Is God real?

It would seem there have been several instances where both sides have misunderstood the other. Reasonable, considering we hold to our values so fervently. The mistakes made regarding Christianity are

1. Hell is an infinite punishment for a finite crime

Allow me to quote a passage from the very book whose author was claimed to be "unforgivably ignorant," does this seem ignorant?
"The Bible says that the Father is loving. The New Testament affirms the same about Jesus. But can they really be loving while at the same time sending people to Hell? After all, Jesus teaches more about Hell than anyone in the entire Bible. Doesn't that contradict his supposed gentle and compassionate character?"-Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ. This is the exact same question that has been proposed so many times in this and similar threads.
Allow me to quote the passage that follows.
"In posing this question to (Donald) Carson, I quotes the hard-edged words of agnostic Charles Templeton: 'How could a loving Heavenly Father create an endless hell and, over the centuries, consign millions of people to it because they do not or cannot accept certain religious beliefs?'
That question, though treated for maximum impact, didn't raise Carson's ire. He began with a clarification. 'First of all,' he said, 'I'm not sure that God simply casts people into Hell because they don't accept certain beliefs.'
He thought for a moment, then backed up to take a run at a more thorough answer by discussing a subject that many modern people consider a quaint anachronism: sin.
'Picture God in the beginning of creation with a man and woman made in his image,' Carson said. 'They wake up in the morning and think about God. They love him truly. They delight to do what He wants; it's their whole pleasure. They're rightly related to Him and they're rightly related to each other. Then, with the entrance of sin and rebellion into the world, these image bearers begin to think they're at the center of the universe. Not literally, but that's the way they think. And that's the way we think too. All the things we call "'social pathologies"' - war, rape, bitterness, nurtured envies, secret jealousies, pride, inferiority complexes - are bound up in the first instance with the fact that we're not rightly related with God. The consequence is that people get hurt.
From God's perspective, that is shockingly disgusting. So what should God do about it? If he says, "' Well, I don't give a rip,"' he's saying that evil doesn't matter to Him. It's a bit like saying, "'Oh yeah, the Holocaust - I don't care."' Wouldn't we be shocked if we thought God didn't have moral judgements on such matters? But in principle, if He's the sort of God who has moral judgements on those matters, he's got to have moral judgements on this huge matter of all these divine image bearers shaking their puny fists at his face and singing with Frank Sinatra, "'I did it my way."' That's the real nature of sin.
Having said that, Hell is not a place where people are consigned because they were pretty good blokes but just didn't believe the right stuff. They're consigned there, first and foremost, because they defy their Maker and want to be at the center of the universe. Hell is not a place filled with people who have already repented, only God isn't good enough or gentle enough to let them out. It's filled with people who, for all eternity, still want to be at the center of the universe and who persist in their God-defying rebellion.
What is God to do? If He says it doesn't matter to Him, God is no longer a God to be admired. He's either amoral or positively creepy. For Him to act in any other way in the face of such blatant defiance would be to reduce God himself.'
I interjected, 'Yes, but what seems to bother people the most is the idea God will torment people for eternity. That seems vicious, doesn't it?'
Carson replied, 'In the first place, the Bible says there are different degrees of punishment, so I'm not sure that it's the same level of intensity for all people."
Essentially, this passage would indicate those who do not follow Christ are given opportunities to change. It would seem one would be judged more on actions than beliefs. Faith in Christ is quite pointless, in my opinion, if you do not live it out. This does not mean "doing good" gets you into Heaven alone, but goes with belief in Christ.

I will address further issues at a later date, due to a lack of time. In the meantime, I would like to ask a few questions for Atheists. These are not an attack on Atheism, but a request for additional knowledge. One must always examine evidence from a multitude of views to gain the complete picture.

1. The Big Bang, though a credible theory, describes a transition of matter in a centralized location to across the universe. Where then, did the matter come from?
2. Obviously, all Atheists believe the Bible is false, can you show me any archeological evidence against the New Testament?
3. Isn't the argument "there is no God" also an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
since this falls under options 1-4 depending on your position?
Again, I merely want to hear the opposition's stand on these three questions.
I will attend to the other issues at a later date.

 

Again, not our problem to show proof, you show archaeological proof that its real.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 8, 2016 ---

while there are numerous theorys, (that im way too lazy to type here, ill post a link) obviously the can't prove the big bang, but there is a great deal of evidence supporting it, certainly more than there is supporting god.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 8, 2016 ---

but that still means that when i die, i would be believing in god? right? If i die an athiest then i would go to hell? (just read the TLR sorry)

 

And you're 13...

