Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

You not only leave your body behind, but you are alone there as well.

Along with leaving my body behind and being alone, is that an add-on to being ablaze for all eternity?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Yeh why not, a selfish god would keep it all to himself and not share life around.

Share what? life. He has his angels for that, supposedly. Why create suffering just to see people suffer. Sounds more like a Sadist than than anything which runs completely contrary to religious doctrine.

Matthew 13:44146
The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
44“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

As parents we have children and we give them everything that is good that we have, the same way God, who was not scared to share what he had even with those who are undeserving and the outright selfish who would vilify him for doing such a greatful thing for all of humanity.

Why did not God just create robot servants?

Because God is a better person than you and I and it is to our shame that one would even bring a false accusation against him to create a conflict.

If God being pure and good then what would you say of those who envy him and blaspheme against him.

Are they good or are they saying things from the evil of their Hearts desires because they can't handle the truth.

You and me are here praise the Lord Christ Jesus why would anyone despise their own self and exitence by saying:

"why would an infinite being create it's own worst headache"

Now look at yourself in the mirror and say why? Why?

Do you not see the irony. For God is LOVE and you stand in the mirror and think so negatively by even contending with your very own exitence to why God created you. Are you that miserable?

We have children to continue the species and to give ourselves and our ideals a certain form of immortality. We have no ideal how our children will come out. Tell me if you would chose to have a child that you knew with absolute certain that he would grow up to be another Hitler? I don't think so and I don't think a supposed almighty being would do the same.

Please don't use a plea for emotion against me. It won't work. I'm a pragmatist. I have emotions, emotions don't have me.

 

[Davian]

You only seem to quote the part you like. If you put your quote in context, he is saying that one cannot connect the material effect of the beginning of this universe with a material cause on the "before" side of the singularity.

This is further made plain by the comment below:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there..." [Kind of like equaling both sides of an equation.] "...This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe."

He doesn't like the idea of an immaterial cause, so he interjects imaginary time in order to preserve causality...but it has to be material cause. Read this:
"So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

Here's more:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

What Hawking is doing here is ruling out an immaterial cause a priori.

In summary.
1. Hawking claims that the universe and time itself had a definite beginning. (p2)
2. He apparently feels that the universe had to have a cause (p1), but believes that it had to be a material cause, so he interjects imaginary time in his model in order to connect the material effect of the beginning of the universe to a material cause.

You seem to be reading into that article things that are not there. There is no mention of 'material' or immaterial'. Perhaps you have used the word 'immaterial' so many times that it actually means "something" to you - pun intended.

The word "immaterial" is meaningless to me. You are, in effect, complaining that Hawking is ruling out [meaningless] causes a priori.

 

[Davian]

I answered you already.

Where?

 

[Davian]

The conclusion of the KCA version I advocate is not contested by any scientist (at least no one in this thread has been able to name any scientists that disagree with it) and yet supports a belief in God.

When you have an unfalsifiable belief, you can get just about anything to support it.

 

[Berean777]

Do you take the bible literally?
Nobody?

The story narrative of the Holy Bible is a story of:

1) Creation
2) Conflict
3) Covenant/agreement

The creation story is declaring the author who created the world and all the things that live.

It also highlights the conflict that arises in the garden of Eden where the false accuser wanted to attack God's character by decieving Eve to break the initial covenant/agreement that stipulated to not eat from a single tree out of a garden of trees.

God from the very first chapters of Genesis tells the false accuser that he will make another agreement where he will bring forth the seed Christ Jesus who will crush the head of the false accuser by silencing his accusations by defeating him on the cross at Calvary. God took the form of a man and died to show to what length he would go to buy back his creation that had broke his contractual covenant agreement. At the same time in Genesis God says that the serpent will bruise mortally his heel of the seed, by highlighting the fact that God will bleed for humanity in order to redeem it.

In history you have many powerful men who wanted to be gods yet you have only one God who wanted to be man for the purpose of making reparation to the conflict once and for all time.

So I believe the Holy Bible literally from the three narratives that I presented.

