It is relatively easy and simple using causality and the BB theory as well as the characteristics of the universe.
Relatively easy and simple to prove that God exists? Cool. Do it then. Not on a forum where you can say anything you like without consequence. After all, talk is cheap.
You say it's easy to prove God exists? Then go and publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Then you can collect a few Nobel prizes, and disprove all the other world religions, and come back and tell me all about it.
Of course, no Christian can do any such thing.
If you can find a non personal source of purpose, I am all ears. And you cant use living things as an example because that assumes what you are trying to prove.
I think you really need to drop this now. Living things have purpose because they can feel and think. It's really that simple. The fact that living things with purpose exist in no way implies the existence of a purposeful being creating the universe. Your argument just doesn't make sense.
No, again you are assuming what you need to prove. You are assuming that natural selection can produce truth recognizing beings, ie humans, but how is that possible if natural selection only selects for survivability? A dog cannot determine if it is true that it has a finite lifespan or realize that if it loses a leg it will limp. And etc. Because none of those recognitions increase its survivability.
Because being able to perceive the world around you and react to it is a vital necessity that evolution would certainly select for. If you can't sense the world - ie, see/feel/hear/smell/taste the real world around you, you won't be able to survive in it. Try walking around with a blindfold and earplugs on, and you'll see what I mean.
It is a plain violation of the free exercise clause. So you don't care about violations of the Constitution? Would you also force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a Neo Nazi celebrating Hitlers birthday?
Um. The one is a hate crime, the other is a harmless expression of love.
Ed, can I suggest you rethink your arguments. Because, quite simply, none of them make any sense.
Name one time Donald Trump has violated the First Amendment? Okay. I think the worst incident was probably when he ordered police to attack a peaceable gathering of protestors. Please think about this seriously before you defend Trump. It was a gathering of innocent and peaceable protestors, and he ordered them cleared out of his path with gas and violent assaults so that he could walk across the street.
Also, there was that time Trump tried to block people on Twitter, and they took him to court and won, because the judges rules that he was violating the First Amendment.
And also, let's be honest: Donald Trump is quite obviously a person who doesn't care in the slightest for people's right to free speech.
So you have no problems with violating the Second Amendment either? No wonder you like them. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone that admires Communist China.
(shrug) So what? I just happen to agree with most civilised countries that its a very bad idea to allow your citizens to have unfettered access to any kinds of firearms they wish.
I doubt seriously he would agree with you on much. He said mans law should be judged how well it accords with Gods law. It sounds like you have never read the letter. How would you determine whether it is immoral or not? As an atheist you dont believe in any objective moral law.
I think Martin Luther King and I would probably agree on a lot. And since you're a supporter of Donald Trump and I'm a vocal critic of him, I think Martin Luther King would be more on my side than yours.
I didn't say person, I said being. A being can be the essence of something. And that being can also be a person. But beings can be the essence of many things, such as a raccoon contains the essence of being a raccoon.
You said that God is three persons. Okay. Fine. I don't mind what you believe. But you repeating yourself and then claiming not to have repeated yourself is getting a little boring.
A shame, since they contradict each other.
I am not claiming that it can be proven with absolute certainty. Only that it can be shown to be most likely to be good and sound by experience.
Okay, then. So you have nothing. You say that Christianity provides a sound foundation for morality, but it can't "be proven with absolute certainty" but is just "most likely" because of your "experience."
We have built in goodar, ie moral conscience, our moral conscience recognizes what is good. So over time as we know and experience Him we discover He is good, just like you do with any other person.
I see. And how did you get this "goodar"?
"Over time and experience" sounds like you develop a sense of morality naturally, which means you don't need God.
From my experience with Him just like you know this about your wife.
but we're not talking about how you can know that God is good or not. We're talking about how you can know what goodness itself is. And your arguments are hopelessly self-contradictory at this point.
By doing good things for me, helping me in times of trouble and etc.
And how do you know that doing good things for someone and helping them is a good thing to do? On what do you base your morality?
