CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

Why would you challenge it when it's an argument in favour of the existence of God and against atheism?

First off - I said many, not Aristotle. Notice how there are no quotation marks. This is a summary of his argument, "many" is required because if the word "all" is used that implies that there is no first cause.

"And he is not so great now, because he is using presumption to assume all things were set in motion by something else."

Yes, all things are - with the exception of God. If you know of something that exists independently aside from God, let's hear about it.

I think you completely missed the point.

This is a foundational pillar of many Christian philosophies, read Aquinas if you're interested...

Not proof, strong evidence. There is no double standard, I appealed to evidence of the process of pyramid building. If we had it your way then 'trees/fruit/ourselves exist, therefore gods exist' it would be like saying 'Pyramids exist, therefore Ancient Egyptians did it', missing the middle step of tying the ancient egyptians to the process of pyramid building. Do you see why this is not a double standard?

The difference between the evidence for source of cars and existance, is the evidence I accept for car manufacture can pass a test of reliability (demonstration of the process that others can collaborate and produce). Arguments from ignorance are not good enough and testimony is the weakest there is, especially for supernatural claims that witnesses can't produce evidence beyond their promises, you wouldn't accept a belief in fairies based on that, and neither would the courts.

Thankfully, I don't have to convince someone who resorts to ad-hominims and strawmans, for me to produce arguments that other people may think 'yeah, that makes sense' for a sense of progress in this topic.

Oh I get you, so you don't believe anything then. That is it huh? You don't believe there is a standard for good nor a standard for bad. OKAY! Let's do it your way. Let's see the end of your way.

Let me speak like a fool again:

''OKAY! everything goes!! There is no law, there is no judgement, we can do whatever. Right? Free-spirit right? Okay. This applies to you. So I can take kill whomever I want, right? Alright, I choose you. Now, is there no good and no bad? What about this, get married, and I will take your wife. No good or no bad? Take your girlfriend, no good and no bad? I take everything you have and keep it, and beat you down for it, and no law will judge me. Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in judges, they don't exist. And will this make me free from judgement? PFFT! Get real. If you don't want justice you don't want mercy, so I am speaking to you as merciless. If you think that people can do whatever and get away with it then you are just silly. The law will judge you then. And no idea will save you. You are at the mercy of wicked people. NO GOD??? My friend you have made yourself your God, and you worship yourself. Come again.''

Now see, we can all be foolish. Yet no one has yet seen a world without God. You think it is chaos now??? Think again. You think you have seen evil now? Think again. Get real! COME BACK AT ME!

So did you actually think you were going to accomplish anything with this thread other than sparking a bunch of pointless stupid arguments that no one needs?

It sounds like you moved away from the 'existance is proof of god argument', was it not holding up?

Ha. More than existence proves God my friend. You are even proof of God. Proof that you need him. Your forecasters can forecast rain and storms, and even then they are off. But neither of them can give you rain or storms. The very fact that you are breathing proves God. And when that breathe is fading, or gone, you will know.

Yet, you are unsure, so at the beginning, your case is fallen. You can't even make a declaration about anything concerning God or no God, because you are unsure, which says, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. So what is not holding up then? Come again.

I see a man trying to prove God with his own knowledge. Off.

So you believe evidence of the process between an object and its cause is not necessary to determine the cause?

My claim is that there is no justification for believing in God(s).
I'm not claiming there is no God, but that a lack of evidence is justification for not believing there is one.
My next door neighbour may or may not have a chicken, but I shouldn't believe they have one until there is evidence.

I will move on to your morality question tomorrow, night time here
Night-all

Ramon your arguments are jumbled. The natural forces control the rain, not a guy in in the sky. You have provided no evidence that a supernatural enity "god" exist. Most everything humans have observed so far have yeilded to natural explanations. The few that have not may soon have natural explanations. We have learned more in the last ten years about the universe than we learned in the last hundred. And I certainly hope that this progress continues. If everyone followed your mindset there would be no progress in understanding how the universe works. Every question would be answered with "god did it" so no further inquiry would be needed. So disesases like Polio wound not be eradicated. And no advances in technology because electronics couldn't take advantage of the randomness of the subatomic to allow cell phones to work. (there can't be anything random in the universe if a deity has to control it)
The strange thing is the universe does have randomness in it and electronic companies have figured ways of taking advantage of that randomness to make cell phones work with out having to get down on their knees and praying before making a call. Also that randomness has helped us figure out how old the universe is with a margin of error that keeps getting smaller every few years due the hard work of people that don't say that " an old book says it is 6000 years old so that's good enough for me". The god squad need better data and better evidence and better arguments.

