Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[The Scientific States]

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.

For the first time, I find myself agreeing with you.

[The Scientific States]

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.

What do you mean there is no proof of atheism? Atheists exist.

[Ashmoria]

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.

What do you mean there is no proof of atheism? Atheists exist.

lol I was going to mention that too

in any case not believing is not believing. if you don't believe you need a smidge of proof before you decide to believe in the Christian god over any other god that could be named (or any god at all, of course)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Bear with me since I am used to be in polarizing discussions since I came to NS

But still, I don't see their "mistake" as a bad thing. It gave us several unintended good consequences.

[Conscentia]

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.

· The story implies that God never wanted us to know right from wrong.
· Wait... you believe Genesis?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

· The story implies that God never wanted us to know right from wrong.
· Wait... you believe Genesis?

No I do not believe Genesis literally. I was just following the conversation, but no, I do admit Genesis has no historical basis; in fact, as a History graduate I would be lying if I said I do.

And I do understand that, which is why I am saying I don't see what they did (based on the story) wrong.

[Ashmoria]

we're discussing not disagreeing

Bear with me since I am used to be in polarizing discussions since I came to NS

But still, I don't see their "mistake" as a bad thing. It gave us several unintended good consequences.

it made us what we are. (not that it actually happened but its an interesting thing to analyze). the general purpose of genesis is to answer the question of where we came from and why life sucks so much. but you can also get interesting cultural questioned answered like "why do women suffer more than men?" and "why must women be kept under men's thumbs?" --as if the man wasn't the worse actor--he did it because she did. at least she got persuaded, all he did was follow "the crowd".

[Benuty]

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.

· The story implies that God never wanted us to know right from wrong.
· Wait... you believe Genesis?

Not necessarily considering humanity was banished from eden to prevent eating from the Tree of Life. I suppose it takes heavy context and interpretation of Genesis to understand the. Authors intent.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Bear with me since I am used to be in polarizing discussions since I came to NS

But still, I don't see their "mistake" as a bad thing. It gave us several unintended good consequences.

it made us what we are. (not that it actually happened but its an interesting thing to analyze). the general purpose of genesis is to answer the question of where we came from and why life sucks so much. but you can also get interesting cultural questioned answered like "why do women suffer more than men?" and "why must women be kept under men's thumbs?" --as if the man wasn't the worse actor--he did it because she did. at least she got persuaded, all he did was follow "the crowd".

I personally disagree with the morals of those two questions because it assumes women should be under men's thumbs forever - which is a blatant lie.

I don't think it actually happened either, but as a set of beliefs and answering questions I find the story of the garden of eden atrocious at teaching a good lesson under the light you're casting at it.

[Conscentia]

· The story implies that God never wanted us to know right from wrong.
· Wait... you believe Genesis?

No I do not believe Genesis literally. I was just following the conversation, but no, I do admit Genesis has no historical basis; in fact, as a History graduate I would be lying if I said I do.

And I do understand that, which is why I am saying I don't see what they did (based on the story) wrong.

So you don't believe that God's will is always right?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No I do not believe Genesis literally. I was just following the conversation, but no, I do admit Genesis has no historical basis; in fact, as a History graduate I would be lying if I said I do.

And I do understand that, which is why I am saying I don't see what they did (based on the story) wrong.

So you don't believe that God's will is always right?

I don't believe that God has any reason to intervene with the natural world period. I also don't believe in the inerrancy of the scripture, hence no, I don't believe the prescribed "will of God" is always right, because God's will is always some made up ideal of how people should behave in a subjective manner; it depends from person to person too much.

[Dyakovo]

Not knowing what God wants to do doesn't change the fact that he's not omnibenevolent.

god isn't bound by your definition of omnibenevolence.

Actually, he really is, unless he isn't omnibenevolent. See the thing is, words have meaning.

[Specific Heat Capacity]

"The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics. While one may concede (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in god. It may closed into a loop." -Paul Davies, God and the New Physics

As for cosmological arguments, the beginning of the universe does not imply the existence of god. An atheist can argue that the first instant of the universe is explained with elementary quarks and electrons. There would be an infinite amount of instantaneous causal correlations, where one quark is caused by one electron, which is caused by one quark, for an infinity, at the first instant of the universe's existence. This hypothesis would have some evidence going for it. For example, it would explain why everything is reducible to interactions of elementary particles. The explanation would be that only elementary particles could go on to make up physical objections. It's also supported by experiments from Alain Aspect and John Bell. In their experiments, the measurement of a particle at a certain spin state, say 1/2, instantaneously causes a spatially distant photon to take on an anticorrelated spin-state. The existence of instantaneous relationships between elementary particles has been experimentally proven, giving support to this hypothesis. It is also consistent with the fact that space is infinite (See: A Brief History of Time, Many Worlds in One). Space would need to be infinite in order for an infinite amount of causal correlations to exist. Even if space were finite, we can take Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, where particles take a point-like existence on a configuration space. An infinite amount of points can be placed on a finite space, so even if space were finite, there could still be an infinite amount of instantaneous causal correlations. One final concern is the simplicity of such a hypothesis. If we take Richard Swinburne's definition of simplicity, where 0 and infinity are simple, so that 0 mass is simpler than a mass of 5.565656565656, then it would follow that this idea is actually simple. Given this, there is an atheistic explanation of the beginning of the universe which causally explains why the universe exists.

[Ashmoria]

it made us what we are. (not that it actually happened but its an interesting thing to analyze). the general purpose of genesis is to answer the question of where we came from and why life sucks so much. but you can also get interesting cultural questioned answered like "why do women suffer more than men?" and "why must women be kept under men's thumbs?" --as if the man wasn't the worse actor--he did it because she did. at least she got persuaded, all he did was follow "the crowd".

I personally disagree with the morals of those two questions because it assumes women should be under men's thumbs forever - which is a blatant lie.

I don't think it actually happened either, but as a set of beliefs and answering questions I find the story of the garden of eden atrocious at teaching a good lesson under the light you're casting at it.

I disagree too but it has been used through the millennia to justify women's place in society.

the story is only atrocious (as is the story of job) if you think its literally true. in that interpretation god offends our sense of justice by punishing virtual children for doing something that they could not possibly know was wrong. we don't have to worry about that because there were no adam and eve to have been treated so badly.

[Ashmoria]

No I do not believe Genesis literally. I was just following the conversation, but no, I do admit Genesis has no historical basis; in fact, as a History graduate I would be lying if I said I do.

And I do understand that, which is why I am saying I don't see what they did (based on the story) wrong.

So you don't believe that God's will is always right?

gods will is right by definition but that doesn't mean that it is wrong when you defy god's will before knowing the difference between right and wrong. adam and eve were like small children. they did what they did and had no way of knowing that it was wrong. once they ate the fruit they immediately knew they were wrong. but it was too late then.

[Ashmoria]

god isn't bound by your definition of omnibenevolence.

Actually, he really is, unless he isn't omnibenevolent. See the thing is, words have meaning.

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

[Ashmoria]

"The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics. While one may concede (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in god. It may closed into a loop." -Paul Davies, God and the New Physics

As for cosmological arguments, the beginning of the universe does not imply the existence of god. An atheist can argue that the first instant of the universe is explained with elementary quarks and electrons. There would be an infinite amount of instantaneous causal correlations, where one quark is caused by one electron, which is caused by one quark, for an infinity, at the first instant of the universe's existence. This hypothesis would have some evidence going for it. For example, it would explain why everything is reducible to interactions of elementary particles. The explanation would be that only elementary particles could go on to make up physical objections. It's also supported by experiments from Alain Aspect and John Bell. In their experiments, the measurement of a particle at a certain spin state, say 1/2, instantaneously causes a spatially distant photon to take on an anticorrelated spin-state. The existence of instantaneous relationships between elementary particles has been experimentally proven, giving support to this hypothesis. It is also consistent with the fact that space is infinite (See: A Brief History of Time, Many Worlds in One). Space would need to be infinite in order for an infinite amount of causal correlations to exist. Even if space were finite, we can take Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics, where particles take a point-like existence on a configuration space. An infinite amount of points can be placed on a finite space, so even if space were finite, there could still be an infinite amount of instantaneous causal correlations. One final concern is the simplicity of such a hypothesis. If we take Richard Swinburne's definition of simplicity, where 0 and infinity are simple, so that 0 mass is simpler than a mass of 5.565656565656, then it would follow that this idea is actually simple. Given this, there is an atheistic explanation of the beginning of the universe which causally explains why the universe exists.

even if the universe DID require a creator of some kind that means nothing about the existence or character of that creator today and utterly fails to establish proof of the Christian god in any way.

[Conscentia]

Actually, he really is, unless he isn't omnibenevolent. See the thing is, words have meaning.

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

A being that does not satisfy the definition of "god" is not a god. It's something else. That's how language works.

[Mykabuktropolis]

So you don't believe that God's will is always right?

gods will is right by definition but that doesn't mean that it is wrong when you defy god's will before knowing the difference between right and wrong. adam and eve were like small children. they did what they did and had no way of knowing that it was wrong. once they ate the fruit they immediately knew they were wrong. but it was too late then.

Genesis 2:15 is where Adam was specifically told what not to do. So there already existed a moral "code" of understanding right from wrong. He knew what was going on, just didn't have the courage to stand up for his woman.

[Dyakovo]

Actually, he really is, unless he isn't omnibenevolent. See the thing is, words have meaning.

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

No, what's "silly" i.e. completely retarded is claiming that a deity can be omnibenevolent while not actually doing things that meet the definition of the word.

[Ashmoria]

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

A being that does not satisfy the definition of "god" is not a god. It's something else. That's how language works.

no that is not how it works.

if god exists he exists with or without our definition.

[Ashmoria]

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

No, what's "silly" i.e. completely retarded is claiming that a deity can be omnibenevolent while not actually doing things that meet the definition of the word.

then the problem lies with your trying to define god instead of with god.

[Dyakovo]

No, what's "silly" i.e. completely retarded is claiming that a deity can be omnibenevolent while not actually doing things that meet the definition of the word.

then the problem lies with your trying to define god instead of with god.

What the fuck does that incoherent mess even mean?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

how can god every be restrained by the definition of a word? that's silly.

A being that does not satisfy the definition of "god" is not a god. It's something else. That's how language works.

The problem is, there is no established definition of a deity. The Christian God being one of many definitions of a deity, but not the only authority in what a deity means; and even then Christians cannot agree on what the exact attributes of God are.

You are placing a very arbitrary definition of a deity and expect anyone who has a concept of a deity to prove there is, indeed, a deity given your arbitrary criteria of a deity; when it could very well be one of the aztec gods they believe in - who were fallible like the Roman gods and more human than the Christian deity itself.

Hence my problem with the "language" notion. Language can only do so much at expressing an idea in communication; however, language is entirely subjective, and what means "God" to me may not mean "God" to you and viceversa, which is why establishing what kind of God we are thinking before entering a debate is a good idea instead of defining things in a very subjective idea perhaps both of us are thinking of a different thing but giving it the same word-meaning.

[Ashmoria]

then the problem lies with your trying to define god instead of with god.

What the fuck does that incoherent mess even mean?

it means that you cant set up a bunch of definitions that god has to meet, decide he doesn't meet them and conclude that god doesn't exist.