Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But if you argue this way then atheists will fault you with having a God-of-the-gaps argument. I would not say that we need religion because there are things we don't know. I would argue that based on what we already know about the brain and the way it works, the brain could not be the product of random mindless naturalistic forces over millions of years.
You are quite right, maybe someday when we make full use of our brains, both conscious and subconscious, we may be able to explain everything! But for now, we must have faith...in what we believe in....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
You are quite right, maybe someday when we make full use of our brains, both conscious and subconscious, we may be able to explain everything! But for now, we must have faith...in what we believe in....
To be able to explain everything would be to be omniscient, something I don't
think humans are capable of. Yes, I do agree with the need for faith but as mentioned, the object of faith is the issue. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
To be able to explain everything would be to be omniscient, something I don't
think humans are capable of. Yes, I do agree with the need for faith but as mentioned, the object of faith is the issue.What will happen to religion when we have discovered all the answers we ever need to know...maybe by then, realization will become the new religion! Hahaha!
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
What will happen to religion when we have discovered all the answers we ever need to know...maybe by then, realization will become the new religion! Hahaha!
Not necessarily so. Why can't a big part of the answers we are seeking be best explained by God?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not necessarily so. Why can't a big part of the answers we are seeking be best explained by God?
God or no God, we still have to live our lives mah....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
God or no God, we still have to live our lives mah....
The point I was making that, even when we realise we have all the answers, the answers will include God.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The point I was making that, even when we realise we have all the answers, the answers will include God.
Why God chose to be nameless ? Why He dun have a fixed name ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Why God chose to be nameless ? Why He dun have a fixed name ?
When Moses asked God for His name, God said it is "I AM". God is called Yahweh, though in the Hebrew it is only the four consonants YHWH. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
When Moses asked God for His name, God said it is "I AM". God is called Yahweh, though in the Hebrew it is only the four consonants YHWH.All His names are just honorific titles....not really His name right?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
All His names are just honorific titles....not really His name right?
Honorific titles are labels we confer to some people. God's name is His self-revelation to us.
-
The Argument from Pascal's Wager
Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote.
Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?
Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?
Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?
No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.
To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?
Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."
Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.
Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?"
The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.
Suppose Romeo proposes to Juliet and Juliet says, "Give me some time to make up my mind." Suppose Romeo keeps coming back day after day, and Juliet keeps saying the same thing day after day: "Perhaps tomorrow." In the words of a small, female, red-haired American philosopher, "Tomorrow is always a day away. And there comes a time when there are no more tomorrows. Then "maybe" becomes "no". Romeo will die. Corpses do not marry. Christianity is God's marriage proposal to the soul. Saying "maybe" and "perhaps tomorrow" cannot continue indefinitely because life does not continue indefinitely. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or false just by looking at it through binoculars from a distance. He has to take a chance, on this port or some other, or he will never get home.
Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way:
You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.
If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and "I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs.
Lest we take this argument with less seriousness than Pascal meant it, he concludes: "If my words please you and seem cogent, you must know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after."
To the high-minded objector who refuses to believe for the low motive of saving the eternal skin of his own soul, we may reply that the Wager works quite as well if we change the motive. Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.
Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert "act into" his belief if he cannot yet "act out" of it.
If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. . . . They behaved just as if they did believe.
This is the same advice Dostoevsky's guru, Father Zossima, gives to the "woman of little faith" in The Brothers Karamazov. The behavior Pascal mentions is "taking holy water, having Masses said, and so on". The behavior Father Zossima counsels to the same end is "active and indefatigable love of your neighbor." In both cases, living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith. As Pascal says: "That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile." "But that is what I am afraid of.'' ''But why? What have you to lose?"
An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power.
-
does god has a name and why does god need a name like humans do, since god is divine. does god even care about having a name in the 1st place? if god does not have a physical body, why the heck need a name? questions to ponder.
clearly if god has a name, because the creator of god ie humans clearly need to give a name for god because of the simple fact that they are too human to be divine. it is too human to be divine.
-
Originally posted by Lucifer_tan:
does god has a name and why does god need a name like humans do, since god is divine. does god even care about having a name in the 1st place? if god does not have a physical body, why the heck need a name? questions to ponder.
clearly if god has a name, because the creator of god ie humans clearly need to give a name for god because of the simple fact that they are too human to be divine. it is too human to be divine.
