What are the best arguments for the existence of God?

SocratesNow · Apr 6, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Personally, I'm an Existentialist, and my praxis is to simply raze the opposing side's epistemology that is pervasively used against the Christian faith. So, let's just say I don't feel the need to spend more time on Christian apologetics than has already been done, especially not to 'show more evidence' than what we have now. No, it's enough to apply hermeneutics on one hand and epistemic criticism on the other.

'Nuff said.

Thanks for your input!
However, isn't it true that those who do not believe in, or criticize, Christianity, religion, or the theory of God, are not making claims, are not constructing a belief system, and in short are not building a philosophy themselves? The only thing that, say, an atheist proposes is that it is wrong to believe that God exists. In like manner, it isn't a theory to say that the moon isn't made of cheese, it's simply a contention of a claim which is perceived to be flawed. With that said, I understand your desire to rebut critics of Christianity, I would simply ask you how it is possible for you to rebut said critics if you do not first provide evidence and/or a basis in reason for the existence of God in the first place, since without that there is nothing to criticize, and thus you cannot rebut a nonexistent argument.

SocratesNow · Apr 6, 2020

Lost4words said:
Us. Made in His image.

And how exactly does this prove/support the existence of God?

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

Ivan Hlavanda said:
Yes religious people cause a lot of bad bad things in this world. Because all religions are false, only following Christ is the truth and light of this world. See the problem with people and their gods, and same applies for many people who believe in the Biblical God (the trinity) is that they defy who God is. God is the solid one, we are not. God was, is and forever will be, we are not, we are like a mist that is gone in a moment, we are not God, God defies us not the other round, because well we are God's creation. Too many people are playing God, that's our sin, that was the sin of Adam and Eve that they believed the seprpent (satan) when he told them that they can be God that they can define good and evil themselves. But of course that was a lie, deception. And thus defines many people who are telling God how to be, that He is there somewhere in heaven and that they defy their own good and evil. I think you can see that your self, that no one knows what's good and evil in this world anymore, because we are not God. I know this doesn't prove to you in any way God, but this is the part of the Christianity, this is faith this is why it's called a believe and you cannot see God because that would be no faith, and God operates on faith and not deeds. Well...we did see God in Jesus and look what we did to Jesus, His own (Israelites) rejected Him, because many of them thought Jesus would behave according their authority and their believes not the believes of God which are ultimate. Oh and if people think they are doing any good to God by doing horrible things to others, they are not. Their deeds will not be justified.

You say there are good and bad in this world. And I hate to break this to you, you might completely disagree here. But there are no good people in this world, only God is good, we are all sinners, and it only takes one sin for us to be bad, because God is holy he is without a sin. Therefore we are all sinners. That's why God sent Jesus to die for once and for all for our sins so we are as sinners washed in His blood. If you believe that you are saved, if you don't believe in the only Son of God then your sins are not washed away. - this is what Christians believe.
Please feel to agree/disagree accept or reject things.

Thanks for the insight, that was fascinating!
I would however challenge first your conception of what "good" means. Saying that there are no good people in the world seems like a deeply problematic claim, perhaps it would be more accurate to say there are no perfect people in the world? After all, if there are no good people in the world, it seems that you must be concluding that there are no good deeds in the world, since good people could be considered those who dedicate their lives to committing good deeds, and those individuals certainly exist. On another note, are you in fact non-denominational then, seen as in your response you state "...all religions are false,"?

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Personally, I'm an Existentialist, and my praxis is to simply raze the opposing side's epistemology that is pervasively used against the Christian faith. So, let's just say I don't feel the need to spend more time on Christian apologetics than has already been done, especially not to 'show more evidence' than what we have now. No, it's enough to apply hermeneutics on one hand and epistemic criticism on the other.

'Nuff said.

