Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Mavorpen]

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god. To demand that atheism is 'proven' is to demand that we prove a negative.

Prove that your deity exists.

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.

Then God doesn't exist. Got it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god. To demand that atheism is 'proven' is to demand that we prove a negative.

Prove that your deity exists.

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.

Again, the basic schism between the atheist and theist notion is deep imbedded in the debate.

First of all, what is the definition of the Christian god?!

Atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, not the opposition to the belief in said deity - that's antitheism, and while several atheists are antitheists, not all atheists are antitheists, which is where Christians are confused about. Most Christians I would say fall on the other end of the spectrum, being anti-atheists themselves. Which is a naive notion, meaning that if you feel so compelled to defend the God in Christianity then you must not really believe God is all-powerful and hence I would say you need to lay off the attacks towards atheists until you realize you can prove God without making it personal.

[Liriena]

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god. To demand that atheism is 'proven' is to demand that we prove a negative.

Prove that your deity exists.

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.

Atheists claiming that there is no god because there is no proof of its existence is only a reasonable 'default' position. If there are no signs of something existing, believing in that something's existence is quite the leap.

Christians claiming that atheism is wrong because there is no proof that there is no god is both dubiously truthful and logically flawed. Atheism would be disproven by direct evidence of a god's existence, not by lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. Lack of evidence to support a hypothesis doesn't refute said hypothesis.

If you can't prove the existence of your deity, then how can you claim it exists?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.

Atheists claiming that there is no god because there is no proof of its existence is only a reasonable 'default' position. If there are no signs of something existing, believing in that something's existence is quite the leap.

Christians claiming that atheism is wrong because there is no proof that there is no god is both dubiously truthful and logically flawed. Atheism would be disproven by direct evidence of a god's existence, not by lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. Lack of evidence to support a hypothesis doesn't refute said hypothesis.

If you can't prove the existence of your deity, then how can you claim it exists?

That's a materialistic argument (evidence of a God's existence); and, while I accept the notion and I see where atheists come from; when dealing with an abstract construct like God there's not empirical evidence, it's a metaphysical concept which does not have a validity in the real world in which we stand.

Which is why I object to the theistic notion of God as a intervener, because God cannot interfere on something he created since we consider him so perfect. If he is perfect and he knows what he's doing why then would he need the obsessive-compulsive, knee-jerk reaction to interfere with the universe at his beck and call whenever the universe doesn't do as he planned?

Belief in the existence of a deity or set of deities is quite natural. It happened with the Romans, with the Greeks, and in Hinduism it happens as well and in Pre-Columbine civilizations. Several civilizations have held the belief of a deity or set of deities, either to idealize humanity or to explain natural phenomena; and to them and for us who believe in a deity is a way of hanging on to the very fabric which makes us human, that yearn for the ideal figure about things, and hence why God and the notions of other deities exists.

[Mavorpen]

[...]

Given that many people use a cosmological argument to defend God:

1 - Nothing cannot come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies its own existence.
2 - The universe could not have come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies the very existence of the universe, a prime cause which cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio and it is only justified through itself.
3 - A prime mover can only explain the existence of the universe, since it fulfills all criteria (it is a something that is necessary for something to have been created, it is justified through itself, and it cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio).
4 - The probability of God or a deity fulfills the role of a prime mover since it is a being that fulfills all criteria.
5 - Therefore God exists, or it is highly probable there is a deity which created the universe.

And Atheists like to use the Null Hypothesis which has the following amount of philosophical proof:

1 - Given two hypotheses: one in which God exists and one in which God doesn't exists, one must assume God doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.
2 - There is no evidence about a God (or gods) existing in the universe.
3 - Therefore God (or any gods) do not exist.

You can see where atheism and theism is fundamentally different and why any proofs (formal of empirical) about the existence or the non-existence of God does not suffice for either atheists or theists. Theists believe that there is fundamentally a deity - in this case God - because there is no other thing that can fulfill the criteria of a self-sustaining, irreducible principle in the mind of a theist; whereas an atheist believes there is fundamentally no deities - or in this case God - because there is no evidence pointing to the contrary (which is an argument based on materialism, and while valid, it posits that No God = intrinsically true, hence leaving no room for debate or to believe in a God without empirical evidence when formal metaphysical proofs suffice for the concept of a philosophical deity) and therefore no constructive ground happens when in these debates because of preconceived notions.