Yes, just like I would believe a contract that I sign is literal to ensure that I am a custodian of what is in that contract. I would even read the fine prints and believe them as well.

Why would a contract not be believed if your very life depended on it. You are telling me that you would not take it to heart. Say for example if you bought a car would you not believe the contract of sale, if not why?

Your looking at the bible as pieces of unrelated events, but what you don't know is that God declares in the Garden of Eden what solution he is going to purpose before Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden. The stories inbetwen highlight God's patience in knowing that the solution is going to take time.

Many say God could have just overpowers satan and ended it right there and then. However satan didn't come to pick a fist fight with God he came to introduce a false idea in attacking God's character. So God needed to silence the false accusation by defeating it with an action tied to the declaration that a seed will crush satan.

If anyone makes a false accusation against you and you take that person out physically then you undermine yourself by strengthening that accusation by the fact that you want that person out of the picture and so others will be led to believe that there might have been some truth to it.

So your understanding of the Holy Bible is completely wrong and it is inconceivable why you think the why that you think about it in that regard. I don't blame you because ignorance plays the better part in you not discerning what it is all about.

 

[nonbeliever314]

The story narrative of the Holy Bible is a story of:

1) Creation
2) Conflict
3) Covenant/agreement

The creation story is declaring the author who created the world and all the things that live.

It also highlights the conflict that arises in the garden of Eden where the false accuser wanted to attack God's character by decieving Eve to break the initial covenant/agreement that stipulated to not eat from a single tree out of a garden of trees.

God from the very first chapters of Genesis tells the false accuser that he will make another agreement where he will bring forth the seed Christ Jesus who will crush the head of the false accuser by silencing his accusations by defeating him on the cross at Calvary. God took the form of a man and died to show to what length he would go to buy back his creation that had broke his contractual covenant agreement. At the same time in Genesis God says that the serpent will bruise mortally his heel of the seed, by highlighting the fact that God will bleed for humanity in order to redeem it.

In history you have many powerful men who wanted to be gods yet you have only one God who wanted to be man for the purpose of making reparation to the conflict once and for all time.

So I believe the Holy Bible literally from the three narratives that I presented.

Yes, just like I would believe a contract that I sign is literal to ensure that I am a custodian of what is in that contract. I would even read the fine prints and believe them as well.

Why would a contract not be believed if your very life depended on it. You are telling me that you would not take it to heart. Say for example if you bought a car would you not believe the contract of sale, if not why?

Your looking at the bible as pieces of unrelated events, but what you don't know is that God declares in the Garden of Eden what solution he is going to purpose before Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden. The stories inbetwen highlight God's patience in knowing that the solution is going to take time.

Many say God could have just overpowers satan and ended it right there and then. However satan didn't come to pick a fist fight with God he came to introduce a false idea in attacking God's character. So God needed to silence the false accusation by defeating it with an action tied to the declaration that a seed will crush satan.

If anyone makes a false accusation against you and you take that person out physically then you undermine yourself by strengthening that accusation by the fact that you want that person out of the picture and so others will be led to believe that there might have been some truth to it.

So your understanding of the Holy Bible is completely wrong and it is inconceivable why you think the why that you think about it in that regard. I don't blame you because ignorance plays the better part in you not discerning what it is all about.

So, do you believe that the story of Noah actually happened?

 

[Davian]

Ask yourself the same question when you look at your wife, mother, father, daughter, son, sister and brother.

Can you get anything out of this "two-way" relationship that could not simply be imagined?

Yes. I can get information and insights to things that I would not normally have access to, from places I have not been.

However, none of this information is outside of the expected scope of human knowledge.

I believe that your answer will be the same as mine.

What is your answer? Is any of the information that you can get from this "god" from outside of the expected scope of human knowledge? A cure for cancer? The common cold? A unified theory of gravity?

 

[Berean777]

So, do you believe that the story of Noah actually happened?

Yes and it will happen again, this time the world will be purged by fire.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[paulm50]

The best argument against the god in the OT and NT, is his failure.

