Argument for God's existence.

[ToddNotTodd]

they why are you on christian forums? If you are not at all interested in it?

I initially came to this site 15 years ago because I was researching gay marriage, and the attitudes about it. I stay for various reasons. And I didn't say I wasn't interested in Christianity. I just said I have no reason to be a Christian. No one has actually presented one for me that is compelling.

 

[createdtoworship]

I initially came to this site 15 years ago because I was researching gay marriage, and the attitudes about it. I stay for various reasons. And I didn't say I wasn't interested in Christianity. I just said I have no reason to be a Christian. No one has actually presented one for me that is compelling.

I did not come to christianity because I was compelled. I came because I wanted salvation. I knew that there was life after death, and I didn't want to be on the wrong side. See our souls don't have mass, and are therefore outside of time (they exist for ever). So when we die, that is not the end. I was just glad that there was a way to be saved. After I was saved by believing in Jesus, I gradually fell more and more in love with Jesus and it is through this relationship that I gained victory over many lifestyle sins I was engaged in. Addictions of various sorts. And because of Him now and His wisdom, I am not only saved, I am happy, fulfilled. And desire nothing more than to be more like Jesus, my saviour. After being saved for a period of years I got in a car accident where we were rolling over and over at 80mph on a busy freeway of morning commute. I prayed if God would save me while I was skidding on the roof, that I would give him my life. Our car stopped perfectly tucked away in the center divider lane, just out of traffic. It didn't even stop the traffic on the freeway. The CHP office made us get checked out at the hospital because he saw us flipping from the south bound side of the freeway, he thought we had internal damage. So an ambulance took us. And the only injury we had was that my friend's had was scuffed up from skipping on the freeway, as we were upside down skidding. All three of us were perfectly fine. The car was totaled. I was in the passenger front, if the car would have flipped one more time, I would have been cut up from the window. But I was miraculously saved. Since God held up his side of the agreement, I enrolled in Bible College and started teaching evangelism. Only later when I had a family, I stopped doing the active ministry, and did more online debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am sort of jealous that this author is a much better debater than myself, but He has some good books worth checking out. I am reading two of them currently.

I must say, I am really tempted to cut and past a section of a book I read today:

"If there is no God

(a) the universe always existed, or
(b) our universe was created by a multiverse which always existed, or
(c) our universe sprang into being out of nothing, and by nothing.

There are no other alternatives. If there are, let me know and we can consider those.
---
The universe could not have always existed.
If it did, it would have to cross an infinite number of time-moments to reach the present moment. This is an infinite regress (back into the past) which is impossible/illogical. This is also an enumeration through an infinity of time moments.
It is impossible to enumerate through an infinity (it is impossible to cross an infinity of time-moments by counting sequentially through them).
Therefore, the universe could not have always existed.
---
The universe is not an adequate cause for its own formation (it would have to pre-exist itself to create itself; this is illogical).
“Nothing” is not an adequate cause for the creation/formation of the Universe.
Natural Laws by themselves are not an adequate cause for the actualization (creation/formation) of the Universe out of Nothing.
--
The Multiverse necessarily invokes either an infinite regress (which is illogical/impossible) or creation of something by itself (the multiverse) out of nothing (which is illogical/impossible).
And therefore the Multiverse is not an adequate cause for the existence of the universe (or the multiverse itself).
---
In addition, if Atheism is true, then the multiverse would have to be infinitely old, and it must have been birthing child universes at finite periods all the way through infinity into the past. And those child universes could themselves be birthing child universes into the past.
Therefore, there must necessarily be an infinity of actual physical universes (that were birthed by the multiverse) as we look back into the past (the infinite past in time). And there must currently be an infinite number of actual physical universes in existence.
---
So, in order to avoid the existence of ONE God, we have to postulate an infinite (into time past) infinite (currently) number of universes.
This is the biggest violation of Ockham’s razor ever (and therefore the biggest violation of any principle of logic, rationality and reason ever)."

above section from
Does Logic Point to God?
(100+ Logical Vignettes
from an Ex-Atheist Scientist) on amazon
By John M. Kinson contact: LogicalTheist@gmail.com (he posted his email in his books)

 

[Moral Orel]

This is an infinite regress (back into the past) which is impossible/illogical.

Why is it impossible? I've always wanted to see someone defend this claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Multiverse necessarily invokes either an infinite regress (which is illogical/impossible) or creation of something by itself (the multiverse) out of nothing (which is illogical/impossible).

