Is God real?

So this is what Debatheist meant by 'devil's advocate'. Two completely contradictory posts, each arguing against a different side.

 

:I welp I spent half an hour writing a reply to him... Funnnn :/

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 25, 2016 ---

Btw THIS, just a bunch of Bible verses. You said I had a horrible argument, look at your own!

 

Yep, and since God created the universe (and the laws therein) as I'm assuming you believe, and since he, being omnipotent, has the power to stop it, to alleviate suffering, and he doesn't... Well it doesn't look good for the existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent being.


Let me put it this way. I have free will (I hope), and yet there are things I could want to do, but not be able to do, like randomly kill someone in China (not that I want to do that). So what if we had free will, and yet were prevented from killing other people.


Yes, bad things happen to good people. But the problem is, bad things shouldn't happen to good people with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being in the universe, especially something that's not caused by someone else exercising their 'free will', such as cancer.


I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here. It seems like you're asking how almost all civilizations that think things like murder and stealing are wrong.

The short answer to the murder one is, well, any civilazition that condoned it collapsed, since unsustainable death rates in a population are, well, unsustainable.


However, you also asked about stealing, so here's the long answer. Suppose for a moment the universe existed God-free, and humans came to be purely without divine intervention.

If you'll look at all social animals' societies, theifs face reprocussions. In chimp societies esp. (Because we study them so much), if someone takes something without permission, they are generally punished by the rest of the group. Evolutionarily, this makes sense, because if people in your society are taking all your, say, food, you'll starve to death, and the society will be weaker.

If morality were universal, we'd expect to see this all over the animal kingdom, but we don't. Animals that don't live in societies regularly 'lie, cheat, and steal'. There's a bird (I forgot what it's called) that lays its eggs in another bird's nest. When the eggs hatch, its larger baby out competes the host's babies, and they all die, guaranteeing the invader's survival.


Vultures steak from predators. Hyenas steal from lions. (I think) wolves steal from bears.


Ok so now we have that morals aren't universal for, well, the universe, and we know how primates (including humans) all 'know' that killing and stealing is wrong.


Yeah ok know it wasn't meant for me. But I think I speak for 99% of atheists when I say that we'll believe in a god if evidence should come foreword, be it the Christian God, Norse gods, Greek and Roman gods...

However, in my experience, 100% of religious people are willing to deny the evidence in order to continue with their beliefs.


Let me put it this way. Let's say there's a guy named joe, and he makes a mistake. His mistake was not believing in a god, because said god had never seen fit to give actual evidence of his existence. Joe was a Hindu from India. Now, since he hadn't believed in the Christian God, he is sent to a place of eternal torment for all of eternity. Because of one, human, temporary mistake. God is a ba*****, simple as that.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 25, 2016 ---

No, lol. If you actually looked at what I was saying, you'd see that I was proving to Perfectly that the Christian God is omnipotent, at least according to the bible.

So next time, actually read what you're using as 'evidence'. It might not mean what you think it does.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2016 ---

Just so you know, I too spent some time on my reply... An hour, I think (typing on my phone lol.)


Yes, you have a horrible argument. But again, just like Sam, it appears as if you didn't actually read what was going on at the time I made that post. Someone claimed that I could not know that the Christian God is omnipotent, so I went to the only sort of 'evidence' in his existence... (Sort of like going to The Goblet of Fire for information about Harry Potter), the ultimate authority on all things God, if you will, and I pulled up all the bible quotes about his omnipotence, and his ability to do anything. And the reason that this argument is so strong is that if you deny the bible is correct about one thing, how can you trust anything it says? If the bible says that God is omnipotent, and that the bible is the word of God, and that God cannot lie
◄ Titus 1:2 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,New Living Translation
This truth gives them confidence that they have eternal life, which God--who does not lie--promised them before the world began.


I have more to say, but I'm going to switch over to my computer first.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 25, 2016 ---

Nevermind, I got sidetracked by food.

 

I believe he is yes.. out of optimism for one thing. I don't just want to die and be dead.. Ill keep kicking and hanging with jesus. but this is your opinion.. I don't think this was a good idea for forums
-1

 

Two things, first off, omnibenevolent is not a word. Just had to point that out. Secondly, suffering is what should bring us closer to God.

