Arguments for the Existance of God [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Arguments for the Existance of God


Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 18:00
Does God Exist? - YouTube

Japle
04-07-2012, 18:32
Another video without a hint of anything an objective person would find convincing.

If it can’t be expressed mathematically, it’s just your opinion.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 18:51
Another video without a hint of anything an objective person would find convincing.

If it can’t be expressed mathematically, it’s just your opinion.

So, you didn't watch it then?

Guss
04-07-2012, 19:38
I made it through the first 11 minutes and didn't see any evidence... only false assumptions. Wikipedia covers it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_God

Animal Mother
04-07-2012, 19:42
So, you didn't watch it then?Which parts of this video, in your mind, provide the most compelling evidence?

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 20:23
Which parts of this video, in your mind, provide the most compelling evidence?

I think all of it makes a sound argument for the Existance of God. It deals with the Teleological, Moral, and logical arguments. Very well thought out, and well done for about 27 minutes of video.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 20:24
I made it through the first 11 minutes and didn't see any evidence... only false assumptions. Wikipedia covers it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_God

So, you didn't get very far at all before giving up and looking at the arguments of Dawkins, etc.

Guss
04-07-2012, 20:33
So, you didn't get very far at all before giving up and looking at the arguments of Dawkins, etc.
Follow the advice of Animal Mother and give us the single best argument and we will start from there. There are a thousand smokescreens that you can put up, so let's not waste time on trivia.

Guss
04-07-2012, 20:35
Thinking of proofs of God, I have noticed that none of the mainstream religions seem to offer a proof of God on their church's main web site. I suspect there is good reason for that.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 20:44
Follow the advice of Animal Mother and give us the single best argument and we will start from there. There are a thousand smokescreens that you can put up, so let's not waste time on trivia.

Frankly, there is no point in discussing material with you that you have not taken the time to view. If you think it is a complete waste of time, then I guess this thread isn't for you.:dunno:

Guss
04-07-2012, 20:56
Frankly, there is no point in discussing material with you that you have not taken the time to view. If you think it is a complete waste of time, then I guess this thread isn't for you.:dunno:
It is a complete waste of time if you can't even pick a best argument. I'm not going to let someone get away with weaseling out of an argument by shifting to another, so I just take them one at a time. Give it your best shot and we'll see if it's even worth going further.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 20:59
It is a complete waste of time if you can't even pick a best argument. I'm not going to let someone get away with weaseling out of an argument by shifting to another, so I just take them one at a time. Give it your best shot and we'll see if it's even worth going further.

There is no argument, if you are not going to argue from the OP. The weaseling is not mine. View the material, and then discuss what you have issues with and we will proceed. Beyond that, we really don't have anything more to discuss, as I mentioned in the previous post.

Do the homework, then come with the argument. It is only reasonable.

427
04-07-2012, 21:01
The guy in the video, Randy Ruggles, is a salesman.
http://www.randyruggles.com
I sat listened to the video as I was cooking, and I'm not buying what he's trying to sell.

Even he admits that "there is some measure of faith involved" @ 3:40.

Guss
04-07-2012, 21:07
There is no argument, if you are not going to argue from the OP. The weaseling is not mine. View the material, and then discuss what you have issues with and we will proceed. Beyond that, we really don't have anything more to discuss, as I mentioned in the previous post.

Do the homework, then come with the argument. It is only reasonable.
Tell me which of his multiple arguments you would like to start with. Give me the starting time on the video so I can make sure we are on the same topic and I have absorbed every word of that particular argument.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 22:35
The guy in the video, Randy Ruggles, is a salesman.
http://www.randyruggles.com
I sat listened to the video as I was cooking, and I'm not buying what he's trying to sell.

Even he admits that "there is some measure of faith involved" @ 3:40.

Just as there must be faith for asserting Atheism. You cannot prove Atheism to be true.

Kingarthurhk
04-07-2012, 22:36
Tell me which of his multiple arguments you would like to start with. Give me the starting time on the video so I can make sure we are on the same topic and I have absorbed every word of that particular argument.

Press play. When it ends, you will have seen all the arguments. The entire video adresses pretty much all of them.

427
04-07-2012, 22:41
Just as there must be faith for asserting Atheism. You cannot prove Atheism to be true.
The video's whole premise revolves on faith. That's hardly a compelling argument.

BTW, isn't the burden of proof on someone who claims that something does, in fact, exist, not the other way around?

Animal Mother
04-07-2012, 22:42
Frankly, there is no point in discussing material with you that you have not taken the time to view. If you think it is a complete waste of time, then I guess this thread isn't for you.:dunno: I've taken the time to view it, and have been through all these arguments in the past, and it's all the same repetitive stuff that's been extensively shown incorrect many times in the past. Including in the link Guss provided.

I will admit it's odd to hear the speaker invoke Occam's razor in defense of an argument for the existence of the supernatural.

Guss
04-07-2012, 22:56
...

I will admit it's odd to hear the speaker invoke Occam's razor in defense of an argument for the existence of the supernatural.
Indeed. Occam argues for simplicity. There is no need to inject a god where it isn't needed.

Guss
04-07-2012, 23:02
Press play. When it ends, you will have seen all the arguments. The entire video adresses pretty much all of them.
If any of those arguments can be shown to be lacking, will it change your faith in God?