I would also like to note that to be frank, I am deeply confused at your seeming perception of the application of epistemology and reason of any kind to religion, specifically the Bible, and scientific or materialistic processes. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but it seemed to me when you state "...it's enough to apply hermeneutics on one hand and epistemic criticism on the other." you're suggesting that there is and should be a different standard for validity and truthfulness between the Bible and scientific truth through epistemology, which again, to be frank, I find absolutely abhorrent. If we allow ourselves to determine the Bible or other religious texts are allowed hermeneutics as their standard for truthfulness, while processes for obtaining truth, such as the scientific method, are subjected to all the rigors of epistemological study, I must say that I a) have absolutely no idea what motivates this proposal as a manner of finding truth, and b) am completely confused as to how this could be a defensible position, as creating and supporting such a double-standard would allow for the grossest violations of truth and the pursuit thereof possible to our species. A world wherein the Bible is not judged by the same metric of truth as the scientific method is one wherein we no only fail to achieve truth, but one wherein we even fail to pursue it.

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

Jok said:
Finding belief is meant to be an experience, not a math equation.

So what about the old brain teaser of proof vs faith? How can it be both? It can NOT be both if your means to belief is deductive. But it can be a mixture of both faith & proof if your reasoning is only inductive. Inductive reasoning is very often used by people as a reliable means to reach conclusions, however with induction a conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow! This is the only way that I’ve been able to harmonize the proof vs faith question. So you do have proof, but the proof is not airtight so that is where the faith comes in.

The faith involved also comes packaged together with some strong euphoric moments of mystical understanding. These moments of inner enlightenment are virtually impossible to use as argument in a debate, making it even more difficult to give purely objective reasons for your belief to a skeptic.

I appreciated and understood your arguments in the first half of your response or so, but I found the arguments included in the section of your response I quoted so fascinating I feel it's imperative to respond to those first. So, firstly, you address the 'problem' of faith versus proof. I would propose that faith is not a virtue, faith is a dogma, a rigidity of thought and belief which does not allow for contradiction or criticism. However, this is by no reputable standard a beneficial thing. Dogmatic thought has ravaged humanity from its beginning, causing wars, damaging relationships, fulminating hatred, and encouraging the worst aspects of our humanity, rather than the best. On the other side of things, progressive, flexible, and open minds have led to the greatest innovations and improvements of our species throughout the centuries. It was Galileo who was right, despite suffering the vicious persecutions of the Catholic church for his contradictory statements. This scientist of old was persecuted not because he was wrong, not because he was a liar, but because he was contradictory to the church's beliefs, a perfect juxtaposition of open mindedness and dogmatic thought. In short, faith without preconceived beliefs and assumptions, such as the existence of God, is nothing more than belief in something on poor or nonexistent evidence. In short, it's a great thing if you could know you're right, but as millennia of persecutions, stagnation, regression, close-mindedness, bigotry, and downright savagery will attest, all being exacerbated and encouraged by and through dogmatic thought, often in the form of religious faith, belief in something on poor or nonexistent evidence is not merely problematic, but purely lethal, to individuals and society.

Lost4words · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
And how exactly does this prove/support the existence of God?

Have a think about it. Its quite easy how.

Jok · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
firstly, you address the 'problem' of faith versus proof.

I would word it as me giving it my best shot to try to explain how I see the balance between faith and proof. I wouldn’t so much call it a problem. I mean you CAN call it a problem though if you are of the opinion that it really sucks that you can’t purely reason your way to know that Christianity is true. If that’s what a person wants then yes it’s a problem. Which is definitely understandable. I have been there!

SocratesNow said:
I would propose that faith is not a virtue, faith is a dogma, a rigidity of thought and belief which does not allow for contradiction or criticism. However, this is by no reputable standard a beneficial thing.

I definitely don’t think that this can have a blanket answer. We could probably go back & forth for two weeks with examples of how faith is beneficial, followed by examples of how faith is not beneficial. I would actually find it impossible to call faith simply bad or simply good since people make faith based decisions every single day of there lives (that are not at all subject to testing with the scientific method).

