Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

Sometimes the best way of recruiting atheists is to let the Christians prepare the ground for us. There are a lot of Christians on CF who are happy to do that.

sir at least your honest with why you are hear. In the future please do not say things like, "I am open to christianity, and enjoy debates about the positives of religious life" because that is simply not true. you are here to recruit, plain and simple. And I don't mind. CF forum rules may prohibit your recruitment, but I don't mind. I think you are doing God's work. Purifying the flock. When Gold is heated up, what is known as the dross (foreign metal, like aluminum, lead etc) will float to the top. They then just scoop it out. Once the refiner can see their image in the reflective shiny top of the liquified gold surface, the refining is done. I hope you don't think you are doing satan's work here. God is judging His people for sin. The multiple enemies of the old testament were simply because of Israels sin. God raised up righteous Judges to attack and kill the enemy ultimately saving Israel dozens of times. But they would soon quickly forget the miracle, see the allurement of the world, and fall back into idol worship and paganism. God would allow another military power to come in at that time and enslave the hebrews, some times for ten years, other times for forty, sometimes for multiple generations. But the point is that the enemy was doing God's will. Whether they wanted to or not, whether they believed in that God or didn't. So to, you coming here to mock christianity is making Christians stronger. The few that stay faithful that is. The ones who leave the faith, were never called. Jesus said "of all that you gave me, I have lost none"

so there is no one lost, that God has called. If they leave christianity, it was becuase it was never for them in the first place.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

sir at least your honest with why you are hear.

Of course I am.

In the future please do not say things like, "I am open to christianity, and enjoy debates about the positives of religious life" because that is simply not true.

I certainly will say it. Why not? I am open to christianity. Did you think I wasn't? As any sensible person is, there are things I think are true, and things I think are not true; but I'm certainly open to the possibility that I could be wrong about them.
And of course I'm happy to debate the positives of religious life. That's largely what we do here at Christian Apologetics.
I have a feeling you've been labouring under a misconception, that the atheists, agnostics and unbelievers who come here would like to be Christians, and are just waiting for the folks at CF to set them on the right path. No; if you look at the purpose of this forum, we non-Christians have been invited here "to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices," while Christians have "the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs".

you are here to recruit, plain and simple. And I don't mind. CF forum rules may prohibit your recruitment, but I don't mind.

Not really. I'm quite well aware that the forum rules say that "explaining or contrasting the beliefs of another faith is fine, promoting these beliefs as right, good, or to be embraced is not."
But that's no problem. Atheism doesn't have any beliefs. It is a lack of belief. Many Christians need this explained to them, by the way.

I hope you don't think you are doing satan's work here.

No, I don't "think I am doing Satan's work here". Do you think I believe in Satan?

so there is no one lost, that God has called. If they leave christianity, it was because it was never for them in the first place.

Of course. They were Never True Scotsmen, were they?

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheism doesn't have any beliefs. It is a lack of belief. Many Christians need this explained to them, by the way.

you crack me up sir. I thoroughly enjoyed your comment.

you hold a belief system,

but it has no tenants.

your emperor, sir.....has no clothes.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

you crack me up sir. I thoroughly enjoyed your comment.

you hold a belief system,

but it has no tenants.

your emperor, sir.....has no clothes.

Lots of people make this mistake. Allow me to explain.
The word atheist (a-theist) means "lacking theistic beliefs".
Atheists usually do, of course, have a set of beliefs. It's just, it has nothing to do with their atheism. If you do not believe in a god or gods, then you are an atheist.

So no, you're incorrect to say that I hold a belief system but it has no tenets. Atheism is not a belief system; it's a statement that a person lacks a theistic belief system.

"Tenets", by the way, not tenents or tenants. It's a very common mistake, one that I've made before myself.

 

[createdtoworship]

Lots of people make this mistake. Allow me to explain.
The word atheist (a-theist) means "lacking theistic beliefs".
Atheists usually do, of course, have a set of beliefs. It's just, it has nothing to do with their atheism. If you do not believe in a god or gods, then you are an atheist.