That's all well and good, but I want to correct something.

You have the atheists argument wrong. You make it seem like we don't have an answer to the cosmological argument, that we take their assumptions at a face value. See, we don't. The first and second claims have yet to be defended on an empirical basis. And since those claims are scientifically based (i.e. they make claims about the observable universe, instead of something outside of it that doesn't interact with it), theists need to provide an empirical basis for the cosmological argument. They have, been unable to ever since it was conceived.

The problem is that there is really no reason to take such claims seriously on a purely philosophical basis. If their entire belief is based upon unsupported, empirical claims about the universe, we can dismiss their argument with ease. So, the atheists response to that isn't simply, "that isn't evidence." It's "you're fundamentally wrong about your first claims, so the rest of your argument falls apart."

I also don't see a rational basis to believe in something like a deist deity on a purely philosophical basis. What, exactly, does it accomplish? It's like positing a magical fairy that tangles your headphone chords when they are in your pocket that is undetectable in any way, shape, or form. That's nice, and you could maybe defend it on a philosophical basis. But what's the point? What I'm getting at here, is that why believe in something that's suspiciously vague and undetectable in any way and also doesn't' serve a necessary purpose.

Deism, as you said, is unfalsifiable because it doesn't make the claim of an empirical God which has control over reality at their beck and call, so I see why atheists don't really bother - it's just not a goal worth pursuing since the bigger fish, which is a God which interacts with nature, is out there and it's more fun deconstructing. As for religion, yes it's not a religion, it falls within the spectrum of belief. Although I am a Deist I ascribe to Christianity because I believe Jesus was right in several things - including the love for your neighbor and God, the most important things to remember.

Now this I find really odd. You could do so much better than Jesus in this neighborhood. Most of his shit was said centuries before him, and in more eloquent, thoughtful ways.

[Liriena]

Atheists claiming that there is no god because there is no proof of its existence is only a reasonable 'default' position. If there are no signs of something existing, believing in that something's existence is quite the leap.

Christians claiming that atheism is wrong because there is no proof that there is no god is both dubiously truthful and logically flawed. Atheism would be disproven by direct evidence of a god's existence, not by lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. Lack of evidence to support a hypothesis doesn't refute said hypothesis.

If you can't prove the existence of your deity, then how can you claim it exists?

That's a materialistic argument (evidence of a God's existence); and, while I accept the notion and I see where atheists come from; when dealing with an abstract construct like God there's not empirical evidence, it's a metaphysical concept which does not have a validity in the real world in which we stand.

Which is why I object to the theistic notion of God as a intervener, because God cannot interfere on something he created since we consider him so perfect. If he is perfect and he knows what he's doing why then would he need the obsessive-compulsive, knee-jerk reaction to interfere with the universe at his beck and call whenever the universe doesn't do as he planned?

Belief in the existence of a deity or set of deities is quite natural. It happened with the Romans, with the Greeks, and in Hinduism it happens as well and in Pre-Columbine civilizations. Several civilizations have held the belief of a deity or set of deities, and to them and for us who believe in a deity is a way of hanging on to the very fabric which makes us human, that yearn for the ideal figure about things, and hence why God and the notions of God exists.

Agreed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[...]

Given that many people use a cosmological argument to defend God:

1 - Nothing cannot come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies its own existence.
2 - The universe could not have come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies the very existence of the universe, a prime cause which cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio and it is only justified through itself.
3 - A prime mover can only explain the existence of the universe, since it fulfills all criteria (it is a something that is necessary for something to have been created, it is justified through itself, and it cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio).
4 - The probability of God or a deity fulfills the role of a prime mover since it is a being that fulfills all criteria.
5 - Therefore God exists, or it is highly probable there is a deity which created the universe.

And Atheists like to use the Null Hypothesis which has the following amount of philosophical proof:

1 - Given two hypotheses: one in which God exists and one in which God doesn't exists, one must assume God doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.
2 - There is no evidence about a God (or gods) existing in the universe.
3 - Therefore God (or any gods) do not exist.