SocratesNow said:
Dogmatic thought has ravaged humanity from its beginning, causing wars, damaging relationships, fulminating hatred, and encouraging the worst aspects of our humanity, rather than the best.

Definitely no argument from me on that!

SocratesNow said:
On the other side of things, progressive, flexible, and open minds have led to the greatest innovations and improvements of our species throughout the centuries.

I have no idea how this would be an argument against people of faith.

SocratesNow said:
It was Galileo who was right, despite suffering the vicious persecutions of the Catholic church for his contradictory statements. This scientist of old was persecuted not because he was wrong, not because he was a liar, but because he was contradictory to the church's beliefs, a perfect juxtaposition of open mindedness and dogmatic thought. In short, faith without preconceived beliefs and assumptions, such as the existence of God, is nothing more than belief in something on poor or nonexistent evidence.

Um, you do know that Galileo was a God believing man of faith right?

SocratesNow said:
as millennia of persecutions, stagnation, regression, close-mindedness, bigotry, and downright savagery will attest, all being exacerbated and encouraged by and through dogmatic thought, often in the form of religious faith, belief in something on poor or nonexistent evidence is not merely problematic, but purely lethal, to individuals and society.

Good point...except for all the times that it pertains to people without religious faith!

If you have a ton of complaints about the evils and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church throughout history I’m right there with you! The problem is about power & influence though, not religion. The moment that any organization becomes a source of power & influence you can guarantee that it will not be long before the sociopaths start to infiltrate it and corrupt it. Also, there are many instances where people will simply PLAY THE PART in order to reap the power & influence that the institution provides, in this case the Catholic Church basically took on the role of government. It’s not so much that you had/have many evil men of the faith, it’s that a lot of them were not men of the faith to begin with.

section9+1 · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
I suppose if that's your perspective there really isn't any way to pursue the truth. Once you feel that you have found perfect truth and no matter the evidence, reason, or logic, your mind is made up, then dogma is the winning voice in the discussion, and there's no way for anyone to progress their thought. I do appreciate your participation in the discussion up until now, however!

Progress their thought? If you finally found the right woman and made a formal marriage commitment to her, does that not make her the right one? Or would you go shopping around for another woman just in case you might find a better one? What would your wife think about you inspecting other available ladies even though she was your bride? If you have already found the truth that works for you, there is no reason to continue searching. "He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God."

2PhiloVoid · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
I would also like to note that to be frank, I am deeply confused at your seeming perception of the application of epistemology and reason of any kind to religion, specifically the Bible, and scientific or materialistic processes. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but it seemed to me when you state "...it's enough to apply hermeneutics on one hand and epistemic criticism on the other." you're suggesting that there is and should be a different standard for validity and truthfulness between the Bible and scientific truth through epistemology, which again, to be frank, I find absolutely abhorrent. If we allow ourselves to determine the Bible or other religious texts are allowed hermeneutics as their standard for truthfulness, while processes for obtaining truth, such as the scientific method, are subjected to all the rigors of epistemological study, I must say that I a) have absolutely no idea what motivates this proposal as a manner of finding truth, and b) am completely confused as to how this could be a defensible position, as creating and supporting such a double-standard would allow for the grossest violations of truth and the pursuit thereof possible to our species. A world wherein the Bible is not judged by the same metric of truth as the scientific method is one wherein we no only fail to achieve truth, but one wherein we even fail to pursue it.

Yes, you are deeply confused, and apparently--despite your academically resonating articulations to the contrary--are seemingly ingratiated to a particular view and understanding of the functions of Epistemology, and of the Nature of Science. You also don't seem to exude an awareness about the field Hermeneutics, which is somewhat apart from that of Biblical Hermeneutics. One wonders, though, if you even have an inclination to therein 'find out.'