The Bible makes it clear that God has no pleasure in seeing sinners die which lead them to eternal punishment (Ezekiel 33:11). He created man for His glory and for His pleasure (Revelations 4:11). Now here's a question... If you're God, will you derive pleasure from the "love" your created gives you if in the first place, you have programmed them like robots to give you love (they have no choice but to love you)? I believe that you'll agree that "love" that's not freely given is not true love. God had to give man a free will so that He can experience true love from His created so that pleasure is achieved. He wanted man to love Him willingly. Free will allows man to love God willingly. That's why God gave us free will. Not doing so goes against reason. God is a logical Person that's why He saw it right to give man the freedom to choose for himself and He hoped that we'd use it to give Him this.
source

In my previous argument, I mentioned "good people" for relevance to the topic, but I would like to clear up something first. There are no “good” people. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that all of us are tainted by and infected with sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8). Romans 3:10-18 could not be clearer about the non-existence of “good” people. source. To answer your question however: yes, sometimes bad things happen to people who seem undeserving of them. But God allows things to happen for His reasons, whether or not we understand them. Above all, however, we must remember that God is good, just, loving, and merciful. Often things happen to us that we simply cannot understand. Our reaction should be to trust in Him rather than resent Him for it. If you trust in him, one of two things will happen: you will be set back on the correct path, or he will call you back to Him.

That is exactly what I am asking. Without the morals defined by God, how else would they know these are wrong?

True, very true. I applaud you!

Most all social primates, and what is to say that they did not just learn from human actions? If they are being studied, they get a lot of human interaction. If your chimps are so intelligent as to form societies in the first place, why is it that they could not have learned this behavior from us?

Then let me try to prove that!

These statistics, may I check their sources? I can talk for myself on this one. I was very close to becoming an atheist because of the debathiest (you would like him if you don't know him), but the reason that I continued to argue was not for myself. I know that this server is full of young minds, and it terrifies me the ideas thrown out. I think I kept arguing out of hope. Hope that these young people would rather than just accepting these ideas would question them from both perspectives rather than just one. That they would learn to question with an open mind. From both perspectives.

What I am doing right here is rather than accepting evidence, challenging the evidence with evidence against it. That is what this entire back and fourth argument is, evidence vs. evidence. Some point are strong. You have already thrown at me some of the hardest points that a Christian can expect. I have done my best to answer them. Let me make a deal. If you can come up with a very strong point to convince me rather than you that there is no God, I will accept atheism. You have already accepted to this deal with your "99%" statistic. I wish you the best of luck!

Okay, is Joe a Hindu or your described atheist with no god? He cannot be both. I will respond once this is cleared up.

My earlier reply to the omnipotence of God should suffice.

Congrats, this upcoming 5 mins marks 2 hrs. A past post had lead me to believe that you are a troll, and the fact that the debathiest refuses to argue with you (in his siggy) has not completely cleared that up, and I would rather not invest my time into a troll.

It is my fault for not reading into the context of your post. I apologize. Again, my past reply should suffice.

I purposefully got on my laptop for this, I feel ya, the finger cramps!

And I am DONE with this post. Sweet, time for my food!

 

It's a cuckoo, Ranger. Just for the record.

 

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

God makes us suffer so that we'll like him more. K.

Doesn't matter. Imagine hell as being a German Jew during the holocaust, except you can't even compare the two, because the holocaust ended after some time, and Hell never ends.

So he's a narcissist and a sadist?

Haha, so to get us to give it to him 'freely', he threatens us with eternal torment?

Well, the first reason that pops into my head is that Chimps don't generally watch the news. Secondly, scientists in small groups observe chimps in the wild, and that means that they haven't had much, or any, human interaction.

There's a difference between good and perfect... I'd like to think I'm a good person. I help others... I'm courteous (generally), I get good grades, I respect my parents. Sure, I'm not perfect, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad person, and I resent you for implying it.

Except if you don't believe in him. Then he's a psychopath.