You can see where atheism and theism is fundamentally different and why any proofs (formal of empirical) about the existence or the non-existence of God does not suffice for either atheists or theists. Theists believe that there is fundamentally a deity - in this case God - because there is no other thing that can fulfill the criteria of a self-sustaining, irreducible principle in the mind of a theist; whereas an atheist believes there is fundamentally no deities - or in this case God - because there is no evidence pointing to the contrary (which is an argument based on materialism, and while valid, it posits that No God = intrinsically true, hence leaving no room for debate or to believe in a God without empirical evidence when formal metaphysical proofs suffice for the concept of a philosophical deity) and therefore no constructive ground happens when in these debates because of preconceived notions.

That's all well and good, but I want to correct something.

You have the atheists argument wrong. You make it seem like we don't have an answer to the cosmological argument, that we take their assumptions at a face value. See, we don't. The first and second claims have yet to be defended on an empirical basis. And since those claims are scientifically based (i.e. they make claims about the observable universe, instead of something outside of it that doesn't interact with it), theists need to provide an empirical basis for the cosmological argument. They have, been unable to ever since it was conceived.

The problem is that there is really no reason to take such claims seriously on a purely philosophical basis. If their entire belief is based upon unsupported, empirical claims about the universe, we can dismiss their argument with ease. So, the atheists response to that isn't simply, "that isn't evidence." It's "you're fundamentally wrong about your first claims, so the rest of your argument falls apart."

I also don't see a rational basis to believe in something like a deist deity on a purely philosophical basis. What, exactly, does it accomplish? It's like positing a magical fairy that tangles your headphone chords when they are in your pocket that is undetectable in any way, shape, or form. That's nice, and you could maybe defend it on a philosophical basis. But what's the point? What I'm getting at here, is that why believe in something that's suspiciously vague and undetectable in any way and also doesn't' serve a necessary purpose.

Deism, as you said, is unfalsifiable because it doesn't make the claim of an empirical God which has control over reality at their beck and call, so I see why atheists don't really bother - it's just not a goal worth pursuing since the bigger fish, which is a God which interacts with nature, is out there and it's more fun deconstructing. As for religion, yes it's not a religion, it falls within the spectrum of belief. Although I am a Deist I ascribe to Christianity because I believe Jesus was right in several things - including the love for your neighbor and God, the most important things to remember.

Now this I find really odd. You could do so much better than Jesus in this neighborhood. Most of his shit was said centuries before him, and in more eloquent, thoughtful ways.

I see what you mean now, and I do stand corrected.

As for my belief in a Deist deity, it doesn't accomplish much other than to have an idealized notion of humanity. Sure, it doesn't have a practical purpose beyond that which is perceivable by my way of being, but it does help me in trying to achieve perfection in the way I see it. And the way I see it is closer to the notion of a perfect being (in this case God) being so knowledgeable and wise that he knew what he was doing, and he loved himself so much that he set the laws of universe in motion to create the beauty around us, which is the universe in itself as his masterpiece and left it all alone once he set everything in motion.

Like I said in my post above, one of the reasons deities are created is to explain natural phenomena, but there is a deeper, much more meaningful reason behind it, and that is as an ideal concept of how a human should be. It's not something achievable by any standards, but in my way of seeing it, the closer I am to the ideal set out by my own mind - that ideal being which I call God - the better off I am. If there is such a thing as an afterlife at least I won't go in as a bad person or someone who did nothing to be close to perfection and stand before a deity, and if there is no afterlife I can safely say I lived a productive life and I came here to do what I was supposed to do.

And I could do better than Jesus? Absolutely; but he's a good fellow, historically speaking and his teachings do resonate with the past In a way, I am not limiting myself to Jesus' teachings, but I am taking them as a guide to improve and improve upon those teachings by fusing them with other teachings from other religions and cultures.

[Polgrusan]

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.

Then God doesn't exist. Got it.

I never said he doesn't exist...

[Galloism]

The amount of time in the garden is not stated, actually.

Based on authoritative I've spoken to, the general feeling is they spent at least 30 years in the garden prior to sinning, but the assumptions used in that math may not stand up to scrutiny.

it got that off the net some time back. they certainly didn't last LONG in the garden. they were far too naive to have lasted that long and THEN get taken in by the serpent. and, if you think about how long the perfectly made first man and woman lived outside that garden, I would suggest that even mice might live 30 years after having been created directly by the hand of god.

