The Existence of God

This makes no sense. The first sentence says that you should protect yourself and others before obeying the Church's laws. Then you say that if someone tries to save you, then they should be killed because they broke the laws. Direct contradiction...and show the Bible verse that you are referring to.

 

Taking Biblical text OUT of context and interpreting them incorrectly. Nice.

You can not prove that these texts imply that the world is flat. "Ends of the Earth" does not mean literally to the end/edge of the Earth, but rather the outermost, isolated, etc. part of the Earth. It means to carry the word of God to every part of the world.

It's always annoying to run into arrogant kids like you, who in actuality have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Nice argument.

"You don't believe what I do, therefore you're an idiot."

Has it ever occurred to you that many, many people that believe in God are smarter than you and were more intelligent at the age of 3 then you are now? Seriously, settle down child. You're but a little teenager who stereotypes all American kids as idiots. Nice one!

I was going to debate you, but then I decided it would be best to debate my cat on this subject, seeing as it would be more of a intellectual stimulation than if I chose to debate you. You think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. Argue this subject with the least educated apologist and you will be crushed to the point that your brain will cease to exist.

 

I would just like to make a case - existence of "God" is subject to intellectual debate.

The Bible as the word of God lacks evidence and is much easier to put down. The Bible was written by humans, and even if it calls itself divinely inspired - it takes much arrogance to suggest that a human-made book would be inculpable to flaws.

There are many factual errors that are made because the people who wrote them were in the context of their time. When such errors are pointed out, we are asked to change to a figurative interpretation.

 

More like "You believe something without proof, therefore, you're an idiot"

Do you have anything to say aside from appeals to authority and ad hom arguments?

 

I attend a Christian school, but personally I would classify myself as an Agnostic. There may well be a God, and there might not be. I am not ready to make a decision on the matter.

 

Too vague, "God" can mean different things.

 

I would like to argue this point.

I believe that "God" is a force. An unaware presence that holds the fundemental principals of the universe in order. "God" is what holds subatomic particles together. "God" is why you fall to the earth when you jump. "God" is why the 4 forces of nature exist and why they are as strong/weak as they are. "God" is infinite and eternal, which is why energy cannot be created nor destroyed. "God" is not a spirit that reflects good or bad deeds back upon you throughout your life, but simply, a force. I also believe that the universe is determined. That every event that happens in the universe is casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior events. Which means that the future is determinable, or predictable, through science.

I want to get other peoples thoughts on this and maybe point out some flaws or disagreements that you may have.

 

God is not a being, or a force, or some mystical being in the sky. "God" was invented by churches to get more people to go to their church because more people equals more wealth. The entire idea of God is based off of greed and controlling as many people as possible. I just think its funny how religous people have their heads so far up their asses about God and how real he is that they cant even present any EVIDENCE that he actually does exist. What you need to do is extract your head from your ass, take a step back and look at it from the churches perspective. Church is like a business, all businesses needs money to continue operating and the more people they could either scare or convince to follow their religion meant more money in the Ministers hand.
Thats why Atheism, or not believing in god makes more sense. Besides theres already scientific proof that we evolved from evolved from some type of animal, they just havent found the missing link yet.

 

I would like to back this up by adding the fact that the only people who knew how to read and write during the very begining were the wealthy and priests. Knowledge really does equal power when the weak ones are absolutely uneducated and naive enough to believe in any form of hope they come across.

It is by this method that slaveholders kept control of their slaves (i.e. Kept them from revolting, protesting, etc. Though I know it happened plenty of times.). I'm personally astounded that people don't see the relevance here, and that the incredibly probable solution of Atheism is less believable than Theism.

 

gota say yes why wouldent there be 1?

 

Well for one, there is no empirical evidence of it.

 

Ok... we all realize there's 200+ pages... but just read 5+ and you'll get the gist of the thread.

If you're trolling, just leave. It's not welcome.

 

No one knows the answer to this question, that's why saying that there is or isn't a God is equally stupid.

Just because possible empirical evidence isn't discovered yet doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. For instance, atoms existed before we had evidence for their existence.

 

The question at hand: Do you BELIEVE in God?

That's the debate. Is there rational reason to believe in God? The "Does God Exist" argument has been beating to shits already.

 

Interestingly enough, while you point to the "question at hand," you steer away from that very question with the "is there rational reason to believe in God?" The two questions does God exist? and Do you believe in God? are one and the same, and any logical person can see that. If you argue against that above statement, then I argue you are commiting the Complex Question fallacy. You are leading "dam prayer noobs" and others like him to the conclusion that the idea of an existing God is simply a belief and not a reality.

Furthermore, his statement was valid for both questions if the above explanation is not ample enough. The prevalent argument among the atheist community is "there is no empirical evidence for a God, therefore, there is no God." It is people like you that steer focus away from that question instead of addressing the very argument that weakens the atheist cause.

So for future reference, yes that above argument is a fallacy and yes it does address the "is it rational to believe in God" question. It is called Argumentum ad Ignorantium. For example, it is like someone saying, "Bobby has been sleeping all day...he hasn't opened his eyes once; therefore, he must not have eyes." I believe the proper response to this irrational argument would be admitting that other atheists are wrong in making that argument in the first place. Then the problem is solved, and you can continue on with other topics in which you find are stronger.

(And if for some reason my response for some reason made it appear I was an atheist, I assure you, that is not so ;-))

 

I also am christian and I am 100% sure there is a god.

 

You seem pretty certain. How do you know for sure?

 

Bull Shit.
A lack of empirical evidence does not disprove an existence. A the rejection of a null hypothesis never proves a hypothesis. One who believes in God assumes that He exists. One who doesn't does NOT necessarily assume that the existence of a God is impossible, merely that the best explanation of right now is the universe without one.''

On the other hand, a religious person who makes assertions that the earth is 10,000 years old is leaving his/her religion extremely vulnerable. Science can definitively tell you that "God" did not make the Earth 10,000 years ago.

 

No.


But on a serious note, I guess you have to admit there's something there, to say that this is all one big coincidence is to be ignorant, everything was exactly right, no matter which theory you believe, to form the world. Whether it's the great deity known as "God" that people worship, who knows.