Syclone538
04-08-2012, 02:07
Just as there must be faith for asserting Atheism. You cannot prove Atheism to be true.

I have not watched the video.

1. False, rejecting an unsupported assertion does not require faith.

2. We know that and don't try.

Japle
04-08-2012, 08:39
Funny and totally predictable.

Kingarthurhk has two threads running, each of which contains a link to a video he claims proves something about his religion.

When those of us who approach the universe with a more skeptical attitude tell him we don’t see the “proof” he’s apparently seeing, his response is, “Press play”.

It seems that, if we aren’t convinced by what we see, either we’re lying and didn’t actually watch the video or we’re too thick to understand it.

He’s not willing to provide even one example of what he considers “proof”. Could it be because the videos are feel-good, preaching-to-the-choir lectures, meant only for those who’ve already bought into the mythology being presented?

Could it be because there’s no “proof” of anything and he knows that if he tries to give a specific example of “proof” he’ll be unable to support it?

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 09:34
Watched the video.

I will say that at least he tried to be logical in his arguments.

First he tries to define "proof" by using a quote, by, of all things, a psychologist, that "proof only exists in math and logic."* Then he goes on to try to give "logical" arguments for the existence of a supernatural being.

*Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't most science, with the possible exception of psychology:whistling:, based on, or can be reduced to, math and/or logic? At least thats the impression I get from many of the scientists on GT.

Pretty much everything after that is the same old same old.

A bunch of "evidence" that only leads to a supernatural explanation if you believed the supernatural explanation in the first place.:dunno:

ksg0245
04-08-2012, 09:34
Just as there must be faith for asserting Atheism. You cannot prove Atheism to be true.

Wrong.

1: Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

2: Some people disbelieve in the existence of deities

3: Therefore, atheism exists.

Maybe you meant "You cannot prove a particular deity doesn't exist."

ImpeachObama
04-08-2012, 10:23
Follow the advice of Animal Mother and give us the single best argument and we will start from there. There are a thousand smokescreens that you can put up, so let's not waste time on trivia.

Jews and rainbows.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:01
I've taken the time to view it, and have been through all these arguments in the past, and it's all the same repetitive stuff that's been extensively shown incorrect many times in the past. Including in the link Guss provided.

I will admit it's odd to hear the speaker invoke Occam's razor in defense of an argument for the existence of the supernatural.

Occam's Razor makes sense within the context, because it eliminates the issue of multiple gods as opposed to God.

Well, now that you have seen these extensive agruments, and observed the material, please adress the issues that you feel are incorrect, and we'll have friendly debate.

RC-RAMIE
04-08-2012, 11:02
Its Easter wouldn't have Easter without Jesus so Easter proves Jesus is real.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:04
Watched the video.

I will say that at least he tried to be logical in his arguments.

First he tries to define "proof" by using a quote, by, of all things, a psychologist, that "proof only exists in math and logic."* Then he goes on to try to give "logical" arguments for the existence of a supernatural being.

*Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't most science, with the possible exception of psychology:whistling:, based on, or can be reduced to, math and/or logic? At least thats the impression I get from many of the scientists on GT.

Pretty much everything after that is the same old same old.

A bunch of "evidence" that only leads to a supernatural explanation if you believed the supernatural explanation in the first place.:dunno:

Thank you for taking the time to review the material. I think that it made a profound and logical argument for the divine. But, you are correct, if you are inclined by predisposition to reject the divine no matter what is presented, then it is pretty much an irrelevant.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:06
Its Easter wouldn't have Easter without Jesus so Easter proves Jesus is real.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Well, that would be circular logic, and also flawed as Easter comes from the word Ishtar, an early mideastern goddess. Easter really has nothing to do with Jesus.

But, if you would like to explore the concept of Jesus as an actual historical figure, I would be happy to address that in another thread altogether.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:09
The video's whole premise revolves on faith. That's hardly a compelling argument.

BTW, isn't the burden of proof on someone who claims that something does, in fact, exist, not the other way around?


I would say the person asserting any premise to be true has the burden to evidence, that includes Atheism.

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 11:39
Thank you for taking the time to review the material. I think that it made a profound and logical argument for the divine. But, you are correct, if you are inclined by predisposition to reject the divine no matter what is presented, then it is pretty much an irrelevant.

But aren't you trying to influence those who are " inclined by predisposition to reject the divine"?

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:41
But aren't you trying to influence those who are " inclined by predisposition to reject the divine"?

Only in an attempt to be altruistic.

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 11:41
I would say the person asserting any premise to be true has the burden to evidence, that includes Atheism.

Again, Atheism doesn't assert anything. It just rejects an unsupported assertion.

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 11:43
Only in an attempt to be altruistic.

But your still presenting arguments, that even the author admits require faith, to those without that faith.

Kind of a losing battle.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:43
Again, Atheism doesn't assert anything. It just rejects an unsupported assertion.

Atheism does assert that there is no God. That is an unsupported position. Therefore, if you assert that position, the burdern is on you to prove your position is correct.

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 11:53
Atheism does assert that there is no God. That is an unsupported position. Therefore, if you assert that position, the burdern is on you to prove your position is correct.