I thought you were claiming God created the universe ex nihilo, but you're saying creation ex nihilo is illogical?

 

[cvanwey]

I would love to discuss more with you, message me.

I've received 30+ years of sermons. I would have to conclude there is 'nothing under the sun' in which I have not already heard from the believer's perspective. Heck, I was one for decades. But thanks.

But I would much rather hear a rational and valid argument for your specific God's existence? I would also like to see it here, in this thread so that I am not the only one to benefit from this wealth of yet-to-be-given knowledge.

Appealing to emotion surely ain't gonna do it

The fact that humans have the ability to ask the 'why' question, surely ain't gonna justify concluding not only a God, but your specific God.

So what do you got? I've got no problem having all other viewers here see what you may provide for me.

Thank you in advance!

 

[cvanwey]

I would love to discuss more with you, message me.

Second response...

If issuing videos appears to be a valid means in driving a position, I have one (for you) to ponder. In doing so, if you can logically answer all jam-packed topics within it, and still justify the story of Yahweh, than maybe I will start taking a closer listen to (your) specific case. But until then, good luck. Again, I don't know if God(s) exist. But I have yet to hear a valid case for (your) claimed God.

So I simply issue you with the provided challenge below. Again, since videos appear to be a valid source of information in this thread...

Thank you for watching (if you dare )

BTW: I posted this video one other time, as a thread topic.... Just an FYI.

 

[Moral Orel]

Please stop posting this Gish Gallup.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please stop posting this Gish Gallup.

Did you respond to the right poster? The video that @cvanwey has nothing Gish-gallopy about it, whether one agrees or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

Did you respond to the right poster? The video that @cvanwey has nothing Gish-gallopy about it, whether one agrees or not.

It absolutely is. "The Bible is unbelievable, here's a bunch of reasons why". It isn't cohesive. He's got elements of the problem of evil mixed in with arguing against a purely fundamental literal interpretation of Genesis for Pete's sake. If I bother to explain one of them away, which for a lot of them it's pretty trivial, he'll just say, "But yeah, what about all the others, huh?!" That's a Gish Gallup.

If I pick one thing off that list, explain why it's not a problem, will you accept the whole video as bogus, or will you tell me to explain away something else?

I don't believe the Bible either. But stuff like that makes the rest of us look stupid.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've received 30+ years of sermons. I would have to conclude there is 'nothing under the sun' in which I have not already heard from the believer's perspective. Heck, I was one for decades. But thanks.

But I would much rather hear a rational and valid argument for your specific God's existence? I would also like to see it here, in this thread so that I am not the only one to benefit from this wealth of yet-to-be-given knowledge.

Appealing to emotion surely ain't gonna do it

The fact that humans have the ability to ask the 'why' question, surely ain't gonna justify concluding not only a God, but your specific God.

So what do you got? I've got no problem having all other viewers here see what you may provide for me.

Thank you in advance!

Well, the gist of the argument I just posted. The universe either made itself, was made by a multiverse that made itself, or was made by God, who does not have a beginning, because He is not susceptible to time, due to the fact He is mass less and everywhere at once. Omnipresent, per the definition of God. So by natural definition, you have faith either that the universe created itself from nothing or that a multiverse created the universe, and by which the multiverse created itself from nothing. Or that the universe was caused by a multiverse that had no beginning, was a superrintelligence, and had the ability to fine tune design into every thing in the universe. So that is very similar to faith in God. I just put a name to the causless force in the universe. But your faith is not much different from mine.

 

[createdtoworship]

Second response...

If issuing videos appears to be a valid means in driving a position, I have one (for you) to ponder. In doing so, if you can logically answer all jam-packed topics within it, and still justify the story of Yahweh, than maybe I will start taking a closer listen to (your) specific case. But until then, good luck. Again, I don't know if God(s) exist. But I have yet to hear a valid case for (your) claimed God.

So I simply issue you with the provided challenge below. Again, since videos appear to be a valid source of information in this thread...

Thank you for watching (if you dare )

BTW: I posted this video one other time, as a thread topic.... Just an FYI.

