Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
does an agnotists or atheists have a beief system like christians or other religions?
the common denominator is atheists doesnt believe in god. besides that, what other beliefs do they have in common? since atheists do not subscribe to any belief system, except for not believing in god, they are free thinkers isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Despondent,
The problem is, up to now, you have not proved that your god exists. You and I have spoken before in the past and you have admitted that there is NO evidence to prove empirically that your god exists. You also admitted before that there are errors in the bible. So with so many questions, the existence of the bible god should be questioned. So if you theres no evidence of the existence of your god, how can you even conclude “he” is infinite?
got the bible is the proof, or so they claimed. ya god exists in the bible, the way superman exists in dc comics.
-
the cause of the universe?
Have I not post that the universe doesnt need a god to operate. these people must be blind or selectively excluded mention on this.
Why God Did Not Create the Universe
There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required
By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.
Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves.
The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain.
The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe.
Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements.
By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
-
Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe
There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.
He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.
'Planetary conditions'
In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos.
Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."
He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
'Eyes of faith'
The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.
In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe.
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.
But the Bishop of Swindon, Dr Lee Rayfield, said science "can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God."
He added: "Faith is a matter that's outside that.
"But as I look at the universe, and as many people who are much more understanding of cosmology than I, and mathematics, as they look at it, through the eyes of faith, they see a universe which is still very coherent with what we believe about God and His nature."
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
hahaha I have it many a time already. do you see me bother replying to his fanatical beliefs? no? why? cos I dun want to waste my time, knowing in advance what kind of fanatical and incoherent answers. so dun waste ur time on him
Making excuses for yourself again Jacky? It is more the case that you are UNABLE to provide a coherent and reasoned response to my arguments. This way, you get to protect yourself from exposing the weakness of your own beliefs and still get to step on a moral high ground, ya?
-
so does condensation created out of nothing or created by god? sames goes for high tide and low tide, the list goes on. does rain created out of nothing or by god?
last time when science was basic 2,000 years ago, you still can use this dope (god works), but now, you can't.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Hi laffin123,Yes below is a list of issues christians always argue with each other about -
levels of heaven and hell
nature of heaven and hell, literal or metaphorical
salvation of non-christians
doctrine of trinity
nature of person of jesus, deity or not?
megachurches
prosperity gospel
once saved always saved?
nature of resurrection and ascension, literal or metaphorical
name of jesus, joshua, yesus, jesus?
number of books to be in the bible
version of bible to use
denomination to follow
legitimacy of tongues, healings and prophecies
infallible bible?
sequence of events for end of days
homosexuality
author of hebrew
existence of ghosts
number of salvationat the end, 1440000?
nature of genesis, literal?
and more...
BIC,
For your info.
So I should be horrified and terrified by your list of controversies and start punching on the panic button?
Doctrinal controversies and disagreements are nothing new. Being limited and fallible people it is INEVITABLE that such things occur. BTW, if there were complete agreement would you shut up? Of course not. You would then go on another angle and say that Christians never question what they believe, or that we are all brainwashed to agree and never disagree. Either way critics and skeptics like you and your ilk will find something to fault, however minor and irrelevant.
And for what it's worth, you should visit the local Christian bookstores more often and take note of those 4 Views or 5 Views series that examine the various views that believers hold, or the Counterpoint series. Bet you never even heard of them, ya?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
does an agnotists or atheists have a beief system like christians or other religions?
the common denominator is atheists doesnt believe in god. besides that, what other beliefs do they have in common? since atheists do not subscribe to any belief system, except for not believing in god, they are free thinkers isnt it.
Of course! Every person, be he agnostic or atheist, has a belief system. Don't believe? Try answering my six questions in the other thread. You show me a person (atheist and what not) who does not have a belief system and I will show you a person who is downright dishonest about himself.
Freethinkers is IMO a lazy cop-out position. While it seems to give the impression of intellectually liberalised someone who is not shackled to any religion, the truth is that this is also the group who can be the most wishy washy of people, who can be most superstitious, and do not have the ability to discern. Being so-called "free" they can believe everything and anything.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
the cause of the universe?
Have I not post that the universe doesnt need a god to operate. these people must be blind or selectively excluded mention on this.