Unlikely from a theological standpoint. The amount of time Adam spent in the garden was clear to have been some duration more than a couple weeks. He did, after all, name all the animals.

Keep in mind, eve was tricked. Adam was not. He chose, consciously and with full knowledge of the facts, to follow his wife and disobey. Eve might not have been in the garden long, but Adam certainly was.

Regarding the thing about mice, the animals were never intended, from a theological standpoint, to live forever. There would be no reason for God to create oddly long-lived mice given they had no prospect of eternal life. Mankind has fallen from a perfect state, animals never had the prospect.

[Mavorpen]

I see what you mean now, and I do stand corrected.

As for my belief in a Deist deity, it doesn't accomplish much other than to have an idealized notion of humanity. Sure, it doesn't have a practical purpose beyond that which is perceivable by my way of being, but it does help me in trying to achieve perfection in the way I see it. And the way I see it is closer to the notion of a perfect being (in this case God) being so knowledgeable and wise that he knew what he was doing, and he loved himself so much that he set the laws of universe in motion to create the beauty around us, which is the universe in itself.

Personally, I still don't find much use for this, even on a personal level. When it comes to such a view of a deity, typically, theists and deists have it backwards. It isn't that you believe in a deity that holds the perfection you believe it does. Rather, you have a set of preconceived notions of what perfection is, and assign them to that deity. We've even done some research on this subject. When it comes to theists, when they talk to whatever deity they believe in, their brains actually treat said deity as an actual person, rather than the abstract being they claim it is. I've even seen research where participants have been asked questions about their deity and their brains react as though they are talking about themselves, drawing the implication that people's conception of God are little more than a supposed abstract being that's a copy of their own beliefs and personalities.

Which is why I can't understand the desire to believe in such a being. It seems redundant, in my personal opinion.

Like I said in my post above, one of the reasons deities are created is to explain natural phenomena, but there is a deeper, much more meaningful reason behind it, and that is as an ideal concept of how a human should be. It's not something achievable by any standards, but in my way of seeing it, the closer I am to the ideal set out by my own mind - that ideal being which I call God - the better off I am.

I think it goes deeper than this on two fronts. People have a tendency to apply personification to things they don't understand, as well as creating abstract beings to affirm their own beliefs. An example of the former can be seen everyday. For example, it's not uncommon for people to scream and shout "come on, start!" at their cars if it refuses to start. We don't understand the problem, so our brains instinctively applies personification to it. The latter, being explained above.

Your last sentence here is interesting, though. I don't have a problem with calling such a standard "God." You can call your view of perfection whatever you like. It's just, I don't see that as a reason to also believe such a being actually exists and created the universe.

And I could do better than Jesus? Absolutely; but he's a good fellow, historically speaking and his teachings do resonate with the past In a way, I am not limiting myself to Jesus' teachings, but I am taking them as a guide to improve and improve upon those teachings by fusing them with other teachings from other religions and cultures.

The problem I have with him, is that some of the best moral teachings he give are too simplified and thus they often end up conflicting with my own moral beliefs.

[Ashmoria]

it got that off the net some time back. they certainly didn't last LONG in the garden. they were far too naive to have lasted that long and THEN get taken in by the serpent. and, if you think about how long the perfectly made first man and woman lived outside that garden, I would suggest that even mice might live 30 years after having been created directly by the hand of god.

Unlikely from a theological standpoint. The amount of time Adam spent in the garden was clear to have been some duration more than a couple weeks. He did, after all, name all the animals.

Keep in mind, eve was tricked. Adam was not. He chose, consciously and with full knowledge of the facts, to follow his wife and disobey. Eve might not have been in the garden long, but Adam certainly was.

Regarding the thing about mice, the animals were never intended, from a theological standpoint, to live forever. There would be no reason for God to create oddly long-lived mice given they had no prospect of eternal life. Mankind has fallen from a perfect state, animals never had the prospect.

looking at the text it seems to me that the snake persuaded both eve and adam to give it a go. eve acted first but adam was right there with her and he ate after she did...maybe he was going to see whether or not she dropped dead (whatever dead might mean to him at that point). eve tells god that she was deceived but that's common human justification. she wasn't deceived or tricked she was persuaded. and so was adam.

it cant be deception since the serpent told them that they would know good and evil just like god does. and that is exactly what happened.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I see what you mean now, and I do stand corrected.

