Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[pajarito 0]

There is no proof that God exists

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis again:

Doctrines are not God. Religion is like a roadmap. Sure, you can experience God without the map just like you can be in wonder and awe of the ocean while walking on the beach. But if you want to reach an objective like a distant island or another continent, you’d better use a map. “This is just why vague religion – all about feeling God in nature, and so on – is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work: like watching the waves from the beach.” The map is based on the experiences of hundreds and thousands of people who have also had experiences with God. Mistakes they’ve already made and discoveries that they’ve already found out.

I thought this was cool:

“But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.”

Tell that to Columbus. No one needs a map, all that is necessary is determination and desire, maps are for those who cannot navigate by the stars and must have another’s drive and desire show them the (a) way first. There is far more 'work', effort and energy involved in reaching a place no one has been to/returned from to give you a map, and just because someone DOES give you a map, does not mean that it is accurate, or that the destination really exists. No matter how many ‘claim’ to have seen and returned from the foreign land, they might have spent the summer in the pub across the street....did they bring you any souvenirs?

i still agree with both you and Darius, God exists, and i find indications of her hand everyday, in nearly everything...its certainly something i can show you, if you take the time and walk the way i do, but its not something you may accept as 'evidence' or proof.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peregrinerose 0]

I'm more agnostic than athiest, but that arguement isn't all that great. If God showed up and introduced himself in the present time, not 2000 years ago, I doubt that anyone would disbelieve it, regardless of presupposition. I am willing to entertain any person's proof, and really do try to look at it objectively. If they make sense, and have concrete quantifiable evidence, that I will adjust my perceptions of life accordingly. After all, what's the point of life if none of us ever learn from the world around us and we just stagnate in unyeilding stubbornness?

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[tunaplanet 0]

I have a few questions for Chuteless. If you could please answer the following questions about your bible. I could list hundreds of questions but for now we'll stick with Genesis. That will make it easy for you to look up your answers in case you're not familiar with them.

1. Did God bring forth every living creature including all the fowls from dry ground or from the waters?

2. On what day did the earth go from being completely underwater to dry land?

3. What came first, man or trees?

4. Did man come before or after beasts?

Can chuteless or any christian answer these? They're all pertaining to Genesis so it shouldn't be hard to look them up.

Forty-two

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Tell that to Columbus. No one needs a map, all that is necessary is determination and desire, maps are for those who cannot navigate by the stars and must have another’s drive and desire show them the (a) way first. There is far more 'work', effort and energy involved in reaching a place no one has been to/returned from to give you a map, and just because someone DOES give you a map, does not mean that it is accurate, or that the destination really exists.

Even one who navigates by the stars had to be taught the methods of how by the trials and errors of others. Even so, he/she probably has a star chart/map of some sort. I didn’t say you couldn’t be the first to pounce off into uncharted territory. I just said that it’s dangerous. It’s also not very prudent to not take advantage of the knowledge of those before you.

Quote

No matter how many ‘claim’ to have seen and returned from the foreign land, they might have spent the summer in the pub across the street....did they bring you any souvenirs?

Funny! I’m just saying that it improves your chances of success. Especially as the number of people who put work into your “map” increases. It improves the verifiability.

Quote

i still agree with both you and Darius, God exists, and i find indications of her hand everyday, in nearly everything...its certainly something i can show you, if you take the time and walk the way i do, but its not something you may accept as 'evidence' or proof.

And that, my friend, is our common ground.

• Quote

[billvon 3,111]

>1. Did God bring forth every living creature including all the fowls
>from dry ground or from the waters?

One way or another. Strict interpreters of the bible find the answers right there in genesis; more scientifically minded christians might believe that god set the wheels in motion (i.e. set Planck's constant and the universal gravitational constant) and then just stood back and watched the universe, then the sun, then the planets, then life form.

>2. On what day did the earth go from being completely underwater to dry land?

In which story? The Noah story or the 7-days story? The Noah story is almost certainly a recounting of the flooding of the Black Sea, in which case it happened about 7000 years ago. The 7-days story almost certainly came from the Egyptian story of creation. Much of their civilization centered around the Nile, whose floods brought water and soil to the area - and thus their creation myth contained an image of land slowly rising out of the life-giving waters.

>3. What came first, man or trees?

Plants came before animals in a general sense.

>4. Did man come before or after beasts?

Again, depends on your definitions, but single-celled animals came way before any flavor of hominid.

[tunaplanet 0]

All these answers are found in Genesis. I'll wait until someone answers all the questions before I respond.

Forty-two

[billvon 3,111]

>I'll wait until someone answers all the questions before I respond.

I did. Do you want answers that better fit your pre-planned responses? Go to http://www.biblegateway.org/ and just download em.