Why God Did Not Create the Universe
There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required
By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.
Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.
Albert Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.
Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not "arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature." Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was "created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition." The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist.
It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.
The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves.
The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain.
The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe.
Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements.
By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
Wah seh! Drop a well-known name like Stephen Hawkings and you think all is settled? You are obviously oblivious to the fact that the best creationists minds have already dealt a death blow to Hawkings "Grand Design" book.
Thus a summary of Hawking’s approach is:
1. The universe looks designed, but a designer is not allowed.
2. So there must be some other explanation.
3. Let’s resort to some other religious ideas to explain the appearance of design (the multiverse).
4. Then let’s use even more religious ideas to support our religious idea.
5. And then let’s claim it is science to show no designer was necessary.
6. We win!
See http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god
I can't believe you would buy this dope. You must have checked your brain at Hawking's feet.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe
There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.
He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.
'Planetary conditions'
In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos.
Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."
He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
'Eyes of faith'
The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.
In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe.
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.
But the Bishop of Swindon, Dr Lee Rayfield, said science "can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God."
He added: "Faith is a matter that's outside that.
"But as I look at the universe, and as many people who are much more understanding of cosmology than I, and mathematics, as they look at it, through the eyes of faith, they see a universe which is still very coherent with what we believe about God and His nature."
While Hawkings has ARGUED there is no place for God in this universe, has he PROVEN that God had no hand in bringing the universe into existence? The answer is a resounding NO!
But what drives people like Hawkings to denounce the need for God? Do they have scientific proofs or evidence? Nope. Rather they are driven by a MATERIALISTIC BIAS which is best expressed by evolutionist Richard Lewontin who said,
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
so does condensation created out of nothing or created by god? sames goes for high tide and low tide, the list goes on. does rain created out of nothing or by god?
last time when science was basic 2,000 years ago, you still can use this dope (god works), but now, you can't.
You must be high on dope. Whatever we discover about the workings of the universe only reveals and glorifies the Creator. 2000 years ago people credit God for making the universe and all that is in it, even though they may not be scientifically minded like today. 2000 years later as we discover more and more, all the more it points to an intelligent designer. But people like atheists will always SUPPRESS the truth and DENY the Creator and REFUSE to acknowledge God. Why? Because they do not want there to be a God to whom they must give an account to. Atheists are operating on fear, fear of a God who would judge them for how they have lived their lives.
-
so condensation, rain, rainbows, thunders, high tide and low tide, the list goes on, are the workings of god, then your god must be damn tired.
if these are not the workings of god, how come there are rains, rainbows, condensation, evaporation taking place?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
While Hawkings has ARGUED there is no place for God in this universe, has he PROVEN that God had no hand in bringing the universe into existence? The answer is a resounding NO!
hahaha neither you or anyone from your faith has. oh I forgot, the bible is the proof for you, that is enough I see. I have yet to see proof that god has created the earth in 6 days. on it was stated in the bible, so that must be the truth.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
so condensation, rain, rainbows, thunders, high tide and low tide, the list goes on, are the workings of god, then your god must be damn tired.
if these are not the workings of god, how come there are rains, rainbows, condensation, evaporation taking place?
If you think God is tired, then your God is too small. But then again, atheists are always hitting out at their own caricatured-God who is NOTHING like the God revealed in the Bible.
So tell me, when would you be willing to deal HONESTLY with the God of the Bible instead of knocking over your own strawman ideas about God?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
hahaha neither you or anyone from your faith has. oh I forgot, the bible is the proof for you, that is enough I see. I have yet to see proof that god has created the earth in 6 days. on it was stated in the bible, so that must be the truth.
I have yet to see proof that the universe made itself billions of years ago, or catch a glimpse of another multiverse. Oh, Stephen Hawkings said it in his book, so that must be the truth. Duh....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So tell me, when would you be willing to deal HONESTLY with the God of the Bible instead of knocking over your own strawman ideas about God?
deal with something that doesnt exists
I am not as deluded as you are. I have other things better to do than to believe in a make believe supreme creator that doesnt exists in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
deal with something that doesnt exists
I am not as deluded as you are. I have other things better to do than to believe in a make believe supreme creator that doesnt exists in the first place.