Yes, there is a different epistemic standard between science and religion, most particularly where Christianity is to be found within the target of that interest. The good news is that, with the seeming intelligence and academic level of rationality you've thus far expressed, I'm confident that, if you're willing, you could make substantial headway into acquiring a better understanding about the differences between all of these respective fields of study. And God-speed to you in that regard!

2PhiloVoid · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
Thanks for your input!
However, isn't it true that those who do not believe in, or criticize, Christianity, religion, or the theory of God, are not making claims, are not constructing a belief system, and in short are not building a philosophy themselves? The only thing that, say, an atheist proposes is that it is wrong to believe that God exists. In like manner, it isn't a theory to say that the moon isn't made of cheese, it's simply a contention of a claim which is perceived to be flawed. With that said, I understand your desire to rebut critics of Christianity, I would simply ask you how it is possible for you to rebut said critics if you do not first provide evidence and/or a basis in reason for the existence of God in the first place, since without that there is nothing to criticize, and thus you cannot rebut a nonexistent argument.

Frankly, it's not true. But not only that, whether or not some system of belief is involved in one's deciding upon epistemic standards, what is evident about the thought processes within the minds of critics of Christianity is that they yet still draw upon their own epistemic assumptions and beliefs about the nature of epistemology, even if in a sporadic, unsystematic way (although, I'm confident they'll assert that they are indeed systematic in such cases). The resulting epistemic standards they then (think) they use, and which they think they 'should' apply to their understanding about the Christian Faith, are, themselves, open to other, even non-religious criticisms and questions, quite BEFORE any major concerns about Christianity need be considered. We are each accountable for presenting our own epistemic standards well before considerations and evaluations about religion come into play...............

......but somehow, critics of religion always seem to be aloof of their own epistemic state(s) within reality. And I've often figured there must be some reason 'why' they're so ardent to skip over any contention that may exist with their own epistemic shortcomings as they so often do and continue to plow into the Christian faith with the intention to undermine it. Perhaps you could show me how I'm wrong in surmising this?

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

section9+1 said:
Progress their thought? If you finally found the right woman and made a formal marriage commitment to her, does that not make her the right one? Or would you go shopping around for another woman just in case you might find a better one? What would your wife think about you inspecting other available ladies even though she was your bride? If you have already found the truth that works for you, there is no reason to continue searching. "He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God."

With all due respect, that's simply a strawman.
Pursuing the truth about the existence of God, and our ability to pursue necessary or relevant truth as individuals and as a society is far distant from the idea of being unfaithful or undevoted to a spouse or loved one. That logic simply does not apply to the situation described previously.

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

Jok said:
I would word it as me giving it my best shot to try to explain how I see the balance between faith and proof. I wouldn’t so much call it a problem. I mean you CAN call it a problem though if you are of the opinion that it really sucks that you can’t purely reason your way to know that Christianity is true. If that’s what a person wants then yes it’s a problem. Which is definitely understandable. I have been there!

I believe that you used the term 'problem' in your previous response, I was merely using your words, pardon me if I am wrong on that count.

I definitely don’t think that this can have a blanket answer. We could probably go back & forth for two weeks with examples of how faith is beneficial, followed by examples of how faith is not beneficial. I would actually find it impossible to call faith simply bad or simply good since people make faith based decisions every single day of there lives (that are not at all subject to testing with the scientific method).

My intention with that argument was not to simply say that all faith is bad, and that faith cannot be a force for good in an individual's life, but I will propose that faith, insofar as it is dogmatic, is a force for regression and stagnation within a society, especially since we seem to agree that dogma is dangerous. In short, if faith is dogmatic thought, there are inherent dangers to its widespread application, regardless of its benefits on individual lives.

Definitely no argument from me on that!

I'm glad we agree.

I have no idea how this would be an argument against people of faith.

The point here is, again, that if faith is in fact a dogmatic form of thought, it is then counterproductive if not downright dangerous, and makes it much more difficult, although not impossible, to have an open and flexible mindset.

Um, you do know that Galileo was a God believing man of faith right?