The context of God revealing His name was in Exodus. You need to understand the context in which God revealed His name. What's in a name? To us it is merely a means of identification. But in the Hebrew, names are not like what we have, as in Lucy or Harry. In the Hebrew worldview names reveal the person or speaks about the person. "Yahweh" is linked with how God described Himself in Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God's name is a reflection of His being. God is the only self-existent / self-sufficient Being in the universe. Only God has life in and of Himself. That is the essential meaning of the tetragrammaton / YHWH / Yahweh. It is the initial four consonants of the self-descriptive "I AM WHO I AM". If you ask me, I think it is kind of God saying "It's just ME, I, no one else". And from there we get the acrostic YHWH and adding the vowels we get YaHWeH.
So you see, you do have a point in that if there is only ONE God then a name is rather unnecessary. God chose to reveal Himself as just "I AM" or in common parlance means "just me" which in my view is hardly a name but remember that the context was that He was revealing Himself to Moses who was sent to deliver the Hebrew people from Egypt where all sorts of man-made gods and goddesses have names.
In short, your objection against God has been neutralised, shot down, rebutted.
-
people telling you that its too human to be divine, and you sprout all your christian beliefs and if if made sense to people zzzzzzz..........one whole load of rubbish and garbage from you.
oh by the way its that your explanation or god's explanation? are you god, no I dun think you are, so why are you explaining on god's behalf? and you call that rebutted with the nonsense you are sprouting?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
people telling you that its too human to be divine, and you sprout all your christian beliefs and if if made sense to people zzzzzzz..........one whole load of rubbish and garbage from you.
oh by the way its that your explanation or god's explanation? are you god, no I dun think you are, so why are you explaining on god's behalf? and you call that rebutted with the nonsense you are sprouting?
You mean people telling me that its too human to be divine means I must accept it as true meh? Cannot challenge one is it?
Of course I respond with an answer based on Christian beliefs. What do you expect then?
You are just pissed off because I can rebutt your fellow atheist's objection. Calling it nonsense is just your usual lame style of attacking the person without dealing with the argument.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You mean people telling me that its too human to be divine means I must accept it as true meh? Cannot challenge one is it?
Of course I respond with an answer based on Christian beliefs. What do you expect then?
You are just pissed off because I can rebutt your fellow atheist's objection. Calling it nonsense is just your usual lame style of attacking the person without dealing with the argument.
so if you are not god, how do you know this is god's reply? and what is god's reply to the endless question? Am I pissed, how do u know I am pissed and based on what you reckoned I am pissed? I am more disgusted with your replies more than anything else. its a fact that your reasoning and way of deflecting questions are warped and garbage. if you think your answers are intelligent, this is really further away from the truth. the truth of the matter is, your answers stinks anyway you look at it.
-
God exist for sure lah.............
just like Darth Vader.............Harry Potter............
they all exists in the minds of humans only.............
these's no independent existence................science proves Buddhism right once again !
-
yes god does not exists and it was created by ancient men. this will be the mother of all hoaxes since time memorial. god is a lie and a fraud.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
so if you are not god, how do you know this is god's reply? and what is god's reply to the endless question? Am I pissed, how do u know I am pissed and based on what you reckoned I am pissed? I am more disgusted with your replies more than anything else. its a fact that your reasoning and way of deflecting questions are warped and garbage. if you think your answers are intelligent, this is really further away from the truth. the truth of the matter is, your answers stinks anyway you look at it.
Since you do not believe in God, why does it bother you whether I am God or whether my reply is God's reply? Suffice it to say that I have dealt with Lucifer's objection and neither he or you offered a counter-argument. The only thing you offer is your pissed off remarks and personal attacks.
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
God exist for sure lah.............
just like Darth Vader.............Harry Potter............
they all exists in the minds of humans only.............
these's no independent existence................science proves Buddhism right once again !
I see that you are trying to stir things up by bringing in Buddhism into the picture. You are not even a Buddhist so why are you stirring up things here?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
yes god does not exists and it was created by ancient men. this will be the mother of all hoaxes since time memorial. god is a lie and a fraud.
Assertions without proofs or argument requires no further comment and deserves none.
But the real hoax is really atheism and its justification, evolution. See http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php
-
Hey BIC,
how have u been, bro? hope u are still doing fine? :)
-
Originally posted by despondent:
Hey BIC,
how have u been, bro? hope u are still doing fine? :)
I'm doing fine, thanks! Did not see you for a while here, been busy?
Do you know that there is going to be talks on creation, UFOs and aliens this coming week?