That's what I'm doing lol .

Refer to the words "In my experience".

I do know him. I don't particularly like him, but I don't dislike him either. He definitely doesn't like me though (signature lol). And also: "I'm no fan of Ranger"-Thedebatheist.

Sorry. He doesn't believe in your* god. He's a Hindu.

Lol that was an isolated incident that proved him a hypocrite.

Ikr

Yum.

 

Did someone mention food? If God is real, thanks to God for the food. If he isn't, thanks to whoever made the food.

 

Someone made the food either way, so shouldn't you still thank them even if god is real, or not thank them at all?

 

Well, technically, making the food is God at work through human beings, so thank God for making them make the food.

 

@Aarett - God lets people choose for themselves. No doubt, there [are] very many very bad things happening in the world, but these are the choices of people, not God.

How is it my choice, if someone kills me against my will? Is that still the "choice of the people"?

If so, what if they kill me by accident? What if a choice to kill me wasn't made at all, and someone makes an honest mistake?

Even IF we granted all of that. What about cancer or unpreventable disease? Are people to blame for this too? How do you square that circle? Cancer isn't sentient or conscious. It doesn't make choices, and it's an illness that people can contract for no fault of their own. Who's choice is that? And what do all 3 of these examples say about a god who could intervene and saves lives/prevent suffering, but chooses not to?

Your entire post repeatedly refers to choice. To absolve your god of the responsibility when things go wrong, while taking all the credit when things go well. I don't know where your getting this idea from that people choose suffering over happiness. I'd love to know.

I'd like you to look into the eyes of a famine stricken family in Africa. Their bodies rotting from disease. Watching their friends and family go through incredible physical and emotional pain on a daily basis. Then tell them that this life is their choice. That your god finds this gross injustice acceptable.

A gazelle is murdered by a lion. A housecat gets a heart worm and dies. A human is mauled by a bear.

The lion needs the meat in order to live.

The heart worm needs a host in order to survive.

The bear's maternal instincts kick in and she is simply trying to keep her young safe.

These are all parts of life.

That's the 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Even though they are parts of life, doesn't your god have control over it? Couldn't he change bits and pieces if he saw fit?

Just think for a second about the alternative ways in which we could live, in this universe your god created. He could have created a universe in which disease and cancer didn't exist. He didn't. He could have created a universe in which no animal had to be killed for another to live (a world without carnivores). He didn't. He could have created a universe in which cancer and unpreventable diseases don't exist. He didn't. If he cared about the human race (and others), why did he create a universe in which there would be such immense suffering? Why did he create animals, where their happiness and existence was contingent on the suffering and death of other animals? Doesn't that seem incredibly sadistic to you?

Maybe it's just me, but if I had created the universe? We'd all be solar powered. Or... we'd all be created as herbivores. So that we never had to kill another being to sustain ourselves. Why didn't your god do the same?

Also, he created each of us with the desires to do some horrific things, and when we act on these desires (actions that your god could stop, but doesn't), somehow he gets absolutely none of the blame? He creates us with so many flaws, and when those flaws manifest in the real world, you blame humans. Rather than your all-powerful deity. Why?

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 5, 2016 ---

@Aarett - God takes care of all of the creatures on earth, no matter how we humans classify them.

I don't know what definition you have of "care", but it certainly isn't the one that I have. I can only assume you're being poetic, and not literal.

Just stop and think for a sec. Because it sounds like you're parroting talking points from the pulpit, rather than engaging with what's being said. Let's be as clear as possible here.

If cancer starts eating away at your mother, killing her from the inside, how is god "caring for all creatures"? What about when this happens every day to people around the world? What about the other millions of injustices that we don't control, that your god can, but chooses not to?

When something nice happens? 'Ah, that's our god caring for us!' When something bad happens? 'Ah, that's free-will!' You can't have it both ways. If he cares, he needs to show it. Consistently. Instead of whenever he feels like it. Because he never lets free-will get in the way of doing something good for humanity, does he?

They could be as small as the bacterium living in my belly button. They could be as large as a giraffe. When old life is finished, new life blooms.