Where did I say that? I said I could prove it to the same level that you can prove that your wife loves you.
But I can't prove my wife loves me. And if you now agree that you can't prove that God is the foundation of goodness, then...golly, I guess that means I won the debate.
No, I never said I could prove it with absolute certainty. That is what faith is.
Gotcha. You say that Christian morality is reliable and objective, since it is based on God's character. Just so long as you have faith.
Well, it's good of you to be so straightforward in conceding defeat. Next time, please could you do it on the first or second page, instead of the twenty-first or twenty-second? It save time.
If He is the good, then He cannot logically do evil. It would be logically impossible for Him to do evil.
Except that if He did it, it would not be evil. Because, as we've already established, God Himself is the standard of goodness, and since there is nothing outside of Him that he can be measured by or be forced to abide by, He can declare that anything He wants is good - and you cannot object to it.
No, actually they dont. What appears to be out of character is probably just a part of their character that you had not seen yet.
Fine. Maybe God just has a part of His character you haven't seen yet.
It is not proof but it is evidence that God is good since His people (Christians) generally only came up with inventions for the good of humanity like the medical sciences. Of course, that would only be considered good for those that value humans.
Again, nonsense.
No, He is a person with a divine essence just like you are a person with a human essence.
You said He was three people. So is it three or one?
So you deny that American has the principles and rights I mentioned above?
I deny that these rights and principles are exclusively Christian, yes. I'd be happy to say that the USA is founded on principles shared by Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims and quite a lot of people. If that's what you're arguing for, cool.
It comes from the actions of Christ and His disciples. They never used force to convert anyone. Jesus said if they reject your message just walk away.
And that's it? You base a whole argument on a single sentence or two? Sounds like Jesus was just giving them sensible advice for spreading the gospel. And what about the first of the Ten Commandments? They don't matter any more?
No, Jefferson said we get our rights from the Unitarian God which is basically identical to the Christian God, he just does not intervene supernaturally. And he gives us the same rights and moral laws.
Sure, Jefferson may have said that. And then he decided to build a society in which God had nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
See above about free speech and freedom of conscience. Gods ideal form of government was revealed to the hebrews when Jethro told Moses to have the people choose their leaders from among them, ie election, and also in the Book of Acts the apostles told the church members to choose their deacons and elders from among them, ie elect them.
Fine. Their deacons and elders. Not their kings, lords, parliaments and presidents.
The first amendment is referring to a Federal church. That has nothing to do with not being founded on Christian principles. This is a straw man. John Adams wrote to Jefferson "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could unite. And what were these general principles? I would answer the general principles of Christianity...." And I could provide more.
All you have to do is point out what these "Christian principles" are that the USA is supposed to be founded on. I'm still waiting to hear.
Separation of Church and state was taught by Christ, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods". But He did not teach separation of God and State.
That sounds like exactly what he was teaching -
in the single sentence response you base your entire argument on. Come on - how can you expect me to take this seriously?
I admit trial by jury is not a christian principle But freedom of speech and conscience is as I demonstrated in my previous post above.
Of course it isn't. Have you forgotten? God gave rules to His people to follow. And the first one was, "Thou shalt have no God above me." Which is, of course, completely at odds with the US constitution.
No, the First Amendment just meant that there could be no federal church and could not favor one Christian sect over others. Franklin recommended that public schools acknowledge a creator God and His moral laws and an afterlife where your deeds will be judged. Apparently he felt that a generic religion like that did not violate the First Amendment.
The First Amendment means exactly what it says: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In other words, no religion in government. Not just "one Christian sect." No religion. A very sensible idea. If Franklin was inconsistent about this, or was occasionally hypocritical about it, well, he was a fallible human in the early days of one of the first secular countries in the world.
Besides the principles I referred to above and in a previous email, one of the US most important principles is human equality which is also a Christian principle.
First, highly debatable. Second, you have to prove it is an exclusively Christian principle, one that cannot be held by people of other religions or no religions.