-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
It does if you're making the positive assertion that there is no God...which is what you're doing. If you say you have seen no evidence or say honestly that you cannot prove it one way or the other (taking the agnostic position) then you're in the spot that you think you're in. However, if you claim with certainty that there is no God (or claim with certainty that there is) then yes, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim.
Who observed the big bang and all of human evolution? Exactly nobody. They are theories where the proof is in the reasoned explanation. Does the explanation make sense? Yes or no?
If yes, then great. It's not proof, but it's a reasonable assumption based on other reasonable assumptions, building upon other reasonable assumptions and perhaps even some known elements.
If no, then why doesn't it make sense? What are the explanations missing and what are the alternatives? Do the alternative explanations make sense? Yes or no?
You see where I'm going. Someone can say, "I know in my heart there is a God." Or they can say, "I know in my heart that human beings came to be exclusively through random chance and the evolutionary process."
Neither has proof, but both have reasonable assumptions.
No criticism here, just putting you through the peer-review process, so to speak. If your methodology is sound then there is nothing to criticize.
Who observed the big bang and all of human evolution? Exactly nobody. They are theories where the proof is in the reasoned explanation. Does the explanation make sense? Yes or no?
If yes, then great. It's not proof, but it's a reasonable assumption based on other reasonable assumptions, building upon other reasonable assumptions and perhaps even some known elements.
If no, then why doesn't it make sense? What are the explanations missing and what are the alternatives? Do the alternative explanations make sense? Yes or no?
You see where I'm going. Someone can say, "I know in my heart there is a God." Or they can say, "I know in my heart that human beings came to be exclusively through random chance and the evolutionary process."
Neither has proof, but both have reasonable assumptions.
No criticism here, just putting you through the peer-review process, so to speak. If your methodology is sound then there is nothing to criticize.
L
It does if you're making the positive assertion that there is no God...which is what you're doing. If you say you have seen no evidence or say honestly that you cannot prove it one way or the other (taking the agnostic position) then you're in the spot that you think you're in. However, if you claim with certainty that there is no God (or claim with certainty that there is) then yes, the burden of proof is on the person making that claim.
True. and that's why i'd happily admit there is a God if i had proof... however i'm at a loss as to what form this would come in... so for the sake of argument i say that there isn't a God... in actuality i'm agnostic but 99.9999...% atheist... etc
Who observed the big bang and all of human evolution? Exactly nobody. They are theories where the proof is in the reasoned explanation. Does the explanation make sense? Yes or no?
THere is observable evidence for both of those two examples.. Big Bang.. look through a telescope and see the universe expand from a central point...
evolution has a ridiculous amount of evidence.. in our lifetimes we observe animals adapt and diversify... all the many pure-bred species of dogs for example..
Christianity is a FAITH. and should be regarded as such... it is a leap of FAITH to believe in God.. put your trust in God etc....
and yes i see the systematic point you're making... which is great... and like i said before probably done with all the best intentions from saving me from hell fire and so on... i'm not ignorant to the teachings of the Bible or anything.. this isn't new stuff to me... i've been to a multitude of different churches many times... i've seriously considered the 'God Question'.. but i don't credit God as an 'explanation'... it's simply too overwhelmed in the face of science..
True. and that's why i'd happily admit there is a God if i had proof... however i'm at a loss as to what form this would come in... so for the sake of argument i say that there isn't a God... in actuality i'm agnostic but 99.9999...% atheist... etc
Who observed the big bang and all of human evolution? Exactly nobody. They are theories where the proof is in the reasoned explanation. Does the explanation make sense? Yes or no?
THere is observable evidence for both of those two examples.. Big Bang.. look through a telescope and see the universe expand from a central point...
evolution has a ridiculous amount of evidence.. in our lifetimes we observe animals adapt and diversify... all the many pure-bred species of dogs for example..
Christianity is a FAITH. and should be regarded as such... it is a leap of FAITH to believe in God.. put your trust in God etc....
and yes i see the systematic point you're making... which is great... and like i said before probably done with all the best intentions from saving me from hell fire and so on... i'm not ignorant to the teachings of the Bible or anything.. this isn't new stuff to me... i've been to a multitude of different churches many times... i've seriously considered the 'God Question'.. but i don't credit God as an 'explanation'... it's simply too overwhelmed in the face of science..
R
It is a leap of faith to take the evidence that evolutionary scientists have put forward and proclaim with certainty that no God was involved in the process. It is odd to think that the two things are directly related at all, either as proof of an intelligent creator God or proof against there being a God at all. That's not what scientists are setting out to prove and it's not like they 'accidentally' proved it in the process.
To be honest with you, I haven't taken a special interest in your soul. I just personally think that if we are going to claim to be rational, reasoned people who require conclusive evidence before establishing beliefs about things, then we should actually be those people. Your decision to deny a deity is not really so different than my decision to believe in one, from a brain function stand point. They were choices we made based on the limited evidence available, run through a filter of 'what we would like to believe.' We are both guilty of narrative fallacies, but just because there are logical holes and unknowns doesn't mean the beliefs lack merit.
If you choose not to believe in God, then that is entirely your decision. But please don't pretend it is because you have some kind of superior intelligence. That sort of arrogance could prevent you from gleaning anything worthwhile and actually applicable to your life while you spend time exploring religious forums. The Bible speaks to everyone because it is for humans and about humans. Even if you don't believe there is a God, many of the truths contained within the Bible are totally undeniable and they echo out across time for that very reason. You do not have to be a member of any club to read it and get something out of it, and you should give credit to people who live their lives by it.
Just my two cents.
To be honest with you, I haven't taken a special interest in your soul. I just personally think that if we are going to claim to be rational, reasoned people who require conclusive evidence before establishing beliefs about things, then we should actually be those people. Your decision to deny a deity is not really so different than my decision to believe in one, from a brain function stand point. They were choices we made based on the limited evidence available, run through a filter of 'what we would like to believe.' We are both guilty of narrative fallacies, but just because there are logical holes and unknowns doesn't mean the beliefs lack merit.
If you choose not to believe in God, then that is entirely your decision. But please don't pretend it is because you have some kind of superior intelligence. That sort of arrogance could prevent you from gleaning anything worthwhile and actually applicable to your life while you spend time exploring religious forums. The Bible speaks to everyone because it is for humans and about humans. Even if you don't believe there is a God, many of the truths contained within the Bible are totally undeniable and they echo out across time for that very reason. You do not have to be a member of any club to read it and get something out of it, and you should give credit to people who live their lives by it.
Just my two cents.
C
How can you get selfish out of atheist based phelosophies? most of the ''atheist'' phelosophies are'nt intended to dis proove a god at all. one of the most famous arguments between atheists and religious is that ''atheists cant prove that there IS"NT a god'' and that atheists cant tell you how we all got here in the first place'' im talking about day one of chorse, or the big bang theory...well first things first, you can't PROVE that somthing DOSN'T EXIST, you can only try to prove that somthing "DOSE" exist and come up with an answer from there. therefour, if you want to have a hypothesis chalenged, you have to come out with some ammo of your own, downt just put a story out of you but, or from an achent book of fary tails. therfour it crazy someone pushing their own argument about their OWN god and trying to tell us to prove to them that god dosnt exit, in turn they should be trying to prove to atheists that god DOSE exisit...i think during the period of our evolution when we were capable to think deep enuff into our own spirituality, we had the very strong reolisation the one day every human, pant, and animan is going to die, and as always the human mind will try to grasp this and many other scary thoughts with faulse assuptions that maby thier is an after life to cope with the one curse every human has, and that the fact we know we are going to die....well kids,,, that my thought on how every god and after life based religioun wes created...any questions?
B
It is argued that what you say isn't true at all
"Nothing" is unstable.
The laws of quantum mechanics and combined with gravity will tell you if you have empty space and you wait long enough, particles will be created and if you wait long enough empty space will allways produce a universe full of matter.
"Nothing" is unstable.
The laws of quantum mechanics and combined with gravity will tell you if you have empty space and you wait long enough, particles will be created and if you wait long enough empty space will allways produce a universe full of matter.
B
StMichaelTheArchangel atleast implied it on the first page of this thread
M
Alternatively, heh, a little bemused that such a tired, weak argument was repeated so casually. It's wrong, and obviously wrong, on a couple of counts.
First, there are a number of religions in which there are no gods in the Christian sense. For example, Buddhists do not believe that the mechanics of karma were created by any being. In fact, any gods in Buddhist thought are subject to the workings of karma and can be cast down to lesser states if they don't adhere to them carefully enough. Buddhists, who are to varying degrees atheists, nevertheless manage to usually behave.
Second, we can observe that many atheists are no different in the practice of ethics than those who believe in a god. We can of course point out baddies on either side of the debate, but this is not the point I'm trying to make. If a single atheist's actions are not discernibly different from a theist's, then we must conclude there are other ways to come up with a functional moral code.
In fact, I think it's worthwhile to look at the claim that the average theist derived his moral code directly from a deity. I submit that, even if the Christian God had handed down an unambiguous list of do's and do not's, it's clear that not all eventualities were discussed in revelation. Throughout history, Christians have had to wrestle with their decisions precisely because they don't know exactly what God wants in that case. They've had to use the same tools everyone else has (unless they've received private revelation).
Finally, arguing that the Christian morality is objective because it came directly from God seems to ignore the Christian understanding of human nature. Even if a complete and perfect morality had been perfectly revealed, what makes them think they've understood it perfectly? Seems to assume a certain level of objectivity on the part of the person that isn't at all evident.
First, there are a number of religions in which there are no gods in the Christian sense. For example, Buddhists do not believe that the mechanics of karma were created by any being. In fact, any gods in Buddhist thought are subject to the workings of karma and can be cast down to lesser states if they don't adhere to them carefully enough. Buddhists, who are to varying degrees atheists, nevertheless manage to usually behave.
Second, we can observe that many atheists are no different in the practice of ethics than those who believe in a god. We can of course point out baddies on either side of the debate, but this is not the point I'm trying to make. If a single atheist's actions are not discernibly different from a theist's, then we must conclude there are other ways to come up with a functional moral code.
In fact, I think it's worthwhile to look at the claim that the average theist derived his moral code directly from a deity. I submit that, even if the Christian God had handed down an unambiguous list of do's and do not's, it's clear that not all eventualities were discussed in revelation. Throughout history, Christians have had to wrestle with their decisions precisely because they don't know exactly what God wants in that case. They've had to use the same tools everyone else has (unless they've received private revelation).
Finally, arguing that the Christian morality is objective because it came directly from God seems to ignore the Christian understanding of human nature. Even if a complete and perfect morality had been perfectly revealed, what makes them think they've understood it perfectly? Seems to assume a certain level of objectivity on the part of the person that isn't at all evident.
Exactly. Furthermore, if one still wishes that atheists don't have an objective morality because they don't believe in any religious doctrines or deities, is it not the theist that lacks morality. Think about it. If you are arguing that the only reason you are good is because your deity has provided you with a code of morality, are you not confusing morality with obedience and submission to power? If an atheist were to provide food for a homeless man, he would not be doing it to follow a code, or to impress a deity, or because a fear of hell; a truly moral act, as he or she expects absolutely nothing in return. If a theist were to do the same act of kindness, it would be either1) your deity/ religious doctrine told you to do it. 2) you want to increase your chances of being prosperous in the afterlife, both of which are either selfish by nature or are resulted from strict obedience to power.
Obedience to power is not morality and vice versa.
Obedience to power is not morality and vice versa.
K
i don't mean any agressivity in the following message: if murderers can get into eaven by repenting, can't athiests? there's nothing wrong with not believing in god, i'm not even sure i do. you can't curse others for thinking differntly than you. i choose to believe in existentialism, and that's my choice. no one has the right to condemn me for it. and you don't have the right to say atheism and/or existentialism is wrong. it's not wrong, it's just different. as i said, people can choose to believe what they want to beileve, if that makes them happy. ain't no one got the right to tell others what to believe, how to think, and what to feel, or call their beliefs wrong, or use profane language to describe their beliefs. islamic extremists kill others for not believing in what they believe. and that's horribly wrong, as it is wrong that you come out and condemn existentialism (and any other beliefs you may, or may not have said are wrong) i'm not saying your a bad person (and i'm certainly not comparing you to terrorists!), for i know your concern comes from a deep and caring place, otherwise, you wouldn't have it. all i'm saying is that you have to keep an open mind, see things from all persepectives. and don't be so quick to judge. "the kingdom of god it within man, not one man, nor a group of men, but all men". if that is so, shouldn't everyone be accepted by god? if god is within everyone?