My roommate is an atheist...

[DominicBaptiste]

Hi everybody

I was raised in a creationist family, but abandoned the literal interpretation of the Bible before high school.

I'm now a college student, who has an atheist roommate. We are in the same logics classes, and I'm finding myself not able to defend my faith. It's kind of a competition between us, trying to outsmart each other. I've always tried to be a rational person, and now it's eating me up that there seems to be a major part of my life that doesn't make any sense. Now that I try to remember back what I have been taught at church and at home, all the lessons are on the surface level, but the foundation, the evidence for the existence of God just isn't there. I always just took it for granted.

I also work as a security guard, so I have time to think about these things, but I can't read about it at work. I know there likely won't be any quick and easy answers, but I'll try to devote as much of my free time to this as I can.

I've tried praying, but I haven't found answers. Now I'm asking for your help: What are the most convincing arguments for the existence of God?
(It would be really cool if the argument was in a proper logical form, but really, any good argument or evidence is appreciated.)

One of my family members is a creationism activist. I used to think she was crazy, but now I think the reason it's so important to her is because she and her husband continue to have more children, and she really needs to have a positive and affirmative attitude toward life. The Old Testament is not a literal story for us to believe, but it's something for us to refer to. "In the beginning God created!" is what a creationism activist might say. The Gospel and New Testament was written "to" us as Christians. The Old Testament was for the ancient Israelits. In the Gospel, Jesus was killed by people who were jealous of him for being basically a poor King who questioned their authority, and after he died and went to heaven, he came back as the Holy Ghost for his followers, and you can have the experience of being in the light of the Holy Ghost anytime you want. If you stop and pray, you will actually feel it if you really try. What you have to remember is that God created you through your parents, and you can also have a family if you wish, even if your family will be poor like Jesus was. The King was born because his family were people of God. No one can make you believe that, but if you look at all the wonderful people that the Gospel has brought to the world, maybe you could at least consider it. I think in the end, faith is probably a choice, but it's also probably a good one. Good Luck! :^)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Atheists in college often want to know if you love them like Christ does.

check out Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Christian Philosophy books by Norm Geisler and others.

 

[CreativeChris]

Didn't say that.

Sorry about that. I misunderstood your post in a hurry.

In fact, walls also surrounded the mainland city of Old Tyre, which was indeed destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, pretty much as Ezekiel said. Stones from the ruins of Old Tyre were used by Alexander to build a causeway to attack the island fortress. So thorough was the destruction of Old Tyre that we know very little about it (although it was clearly much larger than the island fortress, and contained a great deal of stone.).
And although Nebuchadnezzar did not capture the island fortress, he apparently forced the inhabitants to accept a Babylonian ruler.

Apparently we have different information on how fortified the mainland was. Do you have a (non-creationist) source I could check out?

I don't read Hebrew, so it's not clear to me if Ezekiel 26 refers only to Nebuchadnezzar's attack, or also to the later attack by Alexander. When I read Ezekiel 26 in English, it seems to describe two attacks: one by Nebuchadnezzar/he against the mainland city, and one by the nations/they which finishes the job.

All the translations I have read seem unanimous: The bible first separates two entities, Tyre (the fortress) and it's daughters (the mainland) and then immediately says Nebuchadnessar will attack Tyre.

 

[CreativeChris]

Choose whatever option you want, add dozen more if you like. The thing you missed there was I never told you what to believe or what you had to believe, I put out there what sounded logical to me for you to ponder. You act as if I insisted you have to believe one or the other, a way the heck out there assumption, and not a logical conclusion to what I stated. You get on to me for assuming while you assume there are other options. The argument goes nowhere.

The reason I assumed you think you have to believe one or the other is because you said so:

The alternative of creation "it all came out of nothing" makes no sense whatsoever to me...none. We see things created all the time by us but never once saw something come from nothing...never.

Here you only give one alternative to creation (you don't say for example "one of the alternatives", you say "the alternative"). And it's unbelievability was supposed to be used as evidence for creation. Unless you have demonstrated that all other options, no matter how hypothetical, are not true, it is fallacious to do so. I don't need to assume there are other options. I just have to be aware there might be.

Are you sticking with that ridiculous argument in order to avoid my other comments? It certainly appears that way. Maybe that's why you created a conclusion like you did?

Which argument do you feel is ridiculous and why? I've been trying to give my reasons for every argument I've made. And for the logic one, I feel like I've been extremely thorough.
Which other comments do you feel like haven't been addressed yet? I promise I'll address it in my next reply to you.

BTW, do they seriously have a class in "Logic"?

They sure do. Logic has been studied and teached since the days of Aristotle. You should go to a class. It's really interesting.

Once 0 is increased it can be multiplied but in order for it to enter in a state that can be multiplied it needs to be added on to first. In the "beginning event" the universe is 0 and then something pre-existent (God) adds on to it putting the universe in a state of positive existence that can then expand by itself (if it is so ordained that way).

The obvious question now becomes, how did you determine the universe was "0"? Even Lawrence Krauss' Universe From Nothing assumes there was vacuum energy (if I understood it correctly).

 

[Radagast]

Apparently we have different information on how fortified the mainland was.