Check it out here http://creation.com/question-evolution-with-gary-bates
It's good to be on their mailing list.
-
CONVERSATION BETWEEN A SKEPTIC AND CHARLIE CHRISTIAN
SKEPTIC: What evidence do you have that there is a God?
CHARLIE: The universe itself is evidence that there is a God. Let’s think about this for a moment. There are only three options to explain the existence of the universe. One, that it has always been. Two, that it created itself. Three, that it was created. The first option, that the universe is eternal, has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point in time. Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do something. Nothing is nothing. Nothing cannot see, smell, act, think, or create. So option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. Option three, that something or someone outside of the universe created the universe, is the option that both reason and the evidence point to.
SKEPTIC: I hear what you're saying Charlie, but I still have a hard time believing in a God that I cannot see.
CHARLIE: I understand that struggle. I struggled with that before I became a believer as well. Let me help you think through this though. Let’s imagine I am holding up a painting. When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing else besides the painting itself. The painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist, and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe itself is compelling evidence for a creator.SKEPTIC: But if the universe demands a creator, then why can’t we just say God must have a creator as well? In other words, who made God?
CHARLIE: Nobody made God. Unlike the finite universe (a universe that began to exist) that demands a creator, God does not need a creator.
SKEPTIC: Why?
CHARLIE: Because He is eternal. Someone who has always existed does not need a creator or someone to have brought Him into existence, because He’s always been. Psalm 90:2 says, “Even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.” God is eternal. But the universe falls into an entirely different category. As the scientific discoveries have shown, it has not always existed. And anything that begins to exist, requires a cause or maker. Things don’t just pop into existence all on their own. Nothing does not produce something.SKEPTIC: Okay Charlie that makes sense, but you believe that God has just always existed?
CHARLIE: Yes.
SKEPTIC: Impossible!
CHARLIE: Well, before you scoff at the notion of God having always existed, keep this in mind: something must have always existed. Do you realize that?
SKEPTIC: Why do you think that?
CHARLIE: Well, think through this with me: if nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has always existed (in order to bring the something into existence). Think of it this way:
1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
2. Something exists now.
3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
So, to answer the question, Who made God? No one. God is eternal and does not need a maker. The universe is not eternal and does require a maker. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
CONVERSATION BETWEEN A SKEPTIC AND CHARLIE CHRISTIAN
SKEPTIC: What evidence do you have that there is a God?
CHARLIE: The universe itself is evidence that there is a God. Let’s think about this for a moment. There are only three options to explain the existence of the universe. One, that it has always been. Two, that it created itself. Three, that it was created. The first option, that the universe is eternal, has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point in time. Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do something. Nothing is nothing. Nothing cannot see, smell, act, think, or create. So option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. Option three, that something or someone outside of the universe created the universe, is the option that both reason and the evidence point to.
SKEPTIC: I hear what you're saying Charlie, but I still have a hard time believing in a God that I cannot see.
CHARLIE: I understand that struggle. I struggled with that before I became a believer as well. Let me help you think through this though. Let’s imagine I am holding up a painting. When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing else besides the painting itself. The painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist, and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe itself is compelling evidence for a creator.SKEPTIC: But if the universe demands a creator, then why can’t we just say God must have a creator as well? In other words, who made God?
CHARLIE: Nobody made God. Unlike the finite universe (a universe that began to exist) that demands a creator, God does not need a creator.
SKEPTIC: Why?
CHARLIE: Because He is eternal. Someone who has always existed does not need a creator or someone to have brought Him into existence, because He’s always been. Psalm 90:2 says, “Even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.” God is eternal. But the universe falls into an entirely different category. As the scientific discoveries have shown, it has not always existed. And anything that begins to exist, requires a cause or maker. Things don’t just pop into existence all on their own. Nothing does not produce something.SKEPTIC: Okay Charlie that makes sense, but you believe that God has just always existed?
CHARLIE: Yes.
SKEPTIC: Impossible!
CHARLIE: Well, before you scoff at the notion of God having always existed, keep this in mind: something must have always existed. Do you realize that?
SKEPTIC: Why do you think that?
CHARLIE: Well, think through this with me: if nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has always existed (in order to bring the something into existence). Think of it this way:
1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
2. Something exists now.
3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
So, to answer the question, Who made God? No one. God is eternal and does not need a maker. The universe is not eternal and does require a maker.Intertesting conversation.
A painting needs a painter.
A bible needs a author.
An idea needs a thinker.
Who made god? pretty obvious to me.