I think the guy is funny. It's interesting to see other people's viewpoints, even if misguided. I watched the whole video and there is nothing he says that is new or not addressed in this forum somewhere by someone. Let me know if it's not and we can start a thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, the gist of the argument I just posted. The universe either made itself, was made by a multiverse that made itself, or was made by God, who does not have a beginning, because He is not susceptible to time, due to the fact He is mass less and everywhere at once. Omnipresent, per the definition of God. So by natural definition, you have faith either that the universe created itself from nothing or that a multiverse created the universe, and by which the multiverse created itself from nothing. Or that the universe was caused by a multiverse that had no beginning, was a superrintelligence, and had the ability to fine tune design into every thing in the universe. So that is very similar to faith in God. I just put a name to the causless force in the universe. But your faith is not much different from mine.

Why does a multiverse with no beginning have to be a super-intelligence?

 

[createdtoworship]

Second response...

If issuing videos appears to be a valid means in driving a position, I have one (for you) to ponder. In doing so, if you can logically answer all jam-packed topics within it, and still justify the story of Yahweh, than maybe I will start taking a closer listen to (your) specific case. But until then, good luck. Again, I don't know if God(s) exist. But I have yet to hear a valid case for (your) claimed God.

So I simply issue you with the provided challenge below. Again, since videos appear to be a valid source of information in this thread...

Thank you for watching (if you dare )

BTW: I posted this video one other time, as a thread topic.... Just an FYI.

The reason why many miracles were done before technology is because if Jesus lived today, he would never have been put to death for heresy by his people. Which was required for our salvation. supernatural events happen all the time validating God. Answers to prayer. I have a list of prayer requests and I check them off when they are answered. Very specific things. God literally answers prayer all day long on some days. It's not an excuse to be lazy, but prayer has its perks. It makes life way easier than lIving a cursed life from sin. God says you will live longer, have more, and be happier because of all of that. Simply by obeying Him, following His commands (which are not burdensome). He answers prayer that our joy may be full.

 

[cvanwey]

It absolutely is. "The Bible is unbelievable, here's a bunch of reasons why". It isn't cohesive. He's got elements of the problem of evil mixed in with arguing against a purely fundamental literal interpretation of Genesis for Pete's sake. If I bother to explain one of them away, which for a lot of them it's pretty trivial, he'll just say, "But yeah, what about all the others, huh?!" That's a Gish Gallup.

If I pick one thing off that list, explain why it's not a problem, will you accept the whole video as bogus, or will you tell me to explain away something else?

I don't believe the Bible either. But stuff like that makes the rest of us look stupid.

You know what they say about opinions

If one looks at it in a collective matter, as a whole, it becomes the cumulative affect. One of the arguments does not stand on it's own, I agree. However, I find this video represents about half the reasons Christianity does not appear a valid structure.

If you find it lacking, then please ignore, like I'm sure (you) place the many other responses on here, upon your 'ignore' list

Peace

 

[cvanwey]

Well, the gist of the argument I just posted. The universe either made itself, was made by a multiverse that made itself, or was made by God, who does not have a beginning, because He is not susceptible to time, due to the fact He is mass less and everywhere at once. Omnipresent, per the definition of God. So by natural definition, you have faith either that the universe created itself from nothing or that a multiverse created the universe, and by which the multiverse created itself from nothing. Or that the universe was caused by a multiverse that had no beginning, was a superrintelligence, and had the ability to fine tune design into every thing in the universe. So that is very similar to faith in God. I just put a name to the causless force in the universe. But your faith is not much different from mine.

I gladly admit I have no clue why we are here, if there actually is a 'why'?. Thus, in regards to the apparent 'first cause' vs 'eternal' dichotomy argument, I have no 'faith.'

But I do have one minor response to chew upon...

'Almost all of our modes of critical thinking are infused with both of these ideas: that we may work from first principles, a definite starting point, counting up from zero (or one, historically); but also that we may trace the causes of things to some point, and then later ask how that starting point came to be. But the two ideas are themselves in conflict. Which is true — that infinite causal chains are impossible? Or that they are necessary? Or are they perhaps possible without being necessary?'

- Anonymous

 

[cvanwey]

I think the guy is funny. It's interesting to see other people's viewpoints, even if misguided. I watched the whole video and there is nothing he says that is new or not addressed in this forum somewhere by someone. Let me know if it's not and we can start a thread.

Just as I can say the very same thing about the one in which YOU first furnished

However, the point of my video was to demonstrate that there appears to exist many topics, when collectively added together, which make continued belief in Christianity, specifically, a tough pill to swallow.

No new thread necessary, as I already know all stated topics have already been exhausted. The question remains, have the theists met their burden of proof, regarding all observed counterpoints?