AFAIK it's generally accepted that the mainland was fortified, based on the sheer volume of stone Alexander collected from the ruins. I haven't got a book to hand, though.

All the translations I have read seem unanimous: The bible first separates two entities, Tyre (the fortress) and it's daughters (the mainland) and then immediately says Nebuchadnessar will attack Tyre.

My reading is that "Tyre" refers to the combined city, which was a single political entity, ruled by a single king.

 

[DamianWarS]

The obvious question now becomes, how did you determine the universe was "0"? Even Lawrence Krauss' Universe From Nothing assumes there was vacuum energy (if I understood it correctly).

But where did the vacuum energy come from? Eventually something eternally existent must be the answer otherwise "nothing" doesn't work and must be 0. If something is eternally existent would it not have to be intelligent?

 

[Radagast]

Eventually something eternally existent must be the answer

Indeed. Ex nihilo nihil fit is an ancient principle.

If something is eternally existent would it not have to be intelligent?

One could, in theory, have an eternally existent physical universe. But all the evidence is against that, not to mention several philosophical problems.

 

[Christie insb]

I think that instead of trying to outsmart your friend, focus on learning about your own faith, and seeking questions to what you believe.

Regardless of what your roommate does or doesn't believe, instead work out your own faith--because if you are going to talk religion with others, you should have a solid foundation yourself.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah. Even for witnessing, sharing your personal experience is always a good place to start. That can't be refuted.

So get out there and have some experiences! God is on your team. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Phil.2:12-13. Hmm. Now this will be my verse of the day.

 

[Strathos]

As a Christian, you have to believe that God literally created the world, although all the details might not be literal.

Other evidence is clear that there was some kind of flood.

This is true. There is geological evidence for catastrophic floods in the Ancient Middle East.

 

[Radagast]

The way science works ... is that a scientist first has observations of a phenomena (a tide goes in, a tide goes out, for example). Then he makes a guess how it might happen (maybe it's the wind). He tests if the guess is correct (if the wind blows in the same direction the whole time, tide shouldn't change). If the guess is wrong, he abandons the previous assumption and makes a new guess based on all the information he has (maybe it's the moon). ...

I've never met a professional scientist that operated that way, actually.

But it's clear you're just here to argue against Christianity and, quite frankly, I'm tired of threads like that.

Just one question before I go: which church in Finland do you attend?

 

[Strathos]

And there is geological evidence of a flood in China and elsewhere. The problem is, it's not the same flood everywhere. There are hundreds or thousands of years between the big floods in different places of the globe. So clearly, if there was a global flood, there should be evidence for it.

I never said there was a literal global flood, but the story of Noah is based on fact (see the Black Sea deluge theory for example).

 

[Strathos]

So, you don't think that rain caused the flood, as it is described in the bible? Which facts do you think the story of Noah is based on?

The Bible mentions "fountains of the deep" as well as rain. I believe Noah was a real person and he survived a catastrophic flood due to his faith in God. The exact details of the flood are unimportant (there are many possible candidates for the event in the geological record). What matters is the message conveyed by the narrative.

 

[CreativeChris]

The Bible mentions "fountains of the deep" as well as rain. I believe Noah was a real person and he survived a catastrophic flood due to his faith in God. The exact details of the flood are unimportant (there are many possible candidates for the event in the geological record). What matters is the message conveyed by the narrative.

So you don't believe his ship was way bigger than any other wooden ship built after him? You don't belive he was over 900 years old when he died? You don't believe he had thousands and thousands of animals on board the ship?

 

[Strathos]

So you don't believe his ship was way bigger than any other wooden ship built after him? You don't belive he was over 900 years old when he died? You don't believe he had thousands and thousands of animals on board the ship?

To all of those I would answer probably not.

 

[CreativeChris]

To all of those I would answer probably not.

If you don't think the story of Noah was accurate in those details, why do you think he was a real person? Why don't you believe he was just a character invented for a story, to get the right kind of narrative to the book? A story maybe invented by someone who had seen a big flood. A story that shows the character of God.

 

[Strathos]

If you don't think the story of Noah was accurate in those details, why do you think he was a real person? Why don't you believe he was just a character invented for a story, to get the right kind of narrative to the book? A story maybe invented by someone who had seen a big flood. A story that shows the character of God.

The point of the narrative is not the accuracy of the details. Please note that I admitted that I was unsure about said details.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

This thread has gone thru a cleanup for flaming and goading; please do not address the other members character; but address the substance of their posts.
Carry on.​

 

[CreativeChris]

Ok, @Kenny'sID let's try again after the cleanup…

So, the alternative theory number 2 for the birth of this universe:
The universe was created by a god that was not quite omnipotent, and the god killed itself in the process.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ok, @Kenny'sID let's try again after the cleanup…

So, the alternative theory number 2 for the birth of this universe:
The universe was created by a god that was not quite omnipotent, and the god killed itself in the process.

Na, and it's not because I wouldn't like too, but due to problems I'm not allowed to go into in depth, it's best if I divide my resources wisely as possible...to do otherwise would be too risky. At least at the moment, but we'll see how it goes.

Nothing against you personally, as I don't feel you are part of the problem.

 

[CreativeChris]

@Kenny'sID, that's too bad. If your situation changes at some point, please let me know.