Is that your rationale for the suffering in the world? Why does the life that has to 'make way' for new life, have to go through such immense suffering? Your god is incredibly sadistic, if he merely wants to make space for new life. What about the massive amounts of space that we still have on the planet?

I'm sure you would do so much more, but God doesn't. He made it so that you can do anything that you so wish, good or bad.

Aarett. Stop. Please. That is categorically untrue, and it's hard to have a serious conversation when you speak in parables. Be as accurate as possible please. No more metaphors. I can't do anything I wish, good or bad. You know that. Can I fly? Live off dust? Cure cancer tomorrow? No.

More importantly, there's been significant talk in the scientific/philosophical community that we don't have free-will. At least, not the libertarian free-will that you're talking about. It's not even an illusion, it was never there to begin with.

He has given everyone free will. You decide what you do with it.

Riiiiight. So, I've got free-will, because your god demands that I do? How free is that? 'You WILL have free-will, I command it!'. We don't sound too free, do we?

Question.

1) Does your god have perfect foresight? (Most Christians would answer, yes.)

2) When creating the universe, was it possible for your god to create universes different to this one, or was this the only possible universe that he could create? (Again, most would say that he had a choice in creating which universe he wanted)

3) Is there anything that happens on this planet, that goes against the will of your god?

If you answer Yes, Yes, No, then we don't have free-will by definition. He's already selected the outcomes that he wants for this universe, and we're merely pawns playing out a bunch of 'cause and effects' until the universe dies. That's the logical conclusion of the premises I've just laid out. If they're true, we don't have any free-will.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 5, 2016 ---

@Aarett - As for infectious disease, my mother had breastcancer and was cured last year (thank goodness). It would have been absolutely horrible if we had lost her, but she only got closer to God with this encounter.

Nothing says, "I love you" like giving someone cancer. Your god sounds awesome, bro.

You've even said, "Suffering should bring us closer to God".

Huh, and all this time, I thought altruism, selflessness, compassion, care and love would bring us closer to those we care about (rather than to make them suffer). Silly stupid Debatheist.

I very much appreciate that you interject 'everyone', however I cannot help but disagree. With a lack of God, what is there to define morals?

That's the 'Argument from Ignorance' logical fallacy. (or more commonly known as 'The God of the Gaps' argument)

You don't know how we can get morals from somewhere else, therefore... there must be a God.

Before that, you need to prove that objective morals exist. That all morals arn't subjective.

Once you've done that, you'd need to prove that there is no possible way we can get them from any source. Any source, apart from a transcendent deity.

Then you'd need to prove that this deity must be a god.

That it must the Christian god.

That it must be the denominational god of your choice.

That it must be your own interpretation of your denomination's god.

I understand that we have had rather heated debates in the past, however I would like to propose that we keep this civil and both approach with open minds.

For sure. But I can only change my mind for good reasons. Thus far, I havn't seen any good reasons to believe in the Christian god. In fact, everything you've said would argue for an indifferent universe. One that does not care about us. One that is completely absent a god.

(Also I already know how you are going to respond to this, and no, you do not always have an open mind. Neither do I thought I will admit) Thanks and good luck

You don't think I'm always open-minded? Could you please point to an example in which you don't think I've been open-minded? This should be easy, right?

Open-mindedness isn't uncritically accepting whatever claims you put in front of me. It's about accepting claims once they've met their burden of proof and stood up to sufficient scrutiny.

In a matter of minutes this video explains 'Open-mindedness' in an interesting and succinct way.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 5, 2016 ---

"You don't think I'm always open-minded? Could you please point to an example in which you don't think I've been open-minded? This should be easy, right?"

To clarify, I do think there have been times that I'm closed-minded. On here? I'm not so sure. All I can do is look at the evidence and arguments, and try to be as objective as possible. If you could point to a post in which you think I'm being closed-minded, I'd appreciate that. It gives me a chance to learn, to see where I've gone wrong in the past.

Having said that, I think it's very much worth giving that video I linked to a quick look. I learned a lot from it. Hopefully you can too.

