Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
Kids are more gullible than adults. Their brains can be conditioned to believe something that isn't true, or to disbelieve the truth.
I was given the bible and told constantly to "Read it. It's the truth of God." and yet I didn't believe it.
he has already taken things personally. He is what he speaks of TCMC. He does not seek sincere answers and ask sincere questions. He just wants to prove supremacy of his own beliefs. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
he has already taken things personally. Like aneslayer has mentioned. He just wants to insist he is right. Despite any form of evidences, descrapencies shown or told to him. He himself is reluctant to accept another possiblity. He is what he speaks of TCMC. He does not seek sincere answers and ask sincere questions. He just wants to prove supremacy of his own beliefs.Eh... lets keep whats posted in the respective thread.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Eh... lets keep whats posted in the respective thread.
oh well... okie then. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
he has already taken things personally. He is what he speaks of TCMC. He does not seek sincere answers and ask sincere questions. He just wants to prove supremacy of his own beliefs.from his replies I already know he takes things personally, despite him saying he doesn't.
Because his replies are all too belligerent and strongly-worded to not have been written under influence of his emotions of not being taken seriously by atheists and agnostics.
To give a good analogy, imagine all religions are products. And all believers of the religion are salesmen for their product. He has already agreed to buy and stick with his product, Christianity. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with believing that one's product one endorses is the best. But a line SHOULD be drawn when it comes to taking non-believers' opinions as insults and personal attacks; how is one going to sell one's product if one is so rude and insults (the intelligence of, etc) the users/believers of other products?
Not all products are wholly good or bad. But BIC insists that his product is 100% good and accurate. Christianity is not all good. It is not all bad either. Its basic principles like "love thy neighbour as thyself" etc is GOOD. But not the ENTIRE bible can be taken seriously.
Me personally? I'd prefer to sample each and every product, find out the benefits, pros and cons, and settle for those few that I think suits me.
Now who is more open-minded and logical?
-
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS??!
It IS impossible to know the truth. But that doesn't mean I am intellectually-lazy. Tbh, a lot of Christians do not like it when science is used to disprove the existence of god, or if science is used to prove that religiousness is purely a mental construct that has no real basis of truth.
But science is what makes the world go round. You and I and everyone else lives with science. We have computers, laptops etc thanks to science.
If science disproves the existence of god and proves that religiousness is purely a mental construct, why don't you believe it?
No. I do not need to explain why I think the gods of each and every religion is the same. I don't belief that, because I have no proof. I will not believe in something that has no proof. I was merely stating that it is food for thought, it COULD BE a possibility.
Let me ask you, is it true that it is impossible to know the truth? Answer yes and you have just rendered your earlier declaration false.
What I don't like is atheists abusing science to say that it can prove the non-existence of God, or that it can prove things beyond its domain. Those who say that science can do that are ignorant of science, so why should I believe them?
You failed to make the distinction between operational science (which makes the world goes round) and historical science (which tries to explain past events).
Well, since you do not believe that all gods in all religions are reduced to being the same thing, then no need to dwell further on this. There's no end to entertaining possibilities, so better to focus on the more probable and plausible.
-
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
Kids are more gullible than adults. Their brains can be conditioned to believe something that isn't true, or to disbelieve the truth.
I was given the bible and told constantly to "Read it. It's the truth of God." and yet I didn't believe it.
There's something that I need to point out :
Almost all of the world's leading scientists and top brainiacs are atheists/agnostics. Anything more needs to be said about this?
Carl Sagan (1934–1996): American astronomer and astrochemist
Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936): Nobel Prize winning Russian physiologist, psychologist, and physician
Alfred Nobel (1833–1896): Swedish chemist, engineer, innovator, and armaments manufacturer
Thomas Edison: American inventor
Richard Dawkins (1941–): British zoologist, biologist, creator of the concepts of the selfish gene and the meme
Stephen Hawking (1942–): arguably the world's pre-eminent scientist advocates atheism in The Grand Design
James D. Watson (1928–): 1962-Nobel-laureate and co-discover of the structure of DNA
Alexander Graham Bell (1847–1922), Eminent scientist, inventor, engineer and innovator who is credited with inventing the first practical telephone
Sir David Attenborough (born 1926), English natural history presenter and anthropologist
Francis Crick (1916–2004), Nobel-laureate co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
Marie Curie (1867–1934), Polish-French physicist and chemist
Charles Darwin (1809–1882), founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection
Neil deGrasse Tyson (born 1958), American astrophysicist, science communicator
Truth is, adults can also be just as gullible. Kids may well be more sensible at times. Most of them when asked will not believe that the universe popped itself into existence from nothing.
Your refusal to believe the Bible you read does not say or prove anything about the Bible, because there are people who do not come to your conclusion of the matter.
Are top scientists atheists and agnostics? One thing needs to be said, "SO WHAT?" BTW, there are many scientists who aren't atheists or agnostics. But this doesn't prove anything too. The existence of God is not determined by any field of science or scientists.
And here's my list of names http://creation.com/creation-scientists
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
he has already taken things personally. He is what he speaks of TCMC. He does not seek sincere answers and ask sincere questions. He just wants to prove supremacy of his own beliefs.Yes, I want to demonstrate the truth and supremacy of my Christian beliefs just as Tcmc wants to prove the supremacy of her atheism and the falsehood and idiocy of her abandoned Christian beliefs.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Let me ask you, is it true that it is impossible to know the truth? Answer yes and you have just rendered your earlier declaration false.
What I don't like is atheists abusing science to say that it can prove the non-existence of God, or that it can prove things beyond its domain. Those who say that science can do that are ignorant of science, so why should I believe them?
You failed to make the distinction between operational science (which makes the world goes round) and historical science (which tries to explain past events).
Well, since you do not believe that all gods in all religions are reduced to being the same thing, then no need to dwell further on this. There's no end to entertaining possibilities, so better to focus on the more probable and plausible.
what earlier declaration would be rendered false?
I am not atheist, have told you that before. I prefer to keep an open mind.
"I call myself an agnostic, not an atheist, because in one sense atheists are like Christians or Muslims. They’re sure of themselves. A Christian says with certainty, there is a god; an atheist says with certainty, there is no god. Neither knows" Sincerely, Andy Rooney (2001)
True, there is a limit to science and what it can prove at its current stage. Science is never stagnant and advances are always being made. Despite it not being able to fully disprove god's existence, it does not mean there isn't any proof that god does not exist. In fact, you recently recommended a book disproving Richard Dawkins book God's mind. God's mind is very good example of scientific proof. You can't call Richard Dawkins stupid. You can't call Stephen Hawkins stupid.
Science is science, whether operational or historical.
I'm not choosing to dwell on the topic that all gods are one and the same. I just put it out as food for thought.
Why dwell on something that you already feel is fact and that nothing can change your mind? Why do you bother to refute atheists and agnostics?
Just purely out of curiosity. As you know it for yourself that you cannot convince us.
"As Richard Dawkins points out, I have no obligation to explain why I am an atheist, it's for those who believe in a god to supply evidence." - Robert Cailliau
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Truth is, adults can also be just as gullible. Kids may well be more sensible at times. Most of them when asked will not believe that the universe popped itself into existence from nothing.
Uneducated adults with closed minds, you mean.
Kids can be more sensible. But sensible does not equate knowledgeable or logical (due to increase knowledge). Kids may not believe that that universe popped itself into existence from nothing. Because they are taught that physical things like the apple they eat comes from trees, the toy they play with come from factories.
They won't have any answer to "where do you think the universe popped itself out of?" they only have a 'NO' for "do you think the universe popped itself into existence from nothing?"
And their answer to "why do you say 'no'?" will be : "cos mummy says my apple comes from trees and my toy comes from factories. so the universe cannot come from nothing."
the same kid won't believe that god came from nothing, either, and that he is eternal.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Your refusal to believe the Bible you read does not say or prove anything about the Bible, because there are people who do not come to your conclusion of the matter.
Are top scientists atheists and agnostics? One thing needs to be said, "SO WHAT?" BTW, there are many scientists who aren't atheists or agnostics. But this doesn't prove anything too. The existence of God is not determined by any field of science or scientists.
And here's my list of names http://creation.com/creation-scientists
Well, I am not the only one who has read the bible who disbelieves it, so that is not the basis of the argument.
So what? So it means education trains sharp and analytical minds which are able to separate truth from fiction.
-
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
what earlier declaration would be rendered false?
I am not atheist, have told you that before. I prefer to keep an open mind.
"I call myself an agnostic, not an atheist, because in one sense atheists are like Christians or Muslims. They’re sure of themselves. A Christian says with certainty, there is a god; an atheist says with certainty, there is no god. Neither knows" Sincerely, Andy Rooney (2001)
True, there is a limit to science and what it can prove at its current stage. Science is never stagnant and advances are always being made. Despite it not being able to fully disprove god's existence, it does not mean there isn't any proof that god does not exist. In fact, you recently recommended a book disproving Richard Dawkins book God's mind. God's mind is very good example of scientific proof. You can't call Richard Dawkins stupid. You can't call Stephen Hawkins stupid.
Science is science, whether operational or historical.
I'm not choosing to dwell on the topic that all gods are one and the same. I just put it out as food for thought.
Why dwell on something that you already feel is fact and that nothing can change your mind? Why do you bother to refute atheists and agnostics?
Just purely out of curiosity. As you know it for yourself that you cannot convince us.
"As Richard Dawkins points out, I have no obligation to explain why I am an atheist, it's for those who believe in a god to supply evidence." - Robert Cailliau
The declaration that "It is impossible to know the truth" would be false since at least you are certain of the truth of that declaration. We call that a self-defeating statement.
OK, fine, you are an agnostic. So do you live as though God does not exist or as though He does? Most agnostics I know usually belongs to the former. The label agnostic is merely atheism under the guise of epistemic humility.
I don't know of any scientific proof that proves the non-existence of God, do you? I am not saying that Dawkins or Hawkings are stupid, though I note that many atheists have no qualms calling creationists stupid or worst.
Please, there is a distinction between operational science and historical science and this distinction is very important in the origins controversy. See http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-1-argument-creationism-is-religion-not-science
Similarly evolutionists tout evolution as fact yet they continue to write books promoting it and to denounce creationism. So I don't see why creationism should be singled out for criticism. Sure, I cannot convince those who refuse to be convince, but I only wish to show that the case for creationism is there and that the evidence for evolution is overrated while the evidence against evolution not well known.
-
Originally posted by AngelOfDarkness:
Uneducated adults with closed minds, you mean.
Kids can be more sensible. But sensible does not equate knowledgeable or logical (due to increase knowledge). Kids may not believe that that universe popped itself into existence from nothing. Because they are taught that physical things like the apple they eat comes from trees, the toy they play with come from factories.
They won't have any answer to "where do you think the universe popped itself out of?" they only have a 'NO' for "do you think the universe popped itself into existence from nothing?"
And their answer to "why do you say 'no'?" will be : "cos mummy says my apple comes from trees and my toy comes from factories. so the universe cannot come from nothing."
the same kid won't believe that god came from nothing, either, and that he is eternal.
Well, I am not the only one who has read the bible who disbelieves it, so that is not the basis of the argument.
So what? So it means education trains sharp and analytical minds which are able to separate truth from fiction.
Kids know that effects have causes and that effects do not cause themselves into existence. That's sensible and logical. They say NO because they KNOW from experience that effects have causes, even if you can't see the causes. But yet atheists believe that nothing caused the universe to exist. One only need to explain to the kid that material effects require causes. But God is not matter or a physical thing that began to exist. God is eternal spirit so the question of his cause does not arise.
Yes, your disbelieving what you read of the Bible is not an argument against the Bible.
Which still leaves the question unanswered, is it truth that there is a God? Or fiction?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The declaration that "It is impossible to know the truth" would be false since at least you are certain of the truth of that declaration. We call that a self-defeating statement.
OK, fine, you are an agnostic. So do you live as though God does not exist or as though He does? Most agnostics I know usually belongs to the former. The label agnostic is merely atheism under the guise of epistemic humility.
I don't know of any scientific proof that proves the non-existence of God, do you? I am not saying that Dawkins or Hawkings are stupid, though I note that many atheists have no qualms calling creationists stupid or worst.
Please, there is a distinction between operational science and historical science and this distinction is very important in the origins controversy. See http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-1-argument-creationism-is-religion-not-science
Similarly evolutionists tout evolution as fact yet they continue to write books promoting it and to denounce creationism. So I don't see why creationism should be singled out for criticism. Sure, I cannot convince those who refuse to be convince, but I only wish to show that the case for creationism is there and that the evidence for evolution is overrated while the evidence against evolution not well known.
When I say it is "impossible to know the truth", I mean for this case. The bible is not concrete proof of the existence of god.
Courtesy of wikipedia:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.
Agnosticism is not atheism under disguise. It simply refers to not believing in a True God (christian, buddhist etc), whilst entertaining the possibility of having a Divine Creator of the Universe. Atheism is the view that there is NO GOD, NO DIVINE CREATOR. I admit I am an agnostic with an inclination towards atheism.
The same can be said of the other party. Your strongly-worded belligerent replies are akin to you calling us atheists and agnostics idiots.
I know there is a difference between operational & historic science. I am not that dumb.
Wait - are you telling me you don't believe in evolution? The survival of the fittest? Adaptation? @.@
So you mean modern elephants just pop out into existence because god created them? And that they are not descendants of woolly mammoths and mastodons? If that is so, why would god create woolly mammoths and mastodons and not just create our modern elephants? Saves him hassle.
Do you really not believe in evolution?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
One only need to explain to the kid that material effects require causes.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:But God is not matter or a physical thing that began to exist. God is eternal spirit so the question of his cause does not arise.
Contradiction.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Which still leaves the question unanswered, is it truth that there is a God? Or fiction?
Until there is logical, hard, cold, physical truth, it is fiction to us.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
he has already taken things personally. He is what he speaks of TCMC. He does not seek sincere answers and ask sincere questions. He just wants to prove supremacy of his own beliefs.What you said is true. He is not the only christian doing so. To be precise, that is the way the religion teaches the christians to do.
To me, the god in that religion is overly egoistic, expects his believers to boost his ego by praising him, talking all good about him, acknowledging he is perfect though he is not. Crappy
!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Because the Bible makes more sense. Happy with my answer? I guess not. The only answer you are seeking from me is "Yeah, the Bible is a human invention and Christianity is a sham. I want to give up my Christianity just like you."
BIC,
If you say "because the bible makes more sense TO ME", I can accept it. But you people want to think that EVERYONE should think it makes sense.
Makes sense?
Cant see how talking animals make more sense than the Eight Immortals too. Arent they the same?
-
make sense????? think again.
when questions are not answered, quoted the God's way is higher than men . . .... blah blah blah to shut people up to ask questions. Lame lame lame. -
BIC has yet to give me a valid answer on why the story of Adam, eve, serpent and magic fruit is anywhere more true than the story of Eight immortals, Ji Gong and his magical "elixir".
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
If you say "because the bible makes more sense TO ME", I can accept it. But you people want to think that EVERYONE should think it makes sense.
Makes sense?
Cant see how talking animals make more sense than the Eight Immortals too. Arent they the same?
Tcmc, atheists like Dawkins write books like "The God Delusion" and want people to think that EVERYONE should think it makes sense. Makes sense?
I also can't see how apes turning into man makes more sense than fairy tales like frogs turning into princes. Aren't they the same?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC has yet to give me a valid answer on why the story of Adam, eve, serpent and magic fruit is anywhere more true than the story of Eight immortals, Ji Gong and his magical "elixir".
Define "valid answer" please.
-
Today there is no miracles or healings because it only existed in Jesus's times.Those churches are only conning your money by doing healing services.
-
Originally posted by Libraryfasting:
Today there is no miracles or healings because it only existed in Jesus’s times.Those churches are only conning your money by doing healing services.
or rubbish people like BIC who doesnt understand the bible
kekeke
-
Originally posted by Libraryfasting:
Today there is no miracles or healings because it only existed in Jesus’s times.Those churches are only conning your money by doing healing services.
No need depends on it for healing. many of the christians can't even be healed by their so called almighty god. The god chooses not to heal them.
Pity the brainwashed christians.
-
Originally posted by Libraryfasting:
Today there is no miracles or healings because it only existed in Jesus’s times.Those churches are only conning your money by doing healing services.
LF,
Well christians cannot agree on many doctrinal and belief issues. Healings is one of them.
Then there are issues with tongues, version of bible, nature of jesus, nature of resurrection, ascension, interpretation, etc etc etc.
Seems like they get different answers from the same God?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
LF,
Well christians cannot agree on many doctrinal and belief issues. Healings is one of them.
Then there are issues with tongues, version of bible, nature of jesus, nature of resurrection, ascension, interpretation, etc etc etc.
Seems like they get different answers from the same God?
But we all agree on the ESSENTIALS of the faith, something that you failed to mention which is very misleading.
But really, so what if Christians disagree on some or many doctrinal and beliefs issues? How does that invalidate the faith? What does disagreement itself prove? That Christianity is therefore false and must be hastily abandoned? Not at all.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But we all agree on the ESSENTIALS of the faith, something that you failed to mention which is very misleading.
But really, so what if Christians disagree on some or many doctrinal and beliefs issues? How does that invalidate the faith? What does disagreement itself prove? That Christianity is therefore false and must be hastily abandoned? Not at all.
BIC
Going in circles again.
i have previously shown you how christians also disagree on the main essentials of faith (E.g person of jesus, nature of resurrection, person and gifts of the holy spirit).
I have also shown you how the different beliefs christians have can affect "salvation". E.g christian A derives from bible that jesus is only man and a sin to worship him as god and christian B derives from the bible that jesus is god and is a sin not to worship him as god.
So if the beliefs affect salvation, then which christian must nonchristians listen to? Moreover all christians derive their beliefs from the bible.
I have discussed this with you before but you seem to be remembering selectively.
I have also mentioned to you that if different christians say that "god" tells them different things about the same issue, then there are two possibilities -
a) God tells different christians diff things (E.g god tells christian A tongues is a gift and tells christian B tongues is demonic)
b) God is not there and christians interprete different beliefs differently.
Remember?
So christians believing in different things is a topic worth discussing and highlighting because it tells us if what "god" says is consistent or whether he's really there