there are things more important than the god debate i mean you can be a good christian and serve your god first before you do anything else which means stay on this thread and defending him until the thread ends or close dont do anything else or you will be going against your own rules. or you can do what some athesists d, ignore this and look at this thread and support it http://christianchat.com/christian-young-adults-forum/24110-saudi-change-supportance.html

come on look at yourselfs why give this stupid question the time and place when there are better things to debate and do, im all for a little debate weather it be noahs ark gods moral old testioment but come on the question of "is god real or not and state why" its old and pointless and goes no where there is not 100%proof that god doesnt exsist and vice versa.

so ignore ramon all we doing is wasting space

And what are you trying to do with your argument from design?

You seek to prove or at least provide evidence for the existence of God through human observation, knowledge and experience in dealing with natural objects that are purported to be intelligently designed.

Essentially using Paley's argument, you say: "It doesn't take an astronaut to assume, that when i see a house, which we know is designed by the intricate detail, I say 'DESIGNED' that an intelligent being made it. Your scientists also presume as much when they see such carvings into stone."

You claim that by observing nature we can prove the existence of an intelligent designer. You are a man attempting to prove God with your own knowledge.


Your argument:
1. Through examining the natural world, we can see that there is evidence of design.
2. Evidence of design indicates a designer.
3. God, a designer, created the natural world.

My argument:
1. Through examining the natural world, we can see that there are cause and effect relationships.
2. Through refuting the possibility of an infinite cycle, this implies that there is a "first cause".
3. God, or that which did not require a cause/creation, is the first cause.

How is my argument based on man's knowledge and yours not?

Okay, so this is our first real challenger. You are a natural man huh? Okay then, lets be natural. What have men done to overcome death? Explain. Go ahead. Can you do that? Go ahead name some scientist or some philosopher that can do this. As sure as you have breathe in your body, it will leave. Still here? Go ahead, explain life and death. You know so much right? You say there is no God, but I need proof of it. But I can give you proof. But you don't want it. Because only a person who has all knowledge can say there is no God, yet that person hardly has knowledge. A child can see clearer than you irrational people. YES! IRRATIONAL.

We have evidence but you don't. As your friend said, that they have things that are, ''strong evidence.'' And go around teaching the Egyptians build pyramids. Now, according to you, why should I believe that? It is just silly this stuff you all make up to disprove God. Haha. As I said, according to you, evidence of an intelligent maker is not in the evidence. If you see a car but not the maker of the care you would rather say, ''PROVE IT.'' Or, ''SHOW ME THE MAKER THEN I WILL BELIEVE.'' But when we say, okay, do this, go there and when you get there you will find him.

Then you say, ''We will not look for him because he doesn't exist. But we are sure, because we have seen. And by the way not everything called god is God. Please.

So you believe in God then? How are you an atheist? Yet am I trying to prove God? I am saying he proves himself. And the thing is, many people have met him but didn't like what he stood for, which is Loving one another, because they are too prideful. So this is where you get different FALSE gods. And I will not be quiet to say, that some people whom the world presumes to be good people are not good at all. Some people that would be considered holy by men (which I doubt because even some Atheist can see the hypocrisy) are not at all holy with God. So I am not defending the existence of gods, but of the one true God. Who not only keeps his evidence hidden, but HE PROMISES THAT YOU WILL FIND HIM IF YOU SEEK HIM. A PROMISE!! HE WILL ACTUALLY MEET YOU. Are you afraid then? Afraid you might be wrong? And if I am right, what does that say then? Go figure.

Hold on.

I think we may be agreeing but simply misunderstanding :S

Let me clear this up: I am not an atheist.

Thing is, in this particular thread I am not defending that which we refer to as the one true God, as the original post was about the idea of "god" in general, not specifically Jesus and Christianity.

The argument I presented was for the existence of any god - which gods are true and which ones are false isn't what the thread deals with (it's a separate topic, probably one that belongs in the Bible Discussion forum...). Obviously then the problem with the argument is that it could be used as evidence for any religion, not just Christianity. But that's not really relevant here.

Come on man, really? You ask me if I believe that evidence of the process between an object and its cause is not necessary to determine the cause. I see this, very intelligent question. Or is it?

I will tell you how it works. When you were born what did you know? How smart were you? What beliefs did you have? Then you looked at the sky one day and said, ''blue.'' Or maybe you were smarter than other babies and said, ''oh no mama and papa, the sky is not blue, it is just that the blue color of the color spectrum have shorter wave lengths.... Yeah right get a clue.

So, what do you know my friend. Before you read that book you might have thought you had it right. Maybe you considered a certain scientist wrong, but then changed over to believe one because the evidence of the other was more compelling. So, all you believe is a temporary fact, but you don't know ANYTHING about truth.

So for instance (I will appeal to your logic if it be logic you use and not bias) three men go into a far county and they come back to you and give you their report. One man says, in this country, animals. The other says, ''NO NO NO, in this country Animals rule over people.'' And the other says, ''YOU BOTH ARE WRONG, neither rule over each other, but the King rules over all of them.''

So, you have three possible liars. And now you say, okay, I want proof of which is right, and which are lying. Yet, in this case, one is telling the truth. How will you know then? How will you know the truth? Now, use your brain now. You have options. You can go to that far country by yourself, and witness it. But which one would tell you to go? The liars or the one who was telling the truth? And what if you get to that far country and you see the truth and you come back and tell others? Do you think they would believe you just because they respect you or something. PFFT. Most of the time the liars get the respect and the people who tell the truth get dogged.

Someone is telling the truth, but as Jesus said, a good tree doesn't bring up rotten fruit. And a bad tree doesn't produce good fruit. And also, God himself PROMISES! IF YOU SEEK YOU (((WILL))) FIND. Will you seek? Or will you keep believing words of men who have no unlimited knowledge? Get real.

This thread is for anyone who has any case against God. There is only one God, people create their own gods when they don't agree with the true God. You defend the idea of many gods, I defend the Truth of God. And that he is the only living God, and that if someone wants to try him they can, but they will only find him. But I think some are just afraid of it really. They are afraid to be wrong, but they needn't be because he is also merciful.

Anyhow. If you would defend the existence of many gods, then you don't indeed believe in God, because he does not share his Lordship with idols. Furthermore, religions come about by people who know the Truth but don't want any of it. This is how I can spot the liars. They only tell conditional truth, which is not truth if it is conditional. But go ahead, judge the one True God. See if he isn't good.

*sigh* You're still on the ranting attack?

You just used the argument from design. That can be used for a wide variety of deities. You seem to accuse me of being a liar for using arguments that could apply to different conceptions of god, yet you do exactly the same thing yourself.

You see, your argument from design could apply to Jehova, but it could also apply to the deity of any other religion. Providing evidence for the True God as opposed to false gods requires the development of further discourse.

I was operating under the pretense that this thread is about theism vs. atheism in general. I would defend arguments in favour of the existence of God against atheism on this thread, while the topic of which god is true.

The argument I proposed (as well as yours) defends the existence of a god, not Christianity in particular. They're both very general principles that don't hold any theological pretenses. However, if you go deeper there can only be one true belief - that is a fact that can be ascertained through critical reasoning.

I simply think the confines of this particular debate doesn't deal with this issue. Theism vs. atheism is about the existence of god, not his characteristics or revelations. I do not defend polytheism, I just think it's a different topic that should be dealt with on a separate thread (unless you, as the original poster, would see fit to narrow the topic to Christianity vs. atheism).

Just to make myself once again perfectly clear: there can only be one true belief, and I think that belief in Jesus is the correct one.

My case for God is simple, and not so much my case as his case. 2 things. We are a live. We will die. And NO man with his ideas can persuade me of anything else. WHICH ONE OF YOU WANTS TO TRY!!!!

And I was worse than most of these Atheists in here, so don't try and pose. Lets be honest then. Let's stop trying to take personal issues and go against Christians when the issue is against God. People want to blame God or Christians for their issues but won't see their own hearts. I have an issue with that. Some Atheists are weak, and some Christians are weak, true.

I cared for neither Atheists nor Christians. I only cared to know the truth. And I went to church for 23 years and had no idea of the Truth. Because man churches preach a God that is unreachable. Lie. And Atheists wouldn't believe in wind if they didn't feel it. Silly. So I searched apart from preconceived ideas of man about God. And as sure as it was written, you will find. So now, who am I to believe? Ignorant men or God himself? PFFT.

Yes, plain ignorance. First they would do away with God, then they would do away with justice, and then sooner rather than later people do whatever they like, and call that freedom. YEAH RIGHT!!!! Get real. Would you like it if I were free to kill you? Freedom right? No good and bad right? No Justice right? Well now, who is the fool?

It is a simple case, anyone who seeks finds. PERIOD.

This is what we were both saying earlier in the thread. Have you read my signature?