So no, you're incorrect to say that I hold a belief system but it has no tenets. Atheism is not a belief system; it's a statement that a person lacks a theistic belief system.

"Tenets", by the way, not tenents or tenants. It's a very common mistake, one that I've made before myself.

"atheist, (g) atheall,without, God, or beleeuing that there is no God, or denying any of his attributes."
Robert Cawdrey, A Table Alphabetical (1604)

lets check another dictionary to make sure this was the original definition of Atheism:

"Atheism: The opinions and practice of those that deny the being of a God."
Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum or a General English Dictionary, by John Kersey (1708)

I have a few more I want to check, but two hundred years later they changed their definition, which is moving the goal posts.

again in order to preach there is no God, one would have necessarily searched the entire universe to make sure yes?

no, so then atheism, according to it's original definition is indefensible.

source:
Early Modern English Dictionary (16th-18th century) - LEXILOGOS >>

 

[InterestedAtheist]

"atheist, (g) atheall,without, God, or beleeuing that there is no God, or denying any of his attributes."

Without God, yes. Lacking a belief in God.

"Atheism: The opinions and practice of those that deny the being of a God."

Yes. Is there something wrong?

again in order to preach there is no God, one would have necessarily searched the entire universe to make sure yes?

No. Perhaps you haven't been introduced to the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, and "Russell's Teapot"?
What is Russell’s teapot?

 

[Moral Orel]

I have a few more I want to check, but two hundred years later they changed their definition, which is moving the goal posts.

LOL Logical fallacies don't apply to word definitions. Word definitions aren't arguments.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Really? Alright, show me the logical steps.

First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it. That fits God. Second, the universe contains purposes, such as eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and etc. We know from all of human experience that only persons can create purposes for things, so therefore, the cause must be personal, and so is the Christian God. Third, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that things that are created by persons usually have a "fingerprint" of the person that created it, like how art experts can determine who an artist is by studying a painting and learning certain little trademark things that the painter does to be different from other painters. So the reason the universe is a diversity within a unity is because the nature of the Creator is a diversity within a unity, just like the Christian God's nature as the Trinity, which is also a diversity within a unity. Therefore, the most likely cause of the universe is the Triune Christian God. No other god or cause has such a nature.

 

[RichardY]

Without God, yes. Lacking a belief in God.

Yes. Is there something wrong?

No. Perhaps you haven't been introduced to the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, and "Russell's Teapot"?
What is Russell’s teapot?

This is where I see a problem with the word Atheism. I liken it to a kids mouth being stained with Strawberries, then denying that he has eaten any.

If you think of God as having universal, rather than local proportions, The Tea Pot analogy doesn't work.

 

[gaara4158]

First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it. That fits God. Second, the universe contains purposes, such as eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and etc. We know from all of human experience that only persons can create purposes for things, so therefore, the cause must be personal, and so is the Christian God. Third, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that things that are created by persons usually have a "fingerprint" of the person that created it, like how art experts can determine who an artist is by studying a painting and learning certain little trademark things that the painter does to be different from other painters. So the reason the universe is a diversity within a unity is because the nature of the Creator is a diversity within a unity, just like the Christian God's nature as the Trinity, which is also a diversity within a unity. Therefore, the most likely cause of the universe is the Triune Christian God. No other god or cause has such a nature.

None of this gets you to God. It gets you to questions which you conveniently answer with God because you already believe in him.

 

[cvanwey]

First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it. That fits God.

It's quite possible the 'universe' is eternal. If such turns out to be the case, invoking a 'creator' is a silly notion. The honest answer is, we just don't really know. And even if some process proves as such, many may still deny this conclusion, if it does not already presuppose their a priori assumption.

Second, the universe contains purposes, such as eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and etc. We know from all of human experience that only persons can create purposes for things, so therefore, the cause must be personal, and so is the Christian God.

The universe has many attributes which have no seeming purpose. Thus, what measurement or meter-stick might one use to determine this assertion? Do we simply measure up the attributes which appear to have specific purpose, against the attributes which do not appear to; and which ever number is higher, is more probable?