Yeah right, you would rather believe in multiverses that you CANNOT see or have any evidence for their existence at all. You simply BELIEVE in what fallible people say and take it as infallible truth, so long as it is anti-God.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yeah right, you would rather believe in multiverses that you CANNOT see or have any evidence for their existence at all. You simply BELIEVE in what fallible people say and take it as infallible truth, so long as it is anti-God.
but at the same time we cant see god too can we? -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
but at the same time we cant see god too can we?Not unless God chooses to show Himself to us.
The Bible teaches that God is Spirit, He is invisible. But the Bible also teaches that God manifested Himself in human flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."
Anyway, my point is to show the double-standards of the atheist, that while he mocks derisively at belief in God, he himself believes in unseen things like the multiverse. IMO, multiverse ideas are invoked ARBITRARILY and without warrant to multiply probabilistic resources so as to avoid the God answer.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not unless God chooses to show Himself to us.
The Bible teaches that God is Spirit, He is invisible. But the Bible also teaches that God manifested Himself in human flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."
Anyway, my point is to show the double-standards of the atheist, that while he mocks derisively at belief in God, he himself believes in unseen things like the multiverse. IMO, multiverse ideas are invoked ARBITRARILY and without warrant to multiply probabilistic resources so as to avoid the God answer.
as long as there is no way to prove God is the answer, God can well not be the answer. If there is the double standard in them fo mocking at god being unproven while he believes in something unseen, same thing would be that theist mock at atheist for a big bang theory yet to be proven to be total truth but at the same time they believe god created universe which is also yet to be proven truth. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
as long as there is no way to prove God is the answer, God can well not be the answer. If there is the double standard in them fo mocking at god being unproven while he believes in something unseen, same thing would be that theist mock at atheist for a big bang theory yet to be proven to be total truth but at the same time they believe god created universe which is also yet to be proven truth.Or God can well be the answer, isn't it?
So the way to move forward is not by mocking each other's views, but by seriously considering which view BEST explains what needs explaining. This is what I have been driving at all the time.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Or God can well be the answer, isn't it?
So the way to move forward is not by mocking each other's views, but by seriously considering which view BEST explains what needs explaining. This is what I have been driving at all the time.
You yourself are mocking other ppl's view by your posts. Or should i say your agressiveness. Basically i honestly do not think you are open to discussion. You are just tryng to shoot down each and every other opinion and place god at the top most level. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
You yourself are mocking other ppl's view by your posts. Or should i say your agressiveness. Basically i honestly do not think you are open to discussion. You are just tryng to shoot down each and every other opinion and place god at the top most level.How am I being aggressive? At most I admit that I am tenacious in my arguments which makes the atheist feels cornered and unable to counter-argue. At that point the atheist will then lash out with all the ad hominem attacks.
What do you mean by me not being open to discussion? Does being "open" means that I have to accept the atheist's arguments as true? Of course as a Christian I am obligated to respond (or shoot down, if you like) the various objections that atheists hurl against Christianity. I have to show the reasonableness of the Christian answer while exposing the unreasonableness of the atheist's objections.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
How am I being aggressive? At most I admit that I am tenacious in my arguments which makes the atheist feels cornered and unable to counter-argue. At that point the atheist will then lash out with all the ad hominem attacks.
What do you mean by me not being open to discussion? Does being "open" means that I have to accept the atheist's arguments as true? Of course as a Christian I am obligated to respond (or shoot down, if you like) the various objections that atheists hurl against Christianity. I have to show the reasonableness of the Christian answer while exposing the unreasonableness of the atheist's objections.
BIC,
All religions have their own Creation stories of how their God/Gods create the world too. :) Like the Jade Emperor who used clay to form humans etc.
Ever wondered if they were real accounts too?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
All religions have their own Creation stories of how their God/Gods create the world too. :) Like the Jade Emperor who used clay to form humans etc.
Ever wondered if they were real accounts too?
Ever wondered how come cultures and religions everywhere have "creation" stories?
How come none say that the universe created itself, like what you and fellow atheists do today?
Answer is simple, they are more intelligent and rational than atheists in this respect. They know that the universe must be a result of intelligent design, even if they failed to credit it to the God of the Bible.