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Allow me to quote a passage from the very book whose author was claimed to be "unforgivably ignorant," does this seem ignorant?

Regarding apologetics. One can be ignorant about a particular topic, but that doesn't meant they're an ignorant person. Otherwise, we'd all be classified as ignorant.

......

Essentially, this passage would indicate those who do not follow Christ are given opportunities to change. It would seem one would be judged more on actions than beliefs. Faith in Christ is quite pointless, in my opinion, if you do not live it out. This does not mean "doing good" gets you into Heaven alone, but goes with belief in Christ.

I'd rather not tackle Christian apologetics yet. You've asked many questions thus far, while I'm still waiting on the 2 I asked earlier. Whether or not you care about the truth value of your beliefs, as well as your reasons as to why you believe in a god? I think those are the most important things to discuss here.

To address the above simply, the assessment of God's character is much more than his decision to send particular people to Hell. Though, for what this is worth, if exists an is accurately described in the Bible? The Christian god is by definition immoral. Infinite punishment for a finite crime is by it's own definition, an immoral act.

1. The Big Bang, though a credible theory, describes a transition of matter in a centralized location to across the universe. Where then, did the matter come from?

We don't know.

2. Obviously, all Atheists believe the Bible is false, can you show me any archeological evidence against the New Testament?

Atheists don't typically claim that the entirety of the Bible's claims are false. The same obviously applies for the NT. There are some events described in the Bible that we know to be false, such as the flood. But I doubt you'll find many Atheists that claim all of it is untrue.

[Not intended to be as confrontational as this will sound] Do you understand the 'Burden of Proof'? I've mentioned this a few times now, but it doesn't seem to be "sticking". Do you disagree with it? Do you not care for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition."

You're saying that some/most/all the claims in the Bible are true. Thus, the BoP falls on you to support these claims. Otherwise, without evidence+argument for either side, we're left in an agnostic position of 'unbelief'.

3. Isn't the argument "there is no God" also an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
since this falls under options 1-4 depending on your position?

I don't think it would be the AfI fallacy, but I share your concerns with that position, sure. Most Atheists (the overwhelming majority) are agnostic-Atheists. They don't believe, and they don't claim to know that no gods exist. Very rarely will you come across an Atheist that claims "there is no god/gods". In such a case, the BoP would be on them to support their claim. I do not hold this view, though this all depends on your definition of the word 'knowledge'.

Again, I merely want to hear the opposition's stand on these three questions.

Sure thing. Keep them coming!

Though, I would really like to press on an answer the 2 key questions I've asked previously. Heck, let's push for 3.

(1) Do you care whether or not your belief in a god is true?

(2) What is the primary reason you believe in a god?

(3a) If this reason were shown to be fallacious/incorrect, would you change your mind? (3b) If not, what would change your mind?[/QUOTE]

 

That's ridiculous

 

Its not my ways kakor, Its God's. His way. His plan for us. So don't ask me why. ._. But just so you can get this through your apparently large skull; God IS real and I think his plan of salvation is amazing; to be able to live again. And in the name of His son Jesus Christ, Amen.

 

He was being sarcastic...

 

There is only one true supreme being...

In joking...

 

is that an alien or a spagetti monster?

 

Me myself i believe in God as well as Jesus Christ and honestly I don't think ill ever change my views and I never would try to force someone else to believe in what I do .^_^ I say believe what you want to believe because in the end who knows who's right or who's wrong

 

OK, so you say that its gods plan, and you don't know why, so what reason could you possibly have for believing in him? you're like, "yah that god guy is pretty cool, I have no idea WTF all this stuff he does is for, but ya know, hes definitely real and stuff"

also, the spaghetti monster is the religious icon for the mock-church the pastafarians, they are basically atheists who decided they wanted the same tax breaks and perks that religions get, so they made there church, you can become an ordained priest for 15 dollars.

 

I suppose the one with the large skull is the one insulting others for not believing in something with no proof to support it

 

I don't personally think it makes much sense for God to be real but if it comforts other people to think that death isn't permanent then who am I to stop them.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 1, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 1, 2016 ---

1. The Big Bang, though a credible theory, describes a transition of matter in a centralized location to across the universe. Where then, did the matter come from?