Of course, in the same way almost everyone else in his time was. However, the point is that

Good point...except for all the times that it pertains to people without religious faith!

Certainly true. However, my point is that religious faith is not merely one manifestation of some of humanity's worse traits, but a facilitation of those traits, again, specifically through the usage and maintenance of dogma.

If you have a ton of complaints about the evils and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church throughout history I’m right there with you! The problem is about power & influence though, not religion. The moment that any organization becomes a source of power & influence you can guarantee that it will not be long before the sociopaths start to infiltrate it and corrupt it. Also, there are many instances where people will simply PLAY THE PART in order to reap the power & influence that the institution provides, in this case the Catholic Church basically took on the role of government. It’s not so much that you had/have many evil men of the faith, it’s that a lot of them were not men of the faith to begin with.

I could not agree more with what you say here, however isn't it fair to say that once you have an institution of any kind which preaches dogma saying it is the one true church, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all do in their own right, that that's power and influence right there?

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

Jok said:
I would word it as me giving it my best shot to try to explain how I see the balance between faith and proof. I wouldn’t so much call it a problem. I mean you CAN call it a problem though if you are of the opinion that it really sucks that you can’t purely reason your way to know that Christianity is true. If that’s what a person wants then yes it’s a problem. Which is definitely understandable. I have been there!

I definitely don’t think that this can have a blanket answer. We could probably go back & forth for two weeks with examples of how faith is beneficial, followed by examples of how faith is not beneficial. I would actually find it impossible to call faith simply bad or simply good since people make faith based decisions every single day of there lives (that are not at all subject to testing with the scientific method).

Definitely no argument from me on that!

I have no idea how this would be an argument against people of faith.

Um, you do know that Galileo was a God believing man of faith right?

Good point...except for all the times that it pertains to people without religious faith!

If you have a ton of complaints about the evils and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church throughout history I’m right there with you! The problem is about power & influence though, not religion. The moment that any organization becomes a source of power & influence you can guarantee that it will not be long before the sociopaths start to infiltrate it and corrupt it. Also, there are many instances where people will simply PLAY THE PART in order to reap the power & influence that the institution provides, in this case the Catholic Church basically took on the role of government. It’s not so much that you had/have many evil men of the faith, it’s that a lot of them were not men of the faith to begin with.

And I just realized that I included some of my responses in the quote of your response, trying to do the same thing you did, and managed to place it all into the quote, not my text, sorry!

Again, I am new to this platform and its functions. So I'll just briefly address the most important points I made, which are that 1) faith is not always a bad thing, and certainly not in individual lives, but if we agree, as I believe(?) we do, that faith is dogmatic, and dogma is dangerous, we can conclude that faith is dangerous, insofar as it is dogmatic. 2) Again, insofar as faith is dogmatic, it is not only a manifestation of humanity's worse traits (of course, persecutions and atrocities absolutely occur against religious individuals all the time), as humanity has terrible potential regardless of religious faith. However, it is because, as again we seem to agree, that dogma, and therefore faith, do in fact have dangerous traits, that religious faith has been, and can easily become, a facilitation for humanity's worse traits. It is for these reasons that I am merely proposing that religious faith is at the very best an unreliable and inconsistent manner of obtaining truth, and at worst a dangerous and dogmatic form of intellectual stagnation and societal regression.

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Frankly, it's not true. But not only that, whether or not some system of belief is involved in one's deciding upon epistemic standards, what is evident about the thought processes within the minds of critics of Christianity is that they yet still draw upon their own epistemic assumptions and beliefs about the nature of epistemology, even if in a sporadic, unsystematic way (although, I'm confident they'll assert that they are indeed systematic in such cases). The resulting epistemic standards they then (think) they use, and which they think they 'should' apply to their understanding about the Christian Faith, are, themselves, open to other, even non-religious criticisms and questions, quite BEFORE any major concerns about Christianity need be considered. We are each accountable for presenting our own epistemic standards well before considerations and evaluations about religion come into play...............