As for my belief in a Deist deity, it doesn't accomplish much other than to have an idealized notion of humanity. Sure, it doesn't have a practical purpose beyond that which is perceivable by my way of being, but it does help me in trying to achieve perfection in the way I see it. And the way I see it is closer to the notion of a perfect being (in this case God) being so knowledgeable and wise that he knew what he was doing, and he loved himself so much that he set the laws of universe in motion to create the beauty around us, which is the universe in itself.

Personally, I still don't find much use for this, even on a personal level. When it comes to such a view of a deity, typically, theists and deists have it backwards. It isn't that you believe in a deity that holds the perfection you believe it does. Rather, you have a set of preconceived notions of what perfection is, and assign them to that deity. We've even done some research on this subject. When it comes to theists, when they talk to whatever deity they believe in, their brains actually treat said deity as an actual person, rather than the abstract being they claim it is. I've even seen research where participants have been asked questions about their deity and their brains react as though they are talking about themselves, drawing the implication that people's conception of God are little more than a supposed abstract being that's a copy of their own beliefs and personalities.

Which is why I can't understand the desire to believe in such a being. It seems redundant, in my personal opinion.

Like I said in my post above, one of the reasons deities are created is to explain natural phenomena, but there is a deeper, much more meaningful reason behind it, and that is as an ideal concept of how a human should be. It's not something achievable by any standards, but in my way of seeing it, the closer I am to the ideal set out by my own mind - that ideal being which I call God - the better off I am.

I think it goes deeper than this on two fronts. People have a tendency to apply personification to things they don't understand, as well as creating abstract beings to affirm their own beliefs. An example of the former can be seen everyday. For example, it's not uncommon for people to scream and shout "come on, start!" at their cars if it refuses to start. We don't understand the problem, so our brains instinctively applies personification to it. The latter, being explained above.

Your last sentence here is interesting, though. I don't have a problem with calling such a standard "God." You can call your view of perfection whatever you like. It's just, I don't see that as a reason to also believe such a being actually exists and created the universe.

And I could do better than Jesus? Absolutely; but he's a good fellow, historically speaking and his teachings do resonate with the past In a way, I am not limiting myself to Jesus' teachings, but I am taking them as a guide to improve and improve upon those teachings by fusing them with other teachings from other religions and cultures.

The problem I have with him, is that some of the best moral teachings he give are too simplified and thus they often end up conflicting with my own moral beliefs.

It could be because we have an innate reason to hold ourselves in a higher standard, and as such we believe a deity which we believe exists should have a notion similar to ours? I do know we as humans are the most egocentrical yet rational creatures we have yet to meet, and this would come as a basis for that.

As for the personification. Could it be that people who believe in a deity that controls nature reflects our own innate desire as a species to control our environment and those around us? It would make sense it seems, as plenty of people believe in God yet several of them also believe in relationships with others and with their environment as power plays.

And well, yes, his teachings are often too simplified.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Unlikely from a theological standpoint. The amount of time Adam spent in the garden was clear to have been some duration more than a couple weeks. He did, after all, name all the animals.

Keep in mind, eve was tricked. Adam was not. He chose, consciously and with full knowledge of the facts, to follow his wife and disobey. Eve might not have been in the garden long, but Adam certainly was.

Regarding the thing about mice, the animals were never intended, from a theological standpoint, to live forever. There would be no reason for God to create oddly long-lived mice given they had no prospect of eternal life. Mankind has fallen from a perfect state, animals never had the prospect.

looking at the text it seems to me that the snake persuaded both eve and adam to give it a go. eve acted first but adam was right there with her and he ate after she did...maybe he was going to see whether or not she dropped dead (whatever dead might mean to him at that point). eve tells god that she was deceived but that's common human justification. she wasn't deceived or tricked she was persuaded. and so was adam.

it cant be deception since the serpent told them that they would know good and evil just like god does. and that is exactly what happened.

Not really no.

The snake persuaded Eve, and only Eve, to take a bite from the fruit. Eve then offered to Adam who also ate from it, but he was not persuaded by the serpent to do so.

[CTALNH]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

[Luveria]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

This may be the first time I agree with you.