Or maybe, we can instead investigate the animals, which have eyes, whom cannot see, for example...

Third, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that things that are created by persons usually have a "fingerprint" of the person that created it, like how art experts can determine who an artist is by studying a painting and learning certain little trademark things that the painter does to be different from other painters. So the reason the universe is a diversity within a unity is because the nature of the Creator is a diversity within a unity, just like the Christian God's nature as the Trinity, which is also a diversity within a unity. Therefore, the most likely cause of the universe is the Triune Christian God. No other god or cause has such a nature.

This process fails because we do not have more than one universe to compare as such (i.e) your artist to painting analogy. Until we discover more universes, identifying a distinctive 'fingerprint' fails.

As I've stated to others... It's one thing to invoke a creator. But it's an entirely new ball of wax to invoke the Christian God. And again, if the universe's existence is eternal, then your argument stops abruptly at your 'first' point.

 

[Moral Orel]

First, according to the law of causality

What is this "law of causality"? Is it a law of physics like the commonly cited 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Is it an axiom of logic like the Law of Non-Contradiction? Please cite some non-apologetic sources.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Have you observed this "Cause but not an effect" for yourself? Or, point to anything observably uncaused?

No, but there have been many things that have not been observed but we know exist. For example, only up until recently dark matter had never been observed but we knew it existed.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is where I see a problem with the word Atheism. I liken it to a kids mouth being stained with Strawberries, then denying that he has eaten any.

Do you? I liken atheism to saying "I have seen no evidence that fairies exists, and therefore I am unable to believe that they do."

If you think of God as having universal, rather than local proportions, The Tea Pot analogy doesn't work.

So...God is everywhere...and we haven't found Him anywhere...
How does this logic work?

 

[createdtoworship]

I appreciate the conversation happening on both sides here in this thread, lets be respectful of one another, not belittle or mock the other viewpoint when we have no further answers. If we lose the debate, simply go back, do some more research and come back when you have it. It's not hard to do. Take care.

 

[createdtoworship]

Without God, yes. Lacking a belief in God.

Yes. Is there something wrong?

No. Perhaps you haven't been introduced to the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, and "Russell's Teapot"?
What is Russell’s teapot?

Sir I have proven that the original word atheist(m), means a belief that there is no god. So again, if you can prove there is no god, then that word would be a good fit for you. But you cannot, and that is why I wonder why you call yourself by that term. Why not make up a different term? Using the same term, and redefining it is a fallacy of moving the goalposts. moving the goal posts is a tactic in debate used by the losing party to safe face. I have proven that atheists have moved the goal posts in the term that they attribute to themselves.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

so here you admit that you are on christian forums for the sole purpose to help them deconvert from Chrsitianity "in order to help them change their minds." That is not the purpose of letting atheists post here and is against the rules of the forum.

I’ve said nothing of the sort. You are, one again, putting words in people’s mouths.

This seeming lack of honesty could get you reported you know...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

this one is priceless, that I am actually an undercover atheist trying to make christians look bad. I was just scanning all your posts where you were insulting me and flaming me, this one made me laugh. Don't worry I won't report you, at least on that issue.

I’m just letting you know what some Christians think of you. I realize you couldn’t care less what anyone thinks of you, but I’m posting this for anyone else out there who wants to actually engage in what we used to call “soul winning” when I was a Christian.

So for anyone else, it’s probably best not to do what Gradyll does...

But you are one bitter soul, that's why I am actually intrigued by you.

You seem to be projecting. There’s no reason for me to be bitter, since you’re leading people away from a religion that hold positions counter to what I think are “good”.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’ve said nothing of the sort. You are, one again, putting words in people’s mouths.

This seeming lack of honesty could get you reported you know...

they called Jesus a liar too. If Jesus was here, you would probably report Him too.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

gradyll, you're priceless. @ToddNotTodd , your patience in giving gradyll the rope to hang himself is paying off.

I definitely haven’t seen his type of apologetics before. Well, not to this extent...