......but somehow, critics of religion always seem to be aloof of their own epistemic state(s) within reality. And I've often figured there must be some reason 'why' they're so ardent to skip over any contention that may exist with their own epistemic shortcomings as they so often do and continue to plow into the Christian faith with the intention to undermine it. Perhaps you could show me how I'm wrong in surmising this?

Well, let me say that I harbor no illusions of my own freedom from epistemic standards, and I certainly hope that any and all individuals who take issue with my claims and critiques will use the fullest extent of their epistemological and rationalistic capabilities in order to break down my ideas - that is, after all, what discussion and debate is all about, an improvement of ideas through the rigorous epistemological examination of them by others. And it is because religion does not or can not withstand rigorous epistemological examination, that I feel it fails to defend itself on the battlefield of ideas. And in order to clarify, let me say that the simple aim of my last response was to specify that I don't want to be free of my own epistemic standards! I want nothing more than for my ideas to be examined with the same rigor and standards for validity and truthfulness as any other relevant ideas, and that includes religious ones. In short, it seems to me that it is not I who wants a double standard for epistemic examination, but rather anyone who would suggest that the Bible as a means of knowing truth, is free from the same standards as any other idea or means of knowing truth. I'd love to hear your reply!

SocratesNow · Apr 7, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes, you are deeply confused, and apparently--despite your academically resonating articulations to the contrary--are seemingly ingratiated to a particular view and understanding of the functions of Epistemology, and of the Nature of Science. You also don't seem to exude an awareness about the field Hermeneutics, which is somewhat apart from that of Biblical Hermeneutics. One wonders, though, if you even have an inclination to therein 'find out.'

Yes, there is a different epistemic standard between science and religion, most particularly where Christianity is to be found within the target of that interest. The good news is that, with the seeming intelligence and academic level of rationality you've thus far expressed, I'm confident that, if you're willing, you could make substantial headway into acquiring a better understanding about the differences between all of these respective fields of study. And God-speed to you in that regard!

I would love to hear your opinion on how we can justify or propose the validity of having two different standards of epistemic examination for, say, the Bible and the arguments made by its critics, simply because I feel I may not fully understand your position on that, and as I'm sure you value fair and productive epistemic standards being applied to all areas which require them. Thanks!

2PhiloVoid · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
I would love to hear your opinion on how we can justify or propose the validity of having two different standards of epistemic examination for, say, the Bible and the arguments made by its critics, simply because I feel I may not fully understand your position on that, and as I'm sure you value fair and productive epistemic standards being applied to all areas which require them. Thanks!

Oh, there's not much to say about "my" opinion, other than that I side [more or less] with Eugenie C. Scott and Stephen J. Gould (or similar minds) rather than with Richard Dawkins or Jerry A. Coyne.

And that's the short of it since we're not really supposed to carry out elaborate discussions here in the Introduction Section of CF.

Oh, and welcome to CF!

section9+1 · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
With all due respect, that's simply a strawman.
Pursuing the truth about the existence of God, and our ability to pursue necessary or relevant truth as individuals and as a society is far distant from the idea of being unfaithful or undevoted to a spouse or loved one. That logic simply does not apply to the situation described previously.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Not arguing with people who are TRYING to find out if God exists. Good for them. But I have no regard for those who are just playing games. You asked for MY reasons for believing in God. I gave them. If it doesn't satisfy you then what is that to me? Anyone who harlots around after he has found his savior will be spit out of God's mouth. Lot's wife left Sodom with him. She looked back and became a pillar of salt. I have no quarrel with atheists who are happy without God. They are where they belong and they can stay there. He only came for those who are lost sheep. No one else.

