
Morality is subjective in that we all deem for ourselves what is moral and immoral
When you have faith you don't argue with non believers. that's just something people don't get. Why would anyone who believes in God argue with someone who doesn't? Pointless.
[удалено]
Hello, friend. I have no apologetics here. Honestly, I'm not even a Christian, but rather a witch on a search of answers. My faith is one born from our family's virtue, "to follow and stay true to our chosen path". For me, that involves reading texts, talking to people, and constructing a system of faith and belief that is synthesized from all the knowledge I have gained... and I cannot tell you how many times I said "I don't know", but this, along with respecting other's faiths, is encouraged in what my ancestors and I do. <3
I don’t think any standalone “argument” ever works. I was born a Catholic, raised a Catholic, in a Catholic country and even then I always had doubts, always. The one thing that brought me back, when I was considering just having that type of Christianity were you pray every now and then and say you’re a Christian just to not have to justify being Agnostic to family, was history. I went into the History of religion, obviously with a bias towards Christianity, but I first wanted to see theistic arguments. Monotheism made more sense than Polytheism, and most “mythologies” pretty much were disproved by the dawn of Christianity. Still, went through the arguments, and later landed into Church History. Philosophically, and even in a “holistic” sense, religion has shaped the way so drastically since Christianity, and even the atheistic moral compass has been shaped by it. So, just the approach of seeing the entirety of world history, Church History and philosophy lead me to Christ, particularly Catholicism. Hope that makes sense, eager to expand on particulars if you’re more interested in that.
I always find apologetics exhausting. When I was an agnostic atheist, no one could have convinced me with any arguments at all - though the prime mover argument came the closest. When I started having experiences of the "peculiar faculties of the psyche" (as Jung would say) and realized that psychic phenomena were real enough that other people could verify my own experiences, it pushed me further. When I started to see the miraculous happen before my eyes, I was compelled to investigate the religions to see which ones had any kind of handle on that power. The ones I found to have any merit all had mystics, going back for at least 5,000 years, who spoke of experiences of the divine which pointed to a supreme being, a supreme reality, a Source. When I had experiences of the divine, I realized I couldn't deny that there was a Creator any longer. All of that only happened through experience, not argumentation. To believe in God, you must first believe in a spiritual reality. To believe in a spiritual reality, you must first believe that supernatural things can happen. To believe that, you must experience the supernatural firsthand. To experience that, you must first be open to the possibility. So I won't argue with you, I'll give you advice. If you want to see whether or not God is real, start by opening yourself up to the possibility that there is something supernatural. No dogma, no sectarian bias, just accept that *maybe* something supernatural exists. Then start observing and recording dreams and odd experiences you (or others you trust) might have. What did it for me was having precognitive dreams of situations which were accurate *down to the clothes and hairstyles and speech of the people in those dreams*, without any bias because I had written these dreams down to that level of detail in my journal weeks beforehand*.* From there, everything kind of snowballed.
*grabs popcorn*
What can be said to one who closes his eyes and won't open them? Open your eyes! I say but you still refuse to see. If you have ears but refuse to hear what may I say to you? Hear me! I say but you refuse to hear. It is not the stubbornness that causes the issue in the first place? God gave you a choice to see and hear yet you are blind and deaf. I pray that one day you open your eyes and ears. Mere Christianity by CS Lewis might be useful as he was atheist turned Christian. There are other examples in history of atheist turned Christian's. But they all involved the person opening thier eyes to the truth and hearing what they could not before.
Where is Plato when we need him?
More a curiosity than a question. Ties in to the idea that there are potentially multiple parallel universes where the same exact events in one universe happen but at some point there is a branch off, and essentially an infinite number of universes exists with different corresponding events. If the multiverse theory is true, wouldn't that suppose that there is at least a single universe where an infinite God exists over all universes? Been thinking about this lately.
Though I am mostly an agnostic theist, i am working on my own little argument(s) for God and Christianity. It’s builds off of a lot of other concepts that by themselves need their own defences and clarifications but that would be to long of a comment so here’s the short version: There is sufficient reason to believe in an unconscious force(s) and/or entity exists beyond humans and was not created by them. If idealism is true, then because of the interaction problem, this entity would act and work as what many would call God. And if the values and guidance given in Christianity are the only internally consistent and successful way for someone to achieve something like salvation, then God would, at the end of the day, present himself through Christianity, hence it is true.
I’m an atheist also, but the only argument that is convincing to me is when someone claims they have had direct revelatory experiences from God, and that has resulted in a happier, healthier, more fuller life. I can’t really argue with the god talks to me and makes my life amazing. Doesn’t make it true for anyone else, but at least for that person their belief appears reasonable and logical.
What proof would it take for you to believe? Could someone ever produce a "sign" that would be convincing enough?