Forget about natural disasters and look at the Human evidence, since the Jews wrote it down. The Jewish religion apart for the last 100 years or so has been weak, kicked from pillar to post by most. They couldn't even hang on to their homeland.

Was it purely a Jewish god? The proof is in the numbers in the time BC, even until 15th Century only Europe was Christian, mostly. The success of Europeans isn't because of god. It's because of where Europe is placed. Those living in the Middle East never reached the heights we Europeans have.

The biggest failure was Jesus's. He failed to get his message across to the Jews, and those who followed him did. Leading to the Holocaust and the pogroms. Maybe as many as 8 million Jews died for the religion. At the hands of so called Christians.

And we Christians aren't shy from killion others. Other Christians who worship differently or donate to the other church. The Spanish conquest of South America caused an estimate of 8 million deaths in the indigenous populations. Just so the Spanish could get rich, then throw the money at failed attempts to keep everyone in the right religion.

Now the Jews have their homelend back, causing a rise in militant Islamics that will be a lot of trouble for a long time. Because Jesus was good enough at convincing people, neither were Peter and Paul who were far better than Jesus.

So other than the success of Europeans, down to us being in the right place. What is there to convince people god exists? A book written by Bronze Age men and reinvented by men in the Roam times. In fact without the Roman Empire failing, Constantine looking for new gods. Who knows where Christianity would be?

Add to this the huge amount of abuse handed out by clergy. Where's the evidence for an all powerful, all knowing god?

 

[paulm50]

Yes and it will happen again, this time the world will be purged by fire.

When will this happen and should I buy extra fire insurance?

Doom foretellers have been with us ever since it was found to be a great way to fill the church's coffers.

 

[Berean777]

When will this happen and should I buy extra fire insurance?

Doom foretellers have been with us ever since it was found to be a great way to fill the church's coffers.

You have bought into too many insurances and assurances. It just comes down to the insecure mind.

The word EXTRA gives it away. You need extra you said, why?

God is my security why should I buy into your worldly assurances. Your not an assurance broker are you?

 

[SkyWriting]

Along with leaving my body behind and being alone, is that an add-on to being ablaze for all eternity?

There is a "fire" but it's not your body burning (That stays in your coffin.)
What burns is your conscience.
You burn with regret and no body to right any wrongs.
Any unkind word, deed, or selfish thought.
What if you only said one unkind thing in your life?
Without accepting God's forgiveness, you get to dwell just on that one incident.
Is that less painful than 2 such incidents? I would think not.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes and it will happen again, this time the world will be purged by fire.

Good thing I have two fire extinguishers.

 

[bhsmte]

There is a "fire" but it's not your body burning (That stays in your coffin.)
What burns is your conscience.
You burn with regret and no body to right any wrongs.
Any unkind word, deed, or selfish thought.
What if you only said one unkind thing in your life?
Without accepting God's forgiveness, you get to dwell just on that one incident.
Is that less painful than 2 such incidents? I would think not.

And you came to this conclusion how?

 

[Davian]

I'm just working off the data that Christians were not the first group
to decide God existed. The evidence suggests a universal understanding.

But does not require the existence of actual gods.

"...we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

 

[Joshua260]

I've asked you repeatedly but have yet to receive an answer to this:

Yes, well I was ignoring you for a while because you accused me of lying, not being genuine about who I am on this site, and also for pestering me relentlessly in PM. I'm not going to willingly subject myself to those behaviors.

do you think it is impossible for the universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?

No, I do not believe it is possible that the universe formed through natural processes.

So what's your point?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, well I was ignoring you for a while because you accused me of lying, not being genuine about who I am on this site, and also for pestering me relentlessly in PM. I'm not going to willingly subject myself to those behaviors.


No, I do not believe it is possible that the universe formed through natural processes.

So what's your point?

What is you justification to absolutely rule out natural causes?

 

[Davian]

<snip preaching>

Fortunately for many who have yet to know him, tens of millions throughout the ages have gotten to know him <snip preaching>

Can one of these millions demonstrate that this experience was not imagined?