You: Hey, there's an invisible man over there.

Me: How do you know he's there?

You: Because I believe he's there.

Me: Well, I cant see him, so I dont believe he's there.

You: Prove he's not there. If you cant prove he's not there then by default, he's there.

Make sense? Not to me.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 11:57
You: Hey, there's an invisible man over there.

Me: How do you know he's there?

You: Because I believe he's there.

Me: Well, I cant see him, so I dont believe he's there.

You: Prove he's not there. If you cant prove he's not there then by default, he's there.

Make sense? Not to me.

Well, if you wish to be blunt:

Me: Look at the Cosmological, teleogical, logical, and moral existance for God.

You: Nuh-uh! There is no God.

I have put my cards on the table to assert there is a God.

Now, it is time for you to put your cards on the table to assert there is no God.

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 12:01
Well, if you wish to be blunt:

Me: Look at the Cosmological, teleogical, logical, and moral existance for God.

You: Nuh-uh! There is no God.

I have put my cards on the table to assert there is a God.

Now, it is time for you to put your cards on the table to assert there is no God.

Again, Atheism doesn't assert anything. It just rejects an unsupported assertion.
:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 13:26
:supergrin:

Atheism is an unsupported position. In order to assert that your position is valid, you need to provide a supporiting argument or evidence of your own. Frankly, Atheism cannot do either. Therefore, it is as much a faith statement as Theism.

Japle
04-08-2012, 13:53
Since Kingarthurhk knows there’s no “proof” of anything in the OP video and he knows that if he tries to give a specific example of “proof” he’ll be unable to support it, he’s now deflecting by changing the argument to one about whether Atheists need to prove there are no gods.

That’s been argued before. Let’s go back to the OP.

What, specifically, is there in the video that you consider a valid argument for the existence of your god?

Give us one example. Come on, be a sport.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 14:28
Since Kingarthurhk knows there’s no “proof” of anything in the OP video and he knows that if he tries to give a specific example of “proof” he’ll be unable to support it, he’s now deflecting by changing the argument to one about whether Atheists need to prove there are no gods.

That’s been argued before. Let’s go back to the OP.

What, specifically, is there in the video that you consider a valid argument for the existence of your god?

Give us one example. Come on, be a sport.

No. We've yet to discuss the fine points of the video. Please do so, then we'll have something to discuss.

My question to you, is which of the arguments presented in the videio do you contend with?

Lone Wolf8634
04-08-2012, 14:37
Atheism is an unsupported position. In order to assert that your position is valid, you need to provide a supporiting argument or evidence of your own. Frankly, Atheism cannot do either. Therefore, it is as much a faith statement as Theism.

So you choose to ignore what I said I believe:

Again, Atheism doesn't assert anything. It just rejects an unsupported assertion.

And tell me what it is that I believe:

Atheism does assert that there is no God. That is an unsupported position. Therefore, if you assert that position, the burdern is on you to prove your position is correct.

That dog won't hunt.

I'm not "asserting" there is no God. Because I cant prove that. And before you celebrate a premature victory, I cant prove there is no Easter Bunny either.

Your logic falls short, I make NO assertions that I must support.

muscogee
04-08-2012, 15:05
Well, that would be circular logic, and also flawed as Easter comes from the word Ishtar, an early mideastern goddess. Easter really has nothing to do with Jesus.

But, if you would like to explore the concept of Jesus as an actual historical figure, I would be happy to address that in another thread altogether.

You can't prove Ishtar isn't God.

ksg0245
04-08-2012, 15:25
Atheism is an unsupported position. In order to assert that your position is valid, you need to provide a supporiting argument or evidence of your own. Frankly, Atheism cannot do either. Therefore, it is as much a faith statement as Theism.

Why don't you believe atheists when they tell you what their position is?

Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion; it is "disbelief in deities." That's all it is. The position of atheists is that deities haven't been demonstrated to exist. It doesn't take any sort of faith to say, "You haven't convinced me."

ksg0245
04-08-2012, 15:32
Atheism does assert that there is no God. That is an unsupported position. Therefore, if you assert that position, the burdern is on you to prove your position is correct.

Why do you ignore the definition of atheism I provided in post 24? (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18816949&postcount=24)

Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

It's not like I just made it up to support an untenable argument. Where in that definition is any assertion regarding deities?

Why do you ignore all the atheists who plainly and clearly tell you what their position is?

ksg0245
04-08-2012, 15:34
I would say the person asserting any premise to be true has the burden to evidence, that includes Atheism.

Great. You assert your deity exists; present the objective, verifiable evidence.

ksg0245
04-08-2012, 15:35
No. We've yet to discuss the fine points of the video. Please do so, then we'll have something to discuss.

My question to you, is which of the arguments presented in the videio do you contend with?

What prevents you identifying the single most convincing argument from that video?

Japle
04-08-2012, 16:01
Posted by Kingarthurhk:
My question to you, is which of the arguments presented in the videio (sp) do you contend with?
There's nothing in the video I'd consider a viable argument. Nothing at all.

As ksg0245 asked, what prevents you identifying the single most convincing argument from that video?

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 18:12
You can't prove Ishtar isn't God.