I think you know where I stand upon that question

 

[Moral Orel]

You know what they say about opinions

I didn't state any "opinions". That video is in fact a Gish Gallup, by definition. You may be under the impression that Gish Gallups are good arguments, and in that case your "opinion" is wrong.

If you find it lacking, then please ignore, like I'm sure (you) place the many other responses on here, upon your 'ignore' list

My "Ignore" list is empty and it will stay that way. I always know I've made a valid point when people tell me to use it though. That just means they don't like their ideas challenged.

If I ever make a poor argument like the one presented in that video, I hope that you'll point it out to me. I wouldn't want to make unbelief look like it's based on bad arguments.

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't state any "opinions". That video is in fact a Gish Gallup, by definition. You may be under the impression that Gish Gallups are good arguments, and in that case your "opinion" is wrong.

My intent for the video was 1. to consolidate only some of the reasons Christianity appears illogical to hold as a true belief. 2. to provide a counter video, as the OP provided a video, to demonstrate (some) of the many reasons why I don't conclude in the same belief structure.

If my intent was for him to start to pick apart all said claims, then yes, I would agree, I'm presenting a 'gish gallop.' However, that was never the intention. I'm simply providing a video in return, in a playful manor, to present as to why I don't hold his belief, (for some of the reasons presented). You see the difference?

I'm simply telling him, 'been there, done that, heard it, argued it,' there is nothing new for him to PM me about. Got it?

And as stated in my prior response to him, there is no need to 'create a new topic'. Just that when one collectively assessed all said claims from Christianity, and weighs them all together, you have a recipe for the unlikely.

I'm not looking for a challenge to them, in this thread, but instead only demonstrating to him I have already explored them. And that there exists nothing new, 'under the sun' he could tell me in which I have not already pondered.

My "Ignore" list is empty and it will stay that way. I always know I've made a valid point when people tell me to use it though. That just means they don't like their ideas challenged.

I have no problem having my ideas challenged. Otherwise, I would not hang around on a public forum, with individuals whom do not share my current conclusions.

So please, 'challenge' away But I do find it curious, you offered nothing of criticism to the other poster's video; especially when you most likely do not share his views.

If I ever make a poor argument like the one presented in that video, I hope that you'll point it out to me. I wouldn't want to make unbelief look like it's based on bad arguments.

I assume, by 'poor argument', you are referring to the 'gish gallop' and not so much the many embedded arguments presented within it?.?.?

If it is the former, my intent was not to present as such. But to instead demonstrate only some of the reasons I do not conquer with his conclusions; to let him know there is really nothing for him to PM me about.

If it is the later, then by all means, create new topics, and address the individual arguments you find invalid. I will be more than happy to engage, where I see applicable. And BTW, if it is the later, then you ARE interjecting your opinion

 

[cvanwey]

The reason why many miracles were done before technology is because if Jesus lived today, he would never have been put to death for heresy by his people. Which was required for our salvation. supernatural events happen all the time validating God. Answers to prayer. I have a list of prayer requests and I check them off when they are answered. Very specific things. God literally answers prayer all day long on some days. It's not an excuse to be lazy, but prayer has its perks. It makes life way easier than lIving a cursed life from sin. God says you will live longer, have more, and be happier because of all of that. Simply by obeying Him, following His commands (which are not burdensome). He answers prayer that our joy may be full.

In this response, I hope to kill 2 birds with one stone.

It would appear the subtlety was 'lost in translation' here...

You posted a video, I posed one back. Apparently, @Nicholas Deka doesn't want skeptics and non-believers in the claims of the Bible to post videos, which seem to represent 'gish gallops', as he feels it makes such non-believers look 'stupid'.

Before you actually respond, I wanted to make something clear; a point it would appear both of you missed...

I responded to you, to let you know I've already heard every story you might bring forth. The video was merely provided to demonstrate only (some) of the unsettling observations one must address, when attempting to reconcile this asserted belief (i.e. Christianity). Rest assure, I'm not actually 'challenging' you, or asking you to attack them, line by line. I'm instead letting (you) know, that I don't share your conclusion, and instead provided a playful video, demonstrating only some of the many topics in which I could bring up, in any future PM sessions, which would address against your yet-to-be applied assertions.

So I trust I have killed two birds with one stone:

1. You do not actually need to respond to the video, in that it was merely a playful video return exchange. But was instead hopefully provided to let you know I've already been around the block a few times, and know the scenery.
2. @Nicholas Deka does not need to feel as though I'm making his 'group' look bad.