Joy · Apr 7, 2020

MOD HAT ON

This Thread has Moved
From Introduce Yourself
To General Theology

MOD HAT OFF

Philip_B · Apr 7, 2020

Because the notions of finitude and temporality often get associated with the concept of “existence,” theologians have sometimes found cause to worry about what we are doing when we assert the existence of God. Perhaps the most radical expression of this worry occurs in Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology where he claims, paradoxically, that “God does not exist.” Despite the fact that the remark appears in a book written both within the tradition of, and about, Christian theology, Tillich spends considerable effort trying to convince us why the affirmation that God does exist must be stricken from Christian discourse. Tillich tells us, for example, that “however it is defined, the ‘existence of God’ contradicts the idea of a creative ground of essence and existence.” Therefore, “to argue that God exists is to deny him.” Not only would it be “a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words ‘God’ and ‘existence’ were very definitely separated”; indeed, theology “must eliminate the combination of the words ‘existence’ and ‘God.’” In short, “it is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it.”

There is a challenge in this that a lot of people do not get. Existence is not a quality of God, because existence happens within God. God is before the beginning. In the beginning God was already creating. I find Tillich's thought here very helpful and challenging. To assert that God Exists is to suggest that there is an eternal construct of existence which is before God, and that ultimately must lead us in the wrong direction. God does not happen in the construct of IS, IS happens in the construct of God.

I realise that Tillich got himself in a lot of trouble over this, (and he does use big words) however I really believe that he has something to offer us here. JB Phillips wrote Your God is Too Small, and I suspect this is the case when our determination is to fit God inside our known reality.

Ivan Hlavanda · Apr 7, 2020

SocratesNow said:
Thanks for the insight, that was fascinating!
I would however challenge first your conception of what "good" means. Saying that there are no good people in the world seems like a deeply problematic claim, perhaps it would be more accurate to say there are no perfect people in the world? After all, if there are no good people in the world, it seems that you must be concluding that there are no good deeds in the world, since good people could be considered those who dedicate their lives to committing good deeds, and those individuals certainly exist. On another note, are you in fact non-denominational then, seen as in your response you state "...all religions are false,"?

Ok. So we are all guilty of sin. Yes there are people who sin less, and yes just because we are sinners doesn't mean we are not capable of good things or loving one another (this is however nowhere near as God who loves us who is aware of every single of our sins and of every consequence that sin has on the world, yet God sent His Son Jesus to bear our sins and to take our punishments, and all who believe in Son and what He did on cross are forgiven of every single sin. We sin against God, we play God, we hate God and He is still merciful and loving) because we are but that not makes us justified. There is a religion I'm not going to name that says that as long as you do more than good then bad you go to heaven. First of all, we often don't even know what's good and bad, how many times people tried to justifie their sins, 'oh I only lied because I was protecting you' 'oh I only cheated because I was going through terrible time and I thought our relationship is over' etc etc. Or it makes me laugh when a millionaire cheats he goes and donates I don't know a million and now it's all ok...and there are people like that. No good can wash up your sin. Only Jesus, who was Holy and sinless, who carried our sins is forgiven and righteous thus if you believe in Jesus, your sins will be washed up. Because there is absolutely nothing you can do to wash your sins and go to heaven and God knew this and therefore sent His Son (who is also God...one Godhead three persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit) so our sins can be forgiven. Only God can forgive sins, only God can justify our sins, only He can bare them.

Now you are asking, how can a single sin be bad? Look at Adam and Eve, they only sinned once, they only ate from a forbidden tree. And now look at all of the bad that is going on right now in the World. See how bad their consequences of their one sin were?

I think we can both conclude that I cannot convince you of Christianity, nor can anyone in the world. We cannot make you a Christian, only Jesus has the authority to do so, only Jesus can convince you to be a Christian, like He did with my brain tumour. You cannot decide to be a Christian (yes anyone can call themselves one, but they must be Christian at their heart, soul and mind), only Jesus can make you one. Therefore I will pray for you, that Jesus shows you something in life that will convince you God is real. I know some things you might find confusing, but please keep asking. Or ask God in prayers, even better

What are the best arguments for the existence of God?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Jesus I Trust In You

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Similar threads