I refer back to the Okham's Razor agrument regarding deities. Eliminating uncessary deities to point toward a singular Diety would make more sense. Ishtar was part of a pantheon of gods and goddesses, so here would be a good application of Okham's Razor.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 18:12
There's nothing in the video I'd consider a viable argument. Nothing at all.

As ksg0245 asked, what prevents you identifying the single most convincing argument from that video?

Well, pick one of the arguments you find most disagreable and let's reason together rearding that agrument.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 18:13
What prevents you identifying the single most convincing argument from that video?

Because, I find all the arguments to be interesting and valid in their application. My question to you, is which one do you find most objectionable? Let's analyze that one in particular.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 18:17
Why don't you believe atheists when they tell you what their position is?

Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion; it is "disbelief in deities." That's all it is. The position of atheists is that deities haven't been demonstrated to exist. It doesn't take any sort of faith to say, "You haven't convinced me."

Why don't you accept Theism carte blanch? Because, I also have a reasoning mind, and don't accept anything merely on the concept of blind faith.

You have yet to present a cogent agrument to present any evidence to support your position of Atheism. You are telling me that Atheism is a constant and an absolute. Yet, you provide no evidence to support that position.

Therefore, why would any reasoning person accept such a position?

Animal Mother
04-08-2012, 18:57
Occam's Razor makes sense within the context, because it eliminates the issue of multiple gods as opposed to God. No, it doesn't. One God doesn't provide a simpler explanation that multiple gods and neither version is simpler than an explanation that doesn't require invoking the supernatural.
Well, now that you have seen these extensive agruments, and observed the material, please adress the issues that you feel are incorrect, and we'll have friendly debate.The most objectionable? They're all absurd, but the teleological argument is the one I find most objectionable personally because it is entirely based on a position of personal incredulity, rather than any actual evidence. It's also the one that seems to find most favor among creationists.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 19:05
No, it doesn't. One God doesn't provide a simpler explanation that multiple gods and neither version is simpler than an explanation that doesn't require invoking the supernatural.
The most objectionable? They're all absurd, but the teleological argument is the one I find most objectionable personally because it is entirely based on a position of personal incredulity, rather than any actual evidence. It's also the one that seems to find most favor among creationists.

Well, that is interesting, as the speaker tends to support the concept of redshift and an expanding Universe. As a recall, this is also a position that you support. I simply argue that there is a cause to the effect, and you argue there is no cause. An reaction without causation would seem to be unscientific in its approach.

Animal Mother
04-08-2012, 20:01
Well, that is interesting, as the speaker tends to support the concept of redshift and an expanding Universe. As a recall, this is also a position that you support. I simply argue that there is a cause to the effect, and you argue there is no cause. An reaction without causation would seem to be unscientific in its approach.I do support the position that the universe is expanding, because it is. That in no way implies a designer, and in the video is invoked as a component of the cosmological argument, not the teleological. Do you want to discus one argument at a time or do you intend to hop back and forth between them?

Redshift is evidence in support of the standard model, or Big Bang Theory, not of a designer.

Kingarthurhk
04-08-2012, 20:22
I do support the position that the universe is expanding, because it is. That in no way implies a designer, and in the video is invoked as a component of the cosmological argument, not the teleological. Do you want to discus one argument at a time or do you intend to hop back and forth between them?

Redshift is evidence in support of the standard model, or Big Bang Theory, not of a designer.

I am perfectly willing to dicuss them one element at a time, that would seem the most orderly way of doing so.

As to a designer, scripture speaks of not only this, long before it was "discovered".

Isaiah 42:5, "<sup>5</sup> This is what God the LORD says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:"

Zechariah 12:1, " A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel.
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:"

Job 9:8-19, "He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
<sup id="en-NIV-13061" class="versenum">9</sup> He is the Maker of the Bear<sup class="footnote" value='[a (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-13061a)]'>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-13061a)]</sup> and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south."

So, once again, you are evoking an effect without a cause, which is not a scientific principal. Moreover, how do you explain these ancient texts that describe this red shift effect long before it was "discovered"?

Animal Mother
04-08-2012, 22:00
I am perfectly willing to dicuss them one element at a time, that would seem the most orderly way of doing so. But are we discussing the teleological or the cosmological argument?
As to a designer, scripture speaks of not only this, long before it was "discovered".

Isaiah 42:5, "<sup>5</sup> This is what God the LORD says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:"

Zechariah 12:1, " A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel.
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:"

Job 9:8-19, "He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
<sup id="en-NIV-13061" class="versenum">9</sup> He is the Maker of the Bear<sup class="footnote" value='[a (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-13061a)]'>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-13061a)]</sup> and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south." Is this supposed to be a mention of redshift or universal expansion being mentioned in the Bible? If so, why isn't this apparently clear reference mentioned by anyone prior to independent discovery of redshift/blueshift by scientists. It seem rather more likely that the invocation of scriptural passages in this way is an example of reading knowledge back into vague passages in order to try an bolster a weak religious argument.
So, once again, you are evoking an effect without a cause, which is not a scientific principal. No one is doing that, we know the cause of redshift: The expansion of the universe as an effect of the Big Bang.
Moreover, how do you explain these ancient texts that describe this red shift effect long before it was "discovered"?They don't describe redshift, any more than "He stretched a blanket over the ground" describes redshift.