My own idea of how the "Big Bang" started is that there hasn't just been one big bang, and the universe has never truly ended. I like to think that the universe has always been around and that there is no start or end. I think that each universal "incarnation" eventually expands beyond being able to sustain any matter ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe for a more in depth explanation of this) and "ends." However, the matter that used to comprise the known universe is still there, it is just dispersed so sparsely that it is essentially gone. It can remain this way for an indefinite amount of time until somehow, somewhere, a few of the pieces of atoms of the "old" universe bump into each other in such a way that the first "new" atom is formed. Eventually this reaction cascades into the reformation of the universe into a new shape and configuration, eventually forming new planets and galaxies with new life on them. This would be what we refer to as a "Big Bang." But since the universe is always expanding due to entropy, that universe will eventually disperse and repeat the cycle. Universes are in an infinite, empty void and there are probably multiple universes within that space sharing the same amount of matter, swapping things when they die and reform. Now this is by no means an actual scientific theory, I just spent a period of Chem 2 thinking about this instead of doing my work, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense.


2. Obviously, all Atheists believe the Bible is false, can you show me any archeological evidence against the New Testament?

Well I mean, there isn't any archeological evidence for it either. The only things that can be proven is that it takes place in the middle east and that's about it. None of the things that happen in it can be proven, they just got locations and stuff right because that's where the authors lived. However, this is loads of evidence against just the Great Flood alone so I'm not gonna get into this really. this is where we start to tread territory that no one can confirm simply because the book is so damn old.

3. Isn't the argument "there is no God" also an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
since this falls under options 1-4 depending on your position?

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. No-one can definitively say that god is or isn't real, and anyone who does is a fool, if that's what you're trying to get across. Could you clarify?


Thank you, these were good questions.

 

My apologies for the delay in responding, I will explain why later on.

Thank you very much for your honesty. In truth, no one knows all the answers.

This is an intriguing idea. However, this is essentially another form of the Big Bang. Essentially, this means our universe was formed from another. If you follow the logic, we end up with, "Where did that universe come from?" The only way to follow this logic as you have suggested would conclude the universe has always existed, which is currently assumed to be false. We have fairly solid evidence the universe began somewhere, which is why we have theories such as the Big Bang.

I don't believe I conveyed my idea as well as I originally had envisioned, allow me to explain. My personal belief is once a person is condemned to the Lake of Fire, it is not 100% permanent, no way out. Several Biblical passages refer to repentance as the way out. Think of it this way, a child rebels against his father. Though the father does not wish to punish the child, he knows said child has done wrong. Therefore, it is the punishment of waiting them out. Letting them to make their own conclusion to change, as a way of apologizing. Sin, depending on your perception of it, is an infinite crime because not only are you rebelling against God, but not changing is essentially the same as doing it over and over.

This area is my reason for a delayed response. Now, to address this area fully, I am currently researching to support my claim of New Testament historical accuracy. Due to the differences in both time period and origin, I do not feel the Old and New Testaments prove or disprove the other. Remember, they were written in vastly different environments. Much more of the New Testament can be tested, due to its newer age (compared to the Old Testament). One thing I would like to point out regarding historical accuracy, a very common arguement is the Gospels were written late enough after Christ's death that legend had corrupted the story. Therefore, I would like to remind everyone of Alexander the Great. His biography is considered accurate by historical definition, but it was written approximately 450 years after his death. Depending on your assessment, the Gospels were written between 40 AD and 100 AD. Considering the maximum possible is sixty years, I would propose legends would not be as likely. Again, I am currently conducting further research in this area, to address your desire for a BoP. In the meantime, I will answer your questions.

1. Obviously, a debate in which I do not care if I am right is not even worth arguing. Therefore, I answer yes.
2.My primary reason for belief is not "It's how I was raised," as some have said. My own reason is personal experience. Several instances in my life that are very large "coincidences" after doing something that would be considered religious.
3. If you can prove experiences wrong based on my limited viewpoint, than very well. Consider it the incredulity logical fallacy, but based on sheer probability, the exact miracles in my own life have a next to nonexistent probability.
Thank you, for well though-out questions. If I may, would you answer the same questions in reverse? It does not add data to our debate, but it is helpful to comprehend where the opposition is coming from. Once again, I am currently researching historical and archaeological accuracy of the New Testament, and will address this when I have collected sufficient data.

 

Read my signature.

 

Not to be rude, but how does this contribute to the debate at all? If you wish to enter a debate, please supply at least a reason behind your claim. Again, I am not trying to come off as hateful, but I do not feel this helps anyone.

 

mys signature says i believe in jesus christ?