[tunaplanet 0]

You did not answer all the questions. Every question I asked was one that should have been answered with a yes/no or one word answer. You felt the need to go into a long winded explanation. None of the questions are tricky. Pretty straight forward. No need to. Just answer the questions like they're asked...unless you're not capable of doing so...in that case I understand.

Forty-two

[billvon 3,111]

>Every question I asked was one that should have been answered
>with a yes/no or one word answer.

OK! In that case:

>1. Did God bring forth every living creature including all the fowls from dry
> ground or from the waters?

Yes.

>2. On what day did the earth go from being completely underwater to dry land?

Wednesday.

>3. What came first, man or trees?

Plants.

>4. Did man come before or after beasts?

After.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

1. Did God bring forth every living creature including all the fowls from dry
> ground or from the waters?

Yes.

Yes? That answer makes no sense. Dry ground or open waters, that are the two answers.

Forty-two

[billvon 3,111]

>Dry ground or open waters, that are the two answers.

Then open waters.

[Zenister 0]

[reply
>2. On what day did the earth go from being completely underwater to dry land?

Wednesday.

[tunaplanet 0]

Thank you for taking the time to answer. Let's examine your answers.

---

Quote

1. Did God bring forth every living creature including all the fowls from dry
ground or from the waters?

Billvon answered - Waters

That would be correct in 1:20 & 21 which states, "every living creature is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl."

But in 2:19 it says, "God brings forth every beast of the field and every fowl of the air from dry ground."

Sorry. You're 0-1.

---

Quote

2. On what day did the earth go from being completely underwater to dry land?

Billvon ansered - Wednesday

Well in 1:2 the earth is completely underwater on the first day. It isn't until the third day until the waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed.

However, in 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land.

Sorry, wrong again. You're 0-2.

---

***3. What came first, man or trees?

Billvon answered - Plants

That would be true in 1:12-13 and 26-31 where the story says trees were made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later.

However, in 2:7, 9 man was made before trees.

Sorry, you're 0-3.

---

Quote

4. Did man come before or after beasts?

Billvon answered - After

In chapter one that is true. Unfortunately, in chapter two it states man was created before beast.

Your final score? 0-4. Thanks for playing.

---

Anyone else want to play? I have hundreds more.

Forty-two

[billvon 3,111]

Ah, you have made the mistake that so many antis make - you're reading the bible like a science book. Try this - get a book on biology and see if humans are inherently cruel or not. Adult immune systems sometimes attack an innocent fetus; surely the definition of cruel. But then there's a mention of how a mother holding her child transfers bacteria to its GI tract that it needs! That's surely not cruel. Therefore the biology book is wrong wrong wrong! It contradicts itself, and therefore everything it says about DNA must be nonsense.

Which is the sort of stupid conclusion you can come to if you read a biology book like a book on morality, or if you read a bible like a science book.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Ah, you have made the mistake that so many antis make - you're reading the bible like a science book.

That's a pretty lame excuse.

I'm simply reading the bible like I do any other book. I can't help it if it contradicts itself.

And we just touched on Genesis. Want to do some other books of the bible?

Forty-two

[billvon 3,111]

>I'm simply reading the bible like I do any other book.

Really? You read a religious tome like a textbook? An article on physics like a Richard Bach novel? A comic book like LIFE magazine? Are you one of those types that says "Hey, that's stupid - if Johnathan Livingston Seagull really dove into the water at those speeds, wouldn't he be killed?"

>Want to do some other books of the bible?

Not at all; you've made up your mind, and cannot see anything in the bible beyond what you have chosen to see. Which is fine; everyone sees something (or intentionally does not see something) differently.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm more agnostic than athiest, but that arguement isn't all that great. If God showed up and introduced himself in the present time, not 2000 years ago, I doubt that anyone would disbelieve it, regardless of presupposition. I am willing to entertain any person's proof, and really do try to look at it objectively. If they make sense, and have concrete quantifiable evidence, that I will adjust my perceptions of life accordingly. After all, what's the point of life if none of us ever learn from the world around us and we just stagnate in unyeilding stubbornness?

Really? If Jesus showed up in our time, predicted what would happen to him, was persecuted, tortured, killed in the electric chair (much more civilized than crucifixion), verified dead by the coroner, locked in a morgue, rose from the dead three days later, was seen by thousands preaching just like he did when he was alive, you don’t think just as many people would not believe and would come up with every reason in the world to negate the happening? What’s the difference between then and now. Actually, I’d guess there’d be less people to believe nowadays. I think people were much more religiously minded back then and open to the concepts concerning a deity.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Adult immune systems sometimes attack an innocent fetus; surely the definition of cruel.

I differ. Cruelty is morality, a measure of intent. There is no intent of the immune system to consider a fetus an invader. The mother did not think 'I want that potential rug rat to not be born, so I will sic my immune system on it to solve the problem.' There is no morality at all in this case, nor in the other example of the GI bacteria.

Not all Christians will agree with you regarding the use of the Bible as a science book. That goes back to the whole creation/evolution and big bang arguement. Creationists adamantly believe that the Bible is verbatim, and that science has it all wrong. That is the problem with the Bible, it can be interpreted in many different ways, sometimes incompatible ways.

If the story of creation is just a parable with the intent of teaching that God created everything, what makes the rest of the Bible any different, a series of stories to teach morality rather than actual fact. Aesop's Fables of the time.

If the story of creation is direct truth, then the differences in various parts of the text would not exist, it would all say the same thing.

The differing passages of the Bible lend evidence to the fact that men wrote it, and men mess things up. If men were perfect, the Bible would be internally consistent with its teachings. There is no way of knowing just how imperfect the Bible is as a result. Which of course opens the door to even more varience in interpretation.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

you've made up your mind, and cannot see anything in the bible beyond what you have chosen to see.

I see what is written. What's written is a book full of contradictions...like I've just proven using your own answers.

If you want to believe in something that's great. Me, personally, I am more selective and choosy in what I believe in. Before I put blind faith into something without evidence or proof (which no one yet has been able to provide in this thread) I do the proper reseach and investigation.

I read the bible. Cover to cover. It's something that is simply not believable. But hey, don't take my word for it. Read the book yourself and count the number of contradictions. And hell, the questions I posed for you weren't even questions that can be argued in terms of interpetation. Those are black and white.

Forty-two

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Really? If Jesus showed up in our time, predicted what would happen to him, was persecuted, tortured, killed in the electric chair (much more civilized than crucifixion), verified dead by the coroner, locked in a morgue, rose from the dead three days later, was seen by thousands preaching just like he did when he was alive, you don’t think just as many people would not believe and would come up with every reason in the world to negate the happening? What’s the difference between then and now. Actually, I’d guess there’d be less people to believe nowadays. I think people were much more religiously minded back then and open to the concepts concerning a deity.

If that happened, I'd be the first in line to apologize my ass off for being so critical of things. In this age of video, medicine, the Internet, sure there would be people who would question, there always is. But if God made it very public, with many witnesses in many formats, a lot more people would change their minds. There will always be doubters, that will never change, but those of us that are agnostic would certainly re evaluate our belief systems.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[billvon 3,111]

>I differ. Cruelty is morality, a measure of intent. There is no intent of
>the immune system to consider a fetus an invader.

Exactly! Which is why it is a mistake to read a book on biology as a moral guide.

>If the story of creation is just a parable with the intent of teaching that
>God created everything, what makes the rest of the Bible any different,
>a series of stories to teach morality rather than actual fact.

I think it's a hybrid of both. In some places the parables are explicitly defined; Jesus often used them to preach to people. In some places they are based on very old legends (like creation) and are not explicitly defined. In many cases the bible is based on an oral (and later written) history passed down from generation to generation, translated half a dozen times, and retold as the various pieces of the church split off.

>The differing passages of the Bible lend evidence to the fact that men
> wrote it, and men mess things up.

Yep. Which is sort of fitting, since men read it.

[pajarito 0]

Genesis provides a foundational understanding of God, creation, the human race. It doesn’t give you specific details on how he did it. That’s not its purpose.

[billvon 3,111]

>What's written is a book full of contradictions...like I've just proven using your own answers.

That was funny. You ask questions that have no yes or no answers. I answer them. You say "But give me yes or no answers." So I do. Then you say "Ha! Yes or no answers are wrong!"

>It's something that is simply not believable.

Then don't believe it!

>Read the book yourself and count the number of contradictions.

Oh, I have. Four years of catholic school. I could probably even tell you which translation any given passage came from after an experience like that. And at first my reaction was the same as yours, as if I had found a mistake in a teacher's correction on a test. "Ha! See, that dumb ol' teacher isn't so smart after all." Then I realized that that was missing the whole point. The bible as a whole is not a history book or a science text. If you grade it on what inconsistencies you find in it, fine - but that's like deciding Gone with the Wind was a horrible movie because one scene had power lines in the background, and there were no power lines during the Civil War. And you are perfectly free to do that, but as most people who have seen Gone with the Wind will tell you, you would have completely missed the point.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

but that's like deciding Gone with the Wind was a horrible movie because one scene had power lines in the background, and there were no power lines during the Civil War.

Apples and oranges.

I'm more interested on why the book of Genesis has so many contradictions.

Can you explain why the four questions I asked you are contradicting since you are so well versed with your 4 years of catholic school? I'll wait for your answer.

Forty-two