G23Gen4TX
04-09-2012, 01:24
I am perfectly willing to dicuss them one element at a time, that would seem the most orderly way of doing so.

As to a designer, scripture speaks of not only this, long before it was "discovered".

Isaiah 42:5, "<sup>5</sup> This is what God the LORD says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:"

Zechariah 12:1, " A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel.
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:"

Job 9:8-19, "He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
<sup id="en-NIV-13061" class="versenum">9</sup> He is the Maker of the Bear<sup class="footnote" value='[a (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-13061a)]'>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+9&version=NIV#fen-NIV-13061a)]</sup> and Orion,
the Pleiades and the constellations of the south."

So, once again, you are evoking an effect without a cause, which is not a scientific principal. Moreover, how do you explain these ancient texts that describe this red shift effect long before it was "discovered"?

Sounds half alright in English and maybe you can some how relate it to Blue shift / Red shift but the meaning in the original text in Hebrew is that god created the sky and spread it like a sheet above the earth. Nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.

muscogee
04-09-2012, 07:10
I refer back to the Okham's Razor agrument regarding deities. Eliminating uncessary deities to point toward a singular Diety would make more sense. Ishtar was part of a pantheon of gods and goddesses, so here would be a good application of Okham's Razor.

I agree but take it one step farther. Interesting you should mention unnecessary deities.

Guss
04-09-2012, 10:02
Sounds half alright in English and maybe you can some how relate it to Blue shift / Red shift but the meaning in the original text in Hebrew is that god created the sky and spread it like a sheet above the earth. Nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.
The Bible supports you on that.
Isaiah 40:22 describes it as a tent - “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

So in this description, God sits on top of the tent of the heavens looking down on us. No mention of a stretchy tent, just a tent that has been stretched in the sense of spread out.

G23Gen4TX
04-09-2012, 10:13
The Bible supports you on that.
Isaiah 40:22 describes it as a tent - “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

So in this description, God sits on top of the tent of the heavens looking down on us. No mention of a stretchy tent, just a tent that has been stretched in the sense of spread out.

And it is the same verb we would use in old Hebrew when you want to say "set up a tent". It's not used in modern Hebrew much but it is the same verb.

Nothing to do with stretching anything.

Geko45
04-09-2012, 11:23
I would say the person asserting any premise to be true has the burden to evidence, that includes Atheism.

I previously provided such a proof right here in this forum based on physical laws that preclude the possibility of any sort of supreme being. The principal argument I was presented with was that this deity would "transcend" those physical laws. No one could offer any proof that transcedence was a real phenomenon. So, the burden of proof still lies with you.

ksg0245
04-09-2012, 17:52
Why don't you accept Theism carte blanch?

I accept that theism exists and that there are theists, but there is no known objective, verifiable evidence for the assertion "deities exist." Until such is presented, I reject the assertion "deities exist."

Your question about my rejection of theism is not analogous to mine regarding your rejection of the position of atheists. I don't doubt that you're being honest when you say you believe, although for all I know you're a loki. You, on the other hand, are rejecting every atheist telling you clearly and plainly why they are atheists.

You're essentially telling atheists they're lying about what they believe. What basis do you have for that assessment?

Because, I also have a reasoning mind, and don't accept anything merely on the concept of blind faith.

There has never been any objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of any deity. Therefore you accept the existence of your deity based on blind faith. That isn't a position reached through reason, although it might be rationalized after the fact.

You have yet to present a cogent agrument to present any evidence to support your position of Atheism.

What more cogent argument do you require apart from the lack of objective, verifiable evidence leading atheists to reject the assertion of deity?

You are telling me that Atheism is a constant and an absolute.

Nope. Have you've seen that chart Artificial Grape has previously provided? Belief is a spectrum; if I haven't explicitly said that before, I'm doing so now.

Yet, you provide no evidence to support that position.

The evidence is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of deities, all the atheists telling you their position, and the definition of atheism, at least as used by atheists, being "disbelief in deities." How is that "no evidence to support that position"?

Therefore, why would any reasoning person accept such a position?

Any reasoning person would see the logic of rejecting unsupported assertions and accept that that's what atheists have done.

ksg0245
04-09-2012, 17:54
Because, I find all the arguments to be interesting and valid in their application. My question to you, is which one do you find most objectionable?

Sorry, won't play that game any more. They're your claims.

Let's analyze that one in particular.

It's your assertion; you go first.

Geko45
04-09-2012, 18:03
how do you explain these ancient texts that describe this red shift effect long before it was "discovered"?

Easy, they don't describe red shift. If those passages had said something like, "The lord changed the frequency of the star light to a red spectral shift by accelerating the heavens away from the earth", then you might have something.

But you don't.

What you have is a layman's observation of the expansive nature of the night sky. And not a very sophisticated one at that.

Kingarthurhk
04-09-2012, 19:03
Sounds half alright in English and maybe you can some how relate it to Blue shift / Red shift but the meaning in the original text in Hebrew is that god created the sky and spread it like a sheet above the earth. Nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.

Clearly, it is discussing an expanding Universe as created by God, long before an expanding universe was ever thought of in the rest of the world or "discovered". I would say, that is pretty compelling.

Lone Wolf8634
04-09-2012, 19:04
Argument 1

Cosmological argument.

Both points in the syllogism may be flawed. In a few recent threads that Devildog posted in, I've learned that:

1. Not everything that exists has a cause. In quantum physics (as I understand it), particles pop in and out of existence quite a bit, often with no discernible reason.

2. The universe didn't necessarily have a beginning that we know of. The BB theory only explains what happened from the time the the universe began to expand, it doesn't try to explain anything before that moment, So the universe may very well have existed before that moment in a form we don't know about.
The following is a part of a conversation that Devildig2067 participated in, the thread was "Big Bang Theory Question"


Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by hammerkill http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18787334#post18787334)
I don't know much about the big bang theory but what I gather it tries to explain the origins of the universe.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
You're already incorrect. The "Big Bang" theory tries to explain the time evolution of the early universe--how it developed from its initial state into what we see today. That's not the same thing.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> what was before the Big bang? It doesn't make any sense when someone uses this model as a theory for the creation of the universe. </td></tr></tbody></table>
That's part of why the "Big Bang" theory is not a theory about the creation of the universe.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> Are they saying there was nothing then something? </td></tr></tbody></table>
A couple of points--first of all, which "they"? Different cosmologists have different answers.

Secondly, in physics, there is "nothing then something" all the time. Literally millions of trillions of times each second, particles pop out of nothing and then vanish just as quickly.

Thirdly, I'll go back to my first point--the "Big Bang" theory does NOT say that. Big Bang cosmology is about "after the something came to exist, here is how it developed over time to become the universe we live in today, and here the observational evidence we've collected that backs up the mathematical equations that make up our theory."

In physics, a "theory" isn't a word or a sentence or a book. It's equations. The Standard Model, the theory of particle physics, can be summarized in a single equation*.

That's why your next sentence sets my teeth on edge, as a physicist:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> I theorize that there is an intelligence behind all this. </td></tr></tbody></table>
No, you don't. Not in the way a scientist means it, at any rate.

You say "theory" but what you really mean is "I feel like this could be true." Nothing wrong with that at all--I'm not discounting your feeling or saying that you shouldn't be thinking about it--but mixing the scientific meaning of the word "theory" with idle thoughts like this is asking for trouble.Devildog is a particle physicist BTW.



The conclusion he reaches with these two flawed pieces of information is this:

The universe has a cause, and that cause is GOD.

Huh?

Oh wait, he explains:

Big Bang=The beginning of time, space and matter. (wrong, read above)

Therefore:

The cause of the BB must be timeless, non-spatial and immaterial.

Then he proceeds with this premise:

Something must be eternal.(He doesn't even try to prove this doozy of a statement)

Only two things can be eternal, the universe, or God. (another logical fallacy)

Therefore, God is the uncaused cause of the universe.

The Occams Razor reference is hilarious.

Why of course the simplest, most logical answer is a omniscient, omnipotent being that did it all for us.:whistling:

Sorry, flawed conclusion reached by flawed premises and unproven assumptions.

Fail.

Kingarthurhk
04-09-2012, 19:05
Easy, they don't describe red shift. If those passages had said something like, "The lord changed the frequency of the star light to a red spectral shift by accelerating the heavens away from the earth", then you might have something.

But you don't.

What you have is a layman's observation of the expansive nature of the night sky. And not a very sophisticated one at that.

Of an expanding Universe, as it describes the heavens, which is all inclusive. No one durring this time frame in history the world over knew of an expanding Universe, yet, here it is in God's inspired word.

Kingarthurhk
04-09-2012, 19:14
Argument 1

Cosmological argument.

Both points in the syllogism may be flawed. In a few recent threads that Devildog posted in, I've learned that:

1. Not everything that exists has a cause. In quantum physics (as I understand it), particles pop in and out of existence quite a bit, often with no discernible reason.

2. The universe didn't necessarily have a beginning that we know of. The BB theory only explains what happened from the time the the universe began to expand, it doesn't try to explain anything before that moment, So the universe may very well have existed before that moment in a form we don't know about.
The following is a part of a conversation that Devildig2067 participated in, the thread was "Big Bang Theory Question"

If there were no beginning then there would not be anything. Everything in physics has a cause and an effect. Simply disliking that there might be a God, and then deciding that suddenly on the most major thing conceivable, namely, the creation of the Universe that all the laws of physics no longer apply because they inconvenience your metaphysical presupostion that that there is no God is disengenous at best, unscientific at worst.



The conclusion he reaches with these two flawed pieces of information is this:

The universe has a cause, and that cause is GOD.

There is a cause, do you have a better thought out one? Considering the fact that all the elements to make life on earth have to be just perfectly aligned, and that all life on earth must have some sort of symbiosis to live is not an element of chance.

There is more evidence that there is an intelligent designer than there is not.

Jumping up and down and saying, "Not! Not!" does not make so, so.


Huh?

Oh wait, he explains:

Big Bang=The beginning of time, space and matter. (wrong, read above)

Therefore:

The cause of the BB must be timeless, non-spatial and immaterial.

Then he proceeds with this premise:

Something must be eternal.(He doesn't even try to prove this doozy of a statement)

Only two things can be eternal, the universe, or God. (another logical fallacy)

Therefore, God is the uncaused cause of the universe.

Chancedidit! Doesn't work. You have already aserted that there is no cause to the effect. Yet, there is more evidence by the ordered nature of life and the complexity and the precise elements and alignments of heavenly bodies to generate life on this earth that an intelligent designer is more plausible than nothing beget something, and that chaos beget order and complexity.



The Occams Razor reference is hilarious.

Why of course the simplest, most logical answer is a omniscient, omnipotent being that did it all for us.:whistling:

Sorry, flawed conclusion reached by flawed premises and unproven assumptions.

Fail.

I agree, Atheism does fail and fail hard in the light of what it takes to make life exist on this planet and the extremely complex symbiotic nature of life.

Animal Mother
04-09-2012, 19:20
Clearly, it is discussing an expanding Universe That isn't clear at all, unless you already know the universe is expanding and read that knowledge back into the text of the Bible.
I would say, that is pretty compelling.You'd be wrong. As pointed out the "stretches out" as used in the Bible is equivalent to "spreads" not "expands".

Kingarthurhk
04-09-2012, 19:24
That isn't clear at all, unless you already know the universe is expanding and read that knowledge back into the text of the Bible.
You'd be wrong. As pointed out the "stretches out" as used in the Bible is equivalent to "spreads" not "expands".

Well, I guess we'll need to throw out the whole Helenistic period in Greece. Those silly greeks and their discoveries, we're probably just reading our knowledge into their discoveries by reverse engineering. That silly Galileo fellow probably didn't have a telescope, we're just probably implying that that from our own perspective. And that absurd Newton fellow, we're probably just inferring there too.

Or are you saying the Jews who were inspired to write these things long before they were "discovered" are not as valid as any of the other ancient cultures, or do you just think Jews are by nature ignorant and without intellect?

Animal Mother
04-09-2012, 19:26
If there were no beginning then there would not be anything. Everything in physics has a cause and an effect. Simply false, as has been explained before. What causes a specific atom of Uranium to decay into an atom of Thorium?
Simply disliking that there might be a God, and then deciding that suddenly on the most major thing conceivable, namely, the creation of the Universe that all the laws of physics no longer apply because they inconvenience your metaphysical presupostion that that there is no God is disengenous at best, unscientific at worst. Luckily, no one is doing this, forcing you to construct such a tortured strawman to try and hide that the theist is the one invoking the unlikely to support their beliefs.
There is a cause, do you have a better thought out one? Please, demonstrate this cause.
Considering the fact that all the elements to make life on earth have to be just perfectly aligned, and that all life on earth must have some sort of symbiosis to live is not an element of chance. Once again you're both wandering between arguments despite your stated desire to concentrate on one thing at a time and also presupposing things you need to first prove to be true.
There is more evidence that there is an intelligent designer than there is not. No, there isn't. If there one someone would have produced this evidence. No one has done so.

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2012, 19:29
Of an expanding Universe, as it describes the heavens, which is all inclusive. No one durring this time frame in history the world over knew of an expanding Universe, yet, here it is in God's inspired word.

And in a mere 6000ish years, and God planted all the deceptive and compelling evidence to make it appear as if the universe were billions of years old. Clever.

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
04-09-2012, 19:29
Well, I guess we'll need to throw out the whole Helenistic period in Greece. Those silly greeks and their discoveries, we're probably just reading our knowledge into their discoveries by reverse engineering. The Greeks demonstrated knowledge of an expanding universe and redshift? Could you share where this is recorded?
That silly Galileo fellow probably didn't have a telescope, we're just probably implying that that from our own perspective. What are you talking about?
And that absurd Newton fellow, we're probably just inferring there too. No you've completely lost me. Did Newton cite the Bible as the source of his laws of motion? If so, where?
Or are you saying the Jews who were inspired to write these things long before they were "discovered" are not as valid as any of the other ancient cultures, or do you just think Jews are by nature ignorant and without intellect? I'm not saying anything of the sort, I'm saying that the belief of the ancient Levant, including Jews, was that the heavens were a cover over the earth, as a dome or tent, and thus they "stretched out" to cover the Earth.

G23Gen4TX
04-09-2012, 19:41
Clearly, it is discussing an expanding Universe as created by God, long before an expanding universe was ever thought of in the rest of the world or "discovered". I would say, that is pretty compelling.

Clearly it DOESN'T. You can keep saying it does but it doesn't change anything about the FACT that it doesn't.

The original Hebrew scripture says nothing about an expanding universe.

Lone Wolf8634
04-09-2012, 19:46
Argument 2

The Teological argument:

This one is easy, both premises are easily shown to be flawed.

1. If the universe shows evidence of being designed, it must have a designer.

Pure speculation. Even if it shows evidence of being designed, that does not mean it was, and you certainly cant conclude that a designer exists.

2. The universe appears to have been designed.

Again, speculation. As I understand it, there is some disagreement over the designed universe idea.

From my reading, the Anthropic Principle itself, is somewhat dubious, at best.

He then goes on to talk about the "Goldilocks Planet", Which, while interesting, has nothing to do with explaining his conclusion that:

Therefore the designer of the universe is God

Huh???

How'd we get here? Answer? We didn't.

After the "Goldilocks Planet" he glossed over the "Multiverse" theory, apparently it doesn't fit the bill for this conversation. But he never shows haw he comes to the conclusion "Goddidit". It just kinda pops in there.

So, another fail.

G23Gen4TX
04-09-2012, 19:48
Or are you saying the Jews who were inspired to write these things long before they were "discovered" are not as valid as any of the other ancient cultures, or do you just think Jews are by nature ignorant and without intellect?

All it says is that god spread the sky (that's the actual word used in hebrew. Not the word for heaven) over the earth the same way you put up a tent. That's it.

The rest is your made up interpretation.

Lone Wolf8634
04-09-2012, 20:20
If there were no beginning then there would not be anything. Everything in physics has a cause and an effect. Simply disliking that there might be a God, and then deciding that suddenly on the most major thing conceivable, namely, the creation of the Universe that all the laws of physics no longer apply because they inconvenience your metaphysical presupostion that that there is no God is disengenous at best, unscientific at worst.

A beginning implies that there was something before. Since time is understood to exist within the framework of our universe, than the idea of "before" is meaningless. Time did not exist before the universe as we know it. So really, the there has never been a time before the universe, and the universe has existed in all points in time.

As has been explained, not everything that is, has a cause.

Don't worry, the laws of physics are doing just fine. I din't throw 'em out with the days trash. I simply said the BBT doesn't attempt to explain "before". You assume too much if you think it does. We don't know what was "before" or if "before has any meaning at all.

Your vid used the BBT as a (false) premise that the universe had a beginning, I just pointed out that that isnt true, making the premise, and the conclusion based on it false.




There is a cause, do you have a better thought out one? Considering the fact that all the elements to make life on earth have to be just perfectly aligned, and that all life on earth must have some sort of symbiosis to live is not an element of chance.

There is more evidence that there is an intelligent designer than there is not.

Jumping up and down and saying, "Not! Not!" does not make so, so.

Nope. I, personally, am not a physicist, I drive a truck, so haven't spent a lot of time on the problem. But your argument that just because everything is "Just right" for us to be here falls considerably short of proving a god.

Your bolded statement is.....well, bold. I've heard that scientists may be in disagreement over what the evidence points to, but not that they came to that conclusion.

Jumping up and down saying "Goddidit" does not make it so.



Chancedidit! Doesn't work. You have already aserted that there is no cause to the effect. Yet, there is more evidence by the ordered nature of life and the complexity and the precise elements and alignments of heavenly bodies to generate life on this earth that an intelligent designer is more plausible than nothing beget something, and that chaos beget order and complexity.

Were just gonna have to disagree. Mankind developing by pure chance makes far more sense to me, considering the sheer size of the universe, then a supernatural, all powerful all knowing being who got bored.




I agree, Atheism does fail and fail hard in the light of what it takes to make life exist on this planet and the extremely complex symbiotic nature of life.

Irrelevant.

muscogee
04-09-2012, 20:40
The evidence is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of deities, all the atheists telling you their position, and the definition of atheism, at least as used by atheists, being "disbelief in deities." How is that "no evidence to support that position"?


Any reasoning person would see the logic of rejecting unsupported assertions and accept that that's what atheists have done.

Good point. Kingarthurhk wants you to present evidence that there is no evidence. Since there's no evidence that there is no evidence except that there is no evidence, he says that's evidence that there is. As Spock would say, that's highly illogical.

Lone Wolf8634
04-09-2012, 20:47
Good point. Kingarthurhk wants you to present evidence that there is no evidence. Since there's no evidence that there is no evidence except that there is no evidence, he says that's evidence that there is. As Spock would say, that's highly illogical.

You may need to draw me a diagram of that:wow:

Guss
04-09-2012, 20:55
Well, I guess we'll need to throw out the whole Helenistic period in Greece. Those silly greeks and their discoveries, we're probably just reading our knowledge into their discoveries by reverse engineering. That silly Galileo fellow probably didn't have a telescope, we're just probably implying that that from our own perspective. And that absurd Newton fellow, we're probably just inferring there too.

Or are you saying the Jews who were inspired to write these things long before they were "discovered" are not as valid as any of the other ancient cultures, or do you just think Jews are by nature ignorant and without intellect?

The Catholic Church held to the geocentric view until the time of Galileo, and Galileo just barely got away with his ideas. Eventually most Christians came to view the creation stories as fables of the times.

The primitive Hebrew tribes were just copying the common myths of the Mesopotamian region at the time. The view at that time was that the Heavens were something of a vault, or dome over the earth and the stars were put in place in that dome. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven..." Now I don't know what the original word was, but "firmament" doesn't sound too stretchy. Further, in Psalm 19:6, you see a reference to the "end of the heavens", which would be as far as the dome went. The blue of the sky to them was water, held up only by the grace of God. When God opened up the floodgates of Heaven (the dome), the earth was flooded with the water that had been held above.
1 Chronicles 1:30 says “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. "

Proverbs 8:27 makes reference to "when he set the heavens in place", which kind of implies a fixed structure.


I am not going to let people who thought the universe revolved around the earth tell me about science.

Norