@cyrex this is how i wish to contribute to the topic and especially your points. An atheist chooses a method (scientific proof) to conceptaulize his/her perception of his/her environment. This is his/her right. Now if God has His own way for one to approach and get to know Him, will it not be foolish to use your method to access Him? And mind you am talking of the christian deity.

logicboy:


Sharaap, ignoramus.

+1 to stup.idity

mind your language please. This is not showing civility one bit. Just because i find someone's point interesting, i have the right to like it Trying to shut someone up is a sign of immaturity at best. So please watch what you say.

The OP is confusing God's wishes with Good. Pls they separate and not the same.

hisblud: @cyrex this is how i wish to contribute to the topic and especially your points. An atheist chooses a method (scientific proof) to conceptaulize his/her perception of his/her environment. This is his/her right. Now if God has His own way for one to approach and get to know Him, will it not be foolish to use your method to access Him? And mind you am talking of the christian deity.

so what is His own way of accessing Him, that is error-proof and without bias. What makes you think the christian deity is the only valid deity while others are false.

cyrexx:
so what is His own way of accessing Him, that is error-proof and without bias. What makes you think the christian deity is the only valid deity while others are false.

when you use this ' that is error-proof and without bias' you are still trying to subject His ways by your own subjective standard. It must be on His own terms abi

Kay 17: The OP is confusing God's wishes with Good. Pls they separate and not the same.

Please explain what you mean, I didn't quite get you

logicboy:


Sharaap, ignoramus.

+1 to stup.idity

Oh how tolerant and not bigoted you are! unlike those ignorant christians.........

(sarcasm intended in case you missed it)

hisblud: +1 to infinity

Thanks

Mr_Anony:

Oh how tolerant and not bigoted you are! unlike those ignorant christians.........

(sarcasm intended in case you missed it)

Nice try to play the innocent christian. You insulted atheists in your comments and he did +1 to your comments. When I retaliate, I am the one being intolerant and bigoted?

Do you christians, especially you have a monopoly on insults and hypocrisy?

Mr_Anony:
So once again I challenge atheists to come forward and explain to me why God cannot/must not possibly exist, else the statement "God does not exist" is simply an ignorant statement.

cyrexx:

1. God (if he exists) hides himself from mankind. why is it that it is religions and holy books who has to describe him and defend him (in the case of Islam, fight and kill for him) every time. it shouldn't cost an almighty anything to manifest his existence to unbelievers in a convincing way to dispel honest doubts, believe me, all of us atheists and agnostics will switch camp quickly if he does this. the fact that he hides behind ancient religions and holy books is a valid reason to question his existence.

2. If god is all powerful as stated in the holy books, and he created the world all by himself as a perfect god, then why do earthquakes, tsunamis and tornados and other natural disasters kill and maim thousands yearly? An all powerful being would surely be able to harness the earth that he created and make it work perfectly like a good manufacturer would have done with his gadget. for me this a valid reason to question his existence

3. every religion claim they have the true God. Which of all their Gods does not exist? can you prove Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu or Obatala or Thor or Zeus is the fake or real. Numerous religions, numerous powerful beings but which is real? If god existed it is reasonable to believe that he would be the ONLY ONE we would worship. There would be no other religion or entity. an almighty should be able to prevent his identity theft and spare us the pain of trying to determine his existence.

4. The basis of any religion (thus the belief of God's existence) is that you must believe something someone else tells you is true, even though your mind tells you might be untrue and it makes no sense. it is only a brainwashed mind that will accept this form of knowledge, which is incidentally how we know that god exists

5. outside of the mind of religionists, i personally have not found god anywhere else, Allah only exists in the mind of muslims, Jehovah exists only in the mind of Christians etc etc

6. most of the phenomena we are attributing to god is now being explained rationally. e.g. our fore fathers believed diseases was caused by the gods, now we know that it just germs, so we can conclude that every strange phenomenon we attribute as god's works today will one day be explained rationally by man,

7. The bible and the quran contains so many internal contradictions and irrational claims that only a mind that has been brainwashed from childhood can believe these without questioning.

8. i found out personnally that the major reasons religionists believe their holy book is due to the fear of eternal hell if they dare to question the holy books statement (e.g. christians MUST believe Jesus is the only Lord and Saviour or they go to hell forever; muslims MUST believe Mohammed is the messenger of God or they burn forever in hell fire etc etc). The simple truth is, if you remove eternal punishment from religions, nobody will believe their fairy tales and irrational claims. but as a free thinking agnostic and as well as other atheists, i have freed my mind from this fear of hell and afterlife, so i dont need to believe the holy books out of fear.

My friend you still have not addressed the question I have been asking, your are refering to inconsistencies across varying religions in describing God's nature. That is not the challenge I have set. I have laid out reasons why God should exist. Do you say categorically that God does not exist? If yes then refute my arguments and explain to me why it is impossible for God to exist hence validating the atheist statement "God does not exist"

logicboy:


Nice try to play the innocent christian. You insulted atheists in your comments and he did +1 to your comments. When I retaliate, I am the one being intolerant and bigoted?

Do you christians, especially you have a monopoly on insults and hypocrisy?

Please point out one of my insults on this thread, quote it back to me and i will make amends

Mr_Anony:

Please point out one of my insults on this thread, quote it back to me and i will make amends

This is very annoying;

Mr_Anony:
6. Atheists simply do not have any morals and they are quite comfortable attacking those with morals by calling them intolerant brainwashed fanatic bigots because it gives them some sort of a superiority complex.

This was the plus 1 comment. It is not that bad but was already angry and this pushed me over.

Human beings live by faith, even for the littlest things e.g you need faith to sit on a chair and hope it doesn't break, to eat food and hope it isn't poison etc. we do not go around testing every single thing else we'll die of paranoia. what an atheist does is denial of God so as to escape whatever consequences come with displeasing Him and this brings us to the moral argument that I haven't yet responded to.

How does an atheist define his morals? who can hold him accountable? and how qualified is this judge?

@logicboy

I am sorry but I fail to see the grievousness of the quoted statements.
When I said atheists have no morals you know so well that I was implying that since morals are subjective - according to you being an atheist. Then there is no way anything can possibly be evil or good hence atheism seems to me a convenient denial of God so as to escape any moral obligations. It is much easier to say "I define my own morals" than to admit to the possibility of being wrong.
It is also interesting that you would take offense at comments directed at a "non-belief"

All the same I apologize


...........By the way you still haven't responded to my challenge. [i]Tell me why God cannot possibly exist[/i]

Mr_Anony: @logicboy

I am sorry but I fail to see the grievousness of the quoted statements.
When I said atheists have no morals you know so well that I was implying that since morals are subjective - according to you being an atheist. Then there is no way anything can possibly be evil or good hence atheism seems to me a convenient denial of God so as to escape any moral obligations. It is much easier to say "I define my own morals" than to admit to the possibility of being wrong.
It is also interesting that you would take offense at comments directed at a "non-belief"

All the same I apologize

Everyone has morals- they are all subjective morals. You are wrong to say atheists have no morals. Subjective morals are morals.

Hey but it is cool. no worries

logicboy:

Everyone has morals- they are all subjective morals. You are wrong to say atheists have no morals. Subjective morals are morals.

Hey but it is cool. no worries

Subjective morals are not valid morals in my opinion. If anyone and everyone can define their morality in which ever way they choose, then there can be no true definition of morality hence rendering it inexistent.

Mr_Anony:

Subjective morals are not valid morals in my opinion. If anyone and everyone can define their morality in which ever way they choose, then there can be no true definition of morality hence rendering it inexistent.

With that reasoning, I can say that love is not existent. Beating of wives was once allowed in Islam and many other cultures. Keeping women silent is in the bible. However, ask any of the men that did such and they would claim that they love their wives. Some people do not kiss their wives in public, some people do no have sex with their wives when they have their cycle. Some people want their wives to have dinner ready before they come back from work. It is all love

logicboy:


With that reasoning, I can say that love is not existent. Beating of wives was once allowed in Islam and many other cultures. Keeping women silent is in the bible. However, ask any of the men that did such and they would claim that they love their wives. Some people do not kiss their wives in public, some people do no have sex with their wives when they have their cycle. Some people want their wives to have dinner ready before they come back from work. It is all love

Sorry but I don't quite get your point. If you are trying to define love here is the bible's description of love according to 1corinthians 13 which I agree with.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Whatever does not fit this description is not love.

But please let us not go on another tangent just yet. Respond to my challenge first: Tell me why God cannot possibly exist

Mr_Anony:

Sorry but I don't quite get your point. If you are trying to define love here is the bible's description of love according to 1corinthians 13 which I agree with.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
Whatever does not fit this description is not love.

But please let us not go on another tangent just yet. Respond to my challenge first: Tell me why God cannot possibly exist

By that definition, God does not love human beings. Jealous God indeed.

Okay, no more derailing.


The very fact that we are having this conversation shows that God doesnt exist. God made me an atheist

Why does God love atheists? The top 10 atheistic countries are performing better than the top 10 religious ones?

logicboy:

By that definition, God does not love human beings. Jealous God indeed.

Okay, no more derailing.


The very fact that we are having this conversation shows that God doesnt exist. God made me an atheist

Why does God love atheists? The top 10 atheistic countries are performing better than the top 10 religious ones?

Lol, logicboy you are still beating about the bush how does the fact that we are having this conversation disprove God? being an atheist was your choice now I call upon you to defend that choice.

Performance of countries is irrelevant in this matter. Ok let me help you; You can put it thus:
"God does not exist because........"
"Your arguments for first cause and intelligent design are invalid because............"
"Your argument for objective morality is invalid because........."
"............Hence God does not and cannot possibly exist"

Up until now, no one has given me a reason why God cannot possibly exist. why then do atheists deny the existence of God by saying that God does not exist? I still submit that the basic premise of atheism is false. It is not a lack of belief rather a purposeful choice to reject God's existence hence atheism is a faith of sorts or better still an anti-faith and it is not necessarily based on logic and reason in the true sense of those words.

Good night mr anon, hope by tomorrow, i will see rejoinders to your post. Thanks for being open to His wisdom. Z z z z z . . .

Mr_Anony:

Lol, logicboy you are still beating about the bush how does the fact that we are having this conversation disprove God? being an atheist was your choice now I call upon you to defend that choice.

Performance of countries is irrelevant in this matter. Ok let me help you; You can put it thus:
"God does not exist because........"
"Your arguments for first cause and intelligent design are invalid because............"
"Your argument for objective morality is invalid because........."
"............Hence God does not and cannot possibly exist"

You cant disprove God's existence to 100% just like you cant disprove the toothfairy or Thor's existence. However, there is no reason to believe that God exists- there is no proof of God not one. End of story.

I have already debunked your first cause. Intelligent design has been debunked long ago. Intelligent design is nonsense, I wont waste my time anymore on educating people who are willfully ignorant. Google is there for you. Tell me, if the universe is not intelligently designed with exploding stars, failed solar systems and over 90% of the world's water being salt water?

logicboy:


You cant disprove God's existence to 100% just like you cant disprove the toothfairy or Thor's existence. However, there is no reason to believe that God exists- there is no proof of God not one. End of story. This is the same line you have been peddling all the while.

I have given you reasons for God please give me reasons for no God by correctly refuting the premises I have formerly laid out

I have already debunked your first cause. Intelligent design has been debunked long ago. Intelligent design is nonsense, I wont waste my time anymore on educating people who are willfully ignorant. Google is there for you. Tell me, if the universe is not intelligently designed with exploding stars, failed solar systems and over 90% of the world's water being salt water?

If I recall correctly, you have not debunked anything, so far you have only ranted on and on dancing around the point. a failed design isn't evidence for no design and no I will not search google, I want your argument. (I do not wave you away when you ask questions of God by refering you to google)

It is interesting to note that as this argument has progressed you have sounded more and more like the so called religious bigot you often declare other people to be. You have not given me one logical reason why your belief is true and yet you affirm it. From where I am standing, it is beginning to look more and more like blind faith.

Let me refresh your memory.........

Mr_Anony: I will use this as an all-in-one response of sorts.

My reasons for God

1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big slam billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big slam were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, Molestation etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial Molester, I could define my morals as "Molestation and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.

3. At this point I will talk about Christianity; A man was born roughly two millennia ago who claimed to be the son of God, he did many miracles including healings and exorcisms in his authority. He was crucified and buried and after three days, he rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb and was seen by many eyewitnesses including skeptics and unbelievers. This was widely preached by Christ's disciples within days after his death and resurrection. I am yet to come across any substantial counter-claim during that period considering that it would be fresh in their minds at the time and easy to disprove. The disciples of Christ were even willing to die for this truth every one of them. One can die for the lies of another (especially if he believes it the truth) but it is highly unlikely for one to die for a lie he made up himself. Not one single apostle denied the death and resurrection of Christ even to the point of torture and death, this suggests that they must have believed it to be true. The strongest evidence for christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and faith in Christ is justified because He claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by rising from the dead. The meaning of the word "christian" is "like Christ" so essentially if one does not accept Christ and walk in his path, such a person is not a christian. It doesn't matter if the person goes to a church or not. I have not yet seen anyone morally criticize Christ's character successfully. No one can morally fault the principles of christianity in all sincerity.
Jesus Christ is perfect and I put my faith in Him

4. So far I have tried to explain and state my reasons for the existence of God as I know Him. Because God is a spirit and I can only worship Him in spirit and in truth, it becomes really difficult to explain Him away using physical terms and physical logic. This does not mean that he is not real, it only means that He is way beyond the physical and to try to contain him within a physical reality would be more difficult than an ant trying to explain the internet to another ant.

5. From the arguments I have laid out, I dare say that there is much more reason for God to exist than there is for Him not to. We may disagree on His nature or His function, one may even say "there might be a God somewhere/somehow but I choose not to believe in His existence" but what one cannot say with any certainty is that "God does not exist"

So once again I challenge atheists to come forward and explain to me why God cannot/must not possibly exist, else the statement "God does not exist" is simply an ignorant statement.

To honestly debunk my argument, Please debunk my premises in this order; you have to first prove to me why there cannot possibly be a first cause (or at least the nature of your version of the first cause), why intelligent design cannot possibly be true, how objective morality can be achieved without God.......and lastly proof that Jesus Christ - contrary to the claims of Christians - definitely did not resurrect.

Mr_Anony:

I have given you reasons for God please give me reasons for no God by correctly refuting the premises I have formerly laid out



If I recall correctly, you have not debunked anything, so far you have only ranted on and on dancing around the point. a failed design isn't evidence for no design and no I will not search google, I want your argument. (I do not wave you away when you ask questions of God by refering you to google)

It is interesting to note that as this argument has progressed you have sounded more and more like the so called religious bigot you often declare other people to be. You have not given me one logical reason why your belief is true and yet you affirm it. From where I am standing, it is beginning to look more and more like blind faith.

Let me refresh your memory.........



To honestly debunk my argument, Please debunk my premises in this order; you have to first prove to me why there cannot possibly be a first cause (or at least the nature of your version of the first cause), why intelligent design cannot possibly be true, how objective morality can be achieved without God.......and lastly proof that Jesus Christ - contrary to the claims of Christians - definitely did not resurrect.

Sorry for insulting you but you are willfully ignorant. You chose to ignore my comment on your first cause. I totally debunked your first cause;

logicboy:

1) Because the big bang says that there is a cause to the universe, you can not just include god as the cause. I might as well include Thor as the cause. You dont jump from scientific calculations and theories into magical claims of the bible.

2) Your argument is called God of the Gaps. When we didnt know that diseases were caused by germs, we said God did it. When we did not know that the earth was round it was balsphemy to say it was round. When we didnt know about evolution, we said that God created man. Stop putting God in things we dont know.

3) Your argument for God is not shared by the people who have formulated the big bang theory. These people understand it better and so, you should not remix their theory with God. It is out of ignorance that you would argue for a christian God from the big bang, when genesis contradicts the formation of stars and solar systems.

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Note that genesis lies because the earth did not come before the sun.

As for your other points;

2) The bible has no authority on morality because it advocates evil itself. It regulates slavery, it clearly says that women must be kept silent in church, it shows God ordering the isrealites to commit genocide against the Amakelites and Canaanites, and my favourite; it is clearly bigoted against atheists;


Psalm 14:1
King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Morality is subjective.

3) There is no proof of Jesus doing those miracles and Jesus himself was racist to a Canaanite woman. Jesus also avoided talking about slavery that was common place during his time

4)You claim to know God yet you have never heard his voice, you have never seen him and you have never touched him. How do you know God?




As for your comment claiming that atheists have as much faith as a believer, you are talking nonsense. Atheists do not have faith- that is the point of atheism. We know for a fact that there exists no proof of your God. None. No proof. Why should atheists believe in him?

How do you know that God is not a woman?

Sorry for insulting you but you are willfully ignorant. You chose to ignore my comment on your first cause. I totally debunked your first cause;

I really don't understand how I am willfully ignorant for refusing to be referred to google. If you were writing a paper and you really wanted to be taken seriously, would you list google as one of your references? At least post a web link or refer me to some literature or even a movie or an audioclip. I will not go searching google for you just because you are too lazy to state your point clearly.

Logicboy, let us compare carefully ok,

I said....

1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big slam billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big slam were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

You replied....... (now notice my words in red as they point out why your answer is insufficient)

1) Because the big slam says that there is a cause to the universe, you can not just include god as the cause. I might as well include Thor as the cause. You dont jump from scientific calculations and theories into magical claims of the bible. Notice that in my premise I did not necessarily give this God/first cause a name or religion, I only described his/it's nature, also I purposely didn't want to use the story in the bible since knowing that most atheists will not accept it, it would lead to arguments over unimportant detail . The point here is that the universe was caused and it could not possibly have been caused by a physical phenomenon hence whatever caused physical existence must be beyond the physical. Do you agree? If not. Why?

2) Your argument is called God of the Gaps. When we didnt know that diseases were caused by germs, we said God did it. When we did not know that the earth was round it was balsphemy to say it was round. When we didnt know about evolution, we said that God created man. Stop putting God in things we dont know. Sorry but this line doesn't have any real relevance to my argument. Describing the origin of existence is not really a gap otherwise it is a very big gap that just really can't be ignored

3) Your argument for God is not shared by the people who have formulated the big slam theory. These people understand it better and so, you should not remix their theory with God. It is out of ignorance that you would argue for a christian God from the big slam, when genesis contradicts the formation of stars and solar systems.The big bang theory or what ever theory there is is not the issue here. Whatever creation theory you come up, there must be an origin and this origin has to be explained. It is either that or you would have to say that there is no origin and then explain exactly how everything originated from absolutely nothing

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Note that genesis lies because the earth did not come before the sun. Again in my premise I have not argued for a christian God I have only said (a)There must be a first cause (b)This first cause cannot possibly be physical. Please prove me wrong!

number 2. I said.....

2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, Molestation etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial Molester, I could define my morals as "Molestation and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.

to which you said....... (again watch out for my words in red)

As for your other points;

2) The bible has no authority on morality because it advocates evil itself. It regulates slavery, it clearly says that women must be kept silent in church, it shows God ordering the isrealites to commit genocide against the Amakelites and Canaanites, and my favourite; it is clearly bigoted against atheists;

Psalm 14:1
King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Again I have not referred to the bible at all but you have chosen to go ahead and attack it anyway - which happens to be what you are best at

Morality is subjective.Please read my premise again, I have shown you why morality cannot possibly be subjective. Without attacking the bible or any other religion for that matter, please explain to me logically why morality is indeed subjective and exactly what validates subjective morality

My numbers 3 and 4 are arguments for my christianity, however before you can go ahead to debunk Christianity or any religion at all, you must first convincingly show that God cannot possibly exist. Attempting to falsify any religion at all means that you must believe that there is a God/gods first. Then you can proceed to argue which God/gods are true and which are false.
However for good sport I will give you my answers to your so called "refutations" but so that we don't digress too far again, I will not respond to further arguments until you have correctly responded to my challenge.

now numbers 3 and 4..........
I said...