 

Let's say that religions just don't exist. There is no Christianity, no churches, nothing. Would you still believe that there is some super-natural being that created everything? Probably not. Most people who believe in God believe in him because they like the idea of Heaven and a higher power and everything having a cause. No one has ever presented me, or anyone, with a solid piece of evidence that God exists.

In the video about open-mindedness in TheDebatihest's post, it has a point about something that you cannot explain. I will use the creation of the universe as an example. Someone who believes in God would say that they cannot explain the creation of the universe, so there must be something supernatural involved, in this case, God. However this is completely wrong. If you can't explain the creation of the universe, you can't explain it! Simple.

 

Well, how do religious people know it's the right religion?

Christian God chose a small region in the Middle East to deliver his message. That said, all over the world people are developing their own traditions, cultures, religions, practices, and beliefs. They did so without any way to know of Jesus' existence. The tribes of North and South America were isolated from Christian influence for centuries after Jesus. Tribes of Africa, East Asian countries, and even Australian aboriginals were completely oblivious to the messages of Jesus. Were these people wrong? Are they going to hell because they never followed the Christian faith?

If God's message is so vitally important, why wasn't it delivered in a way for everyone to understand?

It almost seems like religion today is the exact result of what it would be like if there were no God at all.

 

Did you really just use Pascal's Wager?

I'll do a quick TLR response.

There are an infinite number of gods, with an infinite number of potential Hell's and Heaven's waiting for you. You're picking one, hedging your bets, right? Is your god so stupid, as to buy into your own 'covering your ass' belief in him?

If religious people are wrong? No, the cost isn't "nothing". Then you have wasted every second spent in deference to a god. You have spent your 1 life, your only life, wasting it on religion. Holding and fighting for values that actually harm humanity, rather than aiding it.

Pascal's Wager is the most anti-intellectual argument for the belief in a god that I have ever heard. Even worse than, "Because I feel it".

 

Thank who? hehehehehehehehehe

 

There isn't really a substantial amount of evidence proving or disproving his existence
(it could also be a girl, I'm not sexist)
The way I've always seen is it this:
Religion is without a doubt not for everyone. It is why our world (though some parts of the world don't have this advantage) generally embraces all cultures and religions. I think that's very important. Because until someone can completely disprove gods existence, there's no need to prove it. Thats my view on the matter. A lot was left unsaid of course but I don't find it that necessary to go into too much detail.

 

There can't be much (if any) evidence disproving the existence of a god, because the claim is unfalsifiable.

Similarly, we can't disprove the existence of pixies or fairies. And it would be a big mistake to imply that it is rational to believe in these entities, until they have been disproved. That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'Burden of Proof'.

TLR -- It's up to you to prove that a god exists. Not for everyone else to prove that one doesn't exist. (Because virtually no-one claims that 'no gods exist'.)

Do you believe in Bigfoot? Thor? Leprechauns? Oh... you don't? Well, do you have any evidence that they don't exist?

No, of course not. Because the onus isn't on you to prove that they don't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the (positive) claim.

Then you need to look into the Burden of Proof.

When people are discriminating, maligning, ostracizing, killing and just... generally speaking 'interacting with' others differently, based on their religious beliefs? When one's religious beliefs start spilling over into the real world, influencing their decisions? Yes, you should absolutely care about whether what you believe is true. Whether it's "real". Whether you are ultimately justified in acting in particular ways based on your religious beliefs.

 

I'm agnostic. I was giving a completely non-biased point of view. I hope nothing I said offended you.

 

That's a non-response. Could you at least address *some* of what was said?

I'm an agnostic-Atheist too. But I don't see what that has to do with anything I've said. Claims and arguments rise and fall on their own merit. Not because 'someone sounds biased', or 'that person seems unbiased'.

Whether you're an Atheist or a Theist, the 'Burden of Proof' and 'Falsifiability' are scientific "facts". It's not bias. Asking people to back up their claims is just the most rational position here.

 

I'll address this: I made no claims at all. I gave my opinion on it, my conclusion was it should remain a nuteral subject to avoid drama. I suppose it's just me, but the purpose of life is not knowing. If we knew everything that would happen every day our lives would be pointless. So I appriciate the big question for what it is; a question.