[Ashmoria]

looking at the text it seems to me that the snake persuaded both eve and adam to give it a go. eve acted first but adam was right there with her and he ate after she did...maybe he was going to see whether or not she dropped dead (whatever dead might mean to him at that point). eve tells god that she was deceived but that's common human justification. she wasn't deceived or tricked she was persuaded. and so was adam.

it cant be deception since the serpent told them that they would know good and evil just like god does. and that is exactly what happened.

Not really no.

The snake persuaded Eve, and only Eve, to take a bite from the fruit. Eve then offered to Adam who also ate from it, but he was not persuaded by the serpent to do so.

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

he was right there how could he not hear the serpent? he let her go first--not very gentlemanly of him. its not deception if what you tell someone will happen is what happens. that it was MORE than that is all part of persuasion.

[Conscentia]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Humans tend to want other humans to agree with them.
Alternatively, they may want to "save" us.

[CTALNH]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Humans tend to want other humans to agree with them.
Alternatively, they may want to "save" us.

Thanks for the offer but no thank you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

he was right there how could he not hear the serpent? he let her go first--not very gentlemanly of him. its not deception if what you tell someone will happen is what happens. that it was MORE than that is all part of persuasion.

In defense of my argument, the serpent WAS speaking to Eve, and it does follow that Eve would be persuaded in the tale as it is, it's only a logical conclusion from the reading. However, if we were to interject psychology, we would go into a Freudian slip here as to why did Adam was such a dick, which then would need a thread all its own

Also, I said nothing about it not being persuasion, I actually agree with you on that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Humans tend to want other humans to agree with them.
Alternatively, they may want to "save" us.

*shrugs* I am not particularly hell-bent into converting you, so don't worry about it

I do have plans of brainwashing you in the future though *nods*

[Ashmoria]

he was right there how could he not hear the serpent? he let her go first--not very gentlemanly of him. its not deception if what you tell someone will happen is what happens. that it was MORE than that is all part of persuasion.

In defense of my argument, the serpent WAS speaking to Eve, and it does follow that Eve would be persuaded in the tale as it is, it's only a logical conclusion from the reading. However, if we were to interject psychology, we would go into a Freudian slip here as to why did Adam was such a dick, which then would need a thread all its own

Also, I said nothing about it not being persuasion, I actually agree with you on that.

they are both acting like children. she tells god she was tricked. adam says that she gave it to him so he ate it. 5 year olds don't get away with that kind of justification, eh?

for me it emphasizes how they were unable to judge their actions before the knew anything about right and wrong. afterwards they immediately knew they did the wrong thing, beforehand they had know way to know.

[Benuty]

Why are Christians arguing with Atheists anyway?

They have the ultimate trump card called "Faith" they don't need to prove god exists they can just I believe in god end of story.You do not need to prove anything to anyone.

Humans tend to want other humans to agree with them.
Alternatively, they may want to "save" us.

Which would be incredibly arrogant to do against those who are dismissive of paradise.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

they are both acting like children. she tells god she was tricked. adam says that she gave it to him so he ate it. 5 year olds don't get away with that kind of justification, eh?

for me it emphasizes how they were unable to judge their actions before the knew anything about right and wrong. afterwards they immediately knew they did the wrong thing, beforehand they had know way to know.

I do agree with that as well, I just don't see it as bad because their "mistake" gave us knowledge. It gave us ethical reasoning, the ability to judge from right and wrong.

Sure, children don't get with such justification, but I am also not defending that angle either.

[Conscentia]

Humans tend to want other humans to agree with them.
Alternatively, they may want to "save" us.

Which would be incredibly arrogant to do against those who are dismissive of paradise.

I'm not dismissive of paradise. I merely think that God is a meaningless concept.
As for the Christian God specifically:

[Ashmoria]

they are both acting like children. she tells god she was tricked. adam says that she gave it to him so he ate it. 5 year olds don't get away with that kind of justification, eh?

for me it emphasizes how they were unable to judge their actions before the knew anything about right and wrong. afterwards they immediately knew they did the wrong thing, beforehand they had know way to know.

I do agree with that as well, I just don't see it as bad because their "mistake" gave us knowledge. It gave us ethical reasoning, the ability to judge from right and wrong.

Sure, children don't get with such justification, but I am also not defending that angle either.

we're discussing not disagreeing