3. At this point I will talk about Christianity; A man was born roughly two millennia ago who claimed to be the son of God, he did many miracles including healings and exorcisms in his authority. He was crucified and buried and after three days, he rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb and was seen by many eyewitnesses including skeptics and unbelievers. This was widely preached by Christ's disciples within days after his death and resurrection. I am yet to come across any substantial counter-claim during that period considering that it would be fresh in their minds at the time and easy to disprove. The disciples of Christ were even willing to die for this truth every one of them. One can die for the lies of another (especially if he believes it the truth) but it is highly unlikely for one to die for a lie he made up himself. Not one single apostle denied the death and resurrection of Christ even to the point of torture and death, this suggests that they must have believed it to be true. The strongest evidence for christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and faith in Christ is justified because He claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by rising from the dead. The meaning of the word "christian" is "like Christ" so essentially if one does not accept Christ and walk in his path, such a person is not a christian. It doesn't matter if the person goes to a church or not. I have not yet seen anyone morally criticize Christ's character successfully. No one can morally fault the principles of christianity in all sincerity.
Jesus Christ is perfect and I put my faith in Him

4. So far I have tried to explain and state my reasons for the existence of God as I know Him. Because God is a spirit and I can only worship Him in spirit and in truth, it becomes really difficult to explain Him away using physical terms and physical logic. This does not mean that he is not real, it only means that He is way beyond the physical and to try to contain him within a physical reality would be more difficult than an ant trying to explain the internet to another ant.

To which you replied........

3) There is no proof of Jesus doing those miracles and Jesus himself was racist to a Canaanite woman. Jesus also avoided talking about slavery that was common place during his timeFirst off, By the way I haven't heard you talk about child pornography sex trafficking and bestiality does it automatically mean that you have given them your stamp of approval? (I really don't want to be drawn into another slavery brouhaha - go back in the thread for reference), I have answered your canaanite woman question earlier so I don't think it is relevant to repeat them again. Many people have written of Jesus' miracles, of course you may not find physical proof because it has been many years ago. What you have are records. What you are asking for is like asking for physical proof that Attila the Hun fought the Romans or that Hannibal crossed the alps. For historical events, records do suffice. The main point of contention here is really this; I have given you reasons for why I believe in the resurrection of Christ - Tell me why it cannot possibly be true that He did (by the way simply saying it is not physically possible for one to resurrect will only strengthen the christian faith all the more because we claim it as a miracle. To properly refute it, you must explain how you are so sure that the disciples were lying and why no one else contested it at the time including the Sahendrin.

4)You claim to know God yet you have never heard his voice, you have never seen him and you have never touched him. How do you know God? I know God by faith and I have given reasons to back up the validity of my faith which you up till now have not proved wrong, and besides you simply do not know for sure that I have not heard, seen and touched God

logicboy:

As for your comment claiming that atheists have as much faith as a believer, you are talking nonsense. Atheists do not have faith- that is the point of atheism. We know for a fact that there exists no proof of your God. None. No proof. Why should atheists believe in him? I have given logical reasons for God please refute my logic and thereby defend your reasons for your anti-faith

How do you know that God is not a woman? The question is about whether God exists or not and not God's gender

Mr_Anony:
The purpose of this thread is to ask atheists - especially those who make it their point of duty to bash religion - this question "when you say that there is no god, what makes you so sure?" In my opinion both statements namely "God exists" and "God does not exist" are statements of faith.

You need to question yourself.

Martian:

It all starts with you. You have to ask yourself questions like

What or who is a god?
Why do I think or believe that there is a god?
How many gods do people believe in?
Why do I believe in my god?
Why don't I believe in other gods?
Why do I refer to some gods as mythological characters but mine is not even though they share the same characteristics?
Why don't we worship the old gods?
How did I come to believe in my god?
Does reality justify my beliefs or contradict them?
What is the history of my religion?

Also your idea of god is the judeo Christian one, so stop pretending that your arguments are based on a generic god.

Martian:

It all starts with you. You have to ask yourself questions like

What or who is a god?
Why do I think or believe that there is a god?
How many gods do people believe in?
Why do I believe in my god?
Why don't I believe in other gods?
Why do I refer to some gods as mythological characters but mine is not even though they share the same characteristics?
Why don't we worship the old gods?
How did I come to believe in my god?
Does reality justify my beliefs or contradict them?
What is the history of my religion?

Martian, I think I have satisfied those questions to an extent with this answer

My reasons for God

1. What is commonly referred to as first cause i.e. assuming we were to take the scientific view that there was a big slam billions of years ago and that the cosmos came from this mighty explosion; If this big slam were to be the starting point of all existence, time/space and everything physical as we know it, we would essentially be saying that everything started from nothing. Now this statement creates some problems because by saying that everything started from nothing we are essentially saying that the universe came into existence with no cause whatsoever. To solve this problem, we have to acknowledge a first causeless cause and we will have to admit that this first cause has to be extraphysical(i.e. transcendent of the physical realm and hence not subject to the constraints of space and time and since this first cause isn't subject to the physical, it is very difficult to explain using physical terms) else we get caught up in the circle of what caused the first cause and the one before and the one before that and so on. Also when we look at the amount of order and precision in the universe, it rules out the likelihood of a random first cause but rather suggests a an intelligent and personal one who knows what it is doing i.e. an intelligent designer who is much more intelligent and powerful than the universe and immensely so much more beyond what we can explain.
My point here is that it is overwhelmingly much more likely that the universe was created than it randomly came into existence hence a creator. God.

2. You cannot possibly have objective morality without admitting to the existence of God. one may say that morality is subjective or is defined by self and the society and the "social contract" but then there are things that are wrong in themselves and we all know this and we just cannot justify them e.g. murder, Molestation etc at the other end of the spectrum are things that are right in themselves and we cannot fault them such as forgiveness, self-sacrifice etc. This makes it very difficult to claim subjective morality. A person may say "I define my own morals" to which I would ask who is to say that you are right? If I was a serial killer or serial Molester, I could define my morals as "Molestation and murder are good things" would I be morally right? Also what if I said "society will be my judge" then I would ask what if the society you live in is racist e.g nazi and apartheid societies of the past, does that justify racism?
For ones morality to be valid, there is need for a judge who is impartial and who is omnipresent and omniscient so as to see from all possible angles of every case as well as powerful enough to deliver fair judgement. This is where conscience comes in, this is why we feel guilty in ourselves when we have done wrong even though no one else is witness, we even feel guilty for evil thoughts when we obviously have not physically offended anyone. It is our conscience - which I would say is a much higher law than man's attempt at legality - that really makes us morally right, not necessarily empathy. Also without this supernatural judge, why conscience?
My point is that the presence of this unwritten law (conscience) in ourselves strongly suggests the presence of a judge, hence God.

3. At this point I will talk about Christianity; A man was born roughly two millennia ago who claimed to be the son of God, he did many miracles including healings and exorcisms in his authority. He was crucified and buried and after three days, he rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb and was seen by many eyewitnesses including skeptics and unbelievers. This was widely preached by Christ's disciples within days after his death and resurrection. I am yet to come across any substantial counter-claim during that period considering that it would be fresh in their minds at the time and easy to disprove. The disciples of Christ were even willing to die for this truth every one of them. One can die for the lies of another (especially if he believes it the truth) but it is highly unlikely for one to die for a lie he made up himself. Not one single apostle denied the death and resurrection of Christ even to the point of torture and death, this suggests that they must have believed it to be true. The strongest evidence for christianity is the resurrection of Christ. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and faith in Christ is justified because He claimed to be the Son of God and proved it by rising from the dead. The meaning of the word "christian" is "like Christ" so essentially if one does not accept Christ and walk in his path, such a person is not a christian. It doesn't matter if the person goes to a church or not. I have not yet seen anyone morally criticize Christ's character successfully. No one can morally fault the principles of christianity in all sincerity.
Jesus Christ is perfect and I put my faith in Him

4. So far I have tried to explain and state my reasons for the existence of God as I know Him. Because God is a spirit and I can only worship Him in spirit and in truth, it becomes really difficult to explain Him away using physical terms and physical logic. This does not mean that he is not real, it only means that He is way beyond the physical and to try to contain him within a physical reality would be more difficult than an ant trying to explain the internet to another ant.

5. From the arguments I have laid out, I dare say that there is much more reason for God to exist than there is for Him not to. We may disagree on His nature or His function, one may even say "there might be a God somewhere/somehow but I choose not to believe in His existence" but what one cannot say with any certainty is that "God does not exist"

So once again I challenge atheists to come forward and explain to me why God cannot/must not possibly exist, else the statement "God does not exist" is simply an ignorant statement.

Now If you insist that I am wrong, tell me exactly why I am wrong, and why God cannot possibly exist? Please saying "it is just ridiculous" and "God is like the boogie man bla bla bla" does not cut it ay this point because that already pre-assumes - and without reason - that their is no God. You have to take the points of my argument one by one and logically refute them before coming to your conclusion.

Martian:

You need to question yourself.



Also your idea of god is the judeo Christian one, so stop pretending that your arguments are based on a generic god.

I make no pretense as to which "god" I believe in however, we must first determine whether God exists at all before we move on to whether the "Judeo-Christian God" is true or not. don't you think?

Mr_Anony:
Martian, I think I have satisfied those questions to an extent with this answer
Now If you insist that I am wrong, tell me exactly why I am wrong, and why God cannot possibly exist? Please saying "it is just ridiculous" and "God is like the boogie man bla bla bla" does not cut it ay this point because that already pre-assumes - and without reason - that their is no God. You have to take the points of my argument one by one and logically refute them before coming to your conclusion.

You haven't answered anything save for maybe the first two, and I disagree with what you said. It was the usual variation of, "the universe couldn't have started without a cause, so I'll say my god is the uncaused cause that created the universe"...........

Here the questions you ignored.

How many gods do people believe in?
Why do I believe in my god?
Why don't I believe in other gods?
Why do I refer to some gods as mythological characters but mine is not even though they share the same characteristics?
Why don't we worship the old gods?
How did I come to believe in my god?
Does reality justify my beliefs or contradict them?
What is the history of my religion?

Mr Anony, you are willfully ignorant. If you can not see how God of the gaps destroys your point that God is the first cause, then there is no hope for you. You claim that the first cause is not physical with no proof whatsoever and expect me to take you seriously? Sorry but scientists make claims after testing their theories and calculations. They did not pu
ll out the theory from nowhere without proof. How can you just state that the first cause was not physical? Any proof?


My answers were spot on but you chose to babble and claim that I was beating around the bush. You foolishly say that the origin of the universe is not a gap when we clearly do no know a lot of things about the origin of the universe. That is a gap that science is clearly trying to close but you insert God with no proof and you now want to claim God of the gaps doesnt apply?


My answers are simple and to the point.

-God of the gaps destroy your first cause.
-The immorality of the bible destroys your notion of divine authority on morality
-I stated that there exists no proof of God. That should be enough reason not to believe in him. 2,000 years ad all religions have failed to accurately describe an omnipotent god.

Martian:

You haven't answered anything save for maybe the first two, and I disagree with what you said. It was the usual variation of, "the universe couldn't have started without a cause, so I'll say my god is the uncaused cause that created the universe"...........

Here the questions you ignored.

How many gods do people believe in?
Why do I believe in my god?
Why don't I believe in other gods?
Why do I refer to some gods as mythological characters but mine is not even though they share the same characteristics?
Why don't we worship the old gods?
How did I come to believe in my god?
Does reality justify my beliefs or contradict them?
What is the history of my religion?

You do realise that I cannot move on to questions concerning which God is true and which isn't without justifying God existence in the first place.

You are oversimplifying the issue; I am not simply making an uncaused cause God but I have to an extent described what God's nature -so to speak- would be and why he has to be, nevertheless if you agree that there is there has to be an uncaused cause, I would rather you explained to me what it's nature would be and why it cannot possibly be God. Please refute my logic properly.

Mr_Anony:
You do realise that I cannot move on to questions concerning which God is true and which isn't without justifying God existence in the first place.
You are oversimplifying the issue; I am not simply making an uncaused cause God but I have to an extent described what God's nature -so to speak- would be and why he has to be, nevertheless if you agree that there is there has to be an uncaused cause, I would rather you explained to me what it's nature would be and why it cannot possibly be God. Please refute my logic properly.

Just answer the questions. I didn't make any claims about any uncaused cause, you implied it with your god.

They are pretty simple questions like this

Why don't I believe in other gods even though people have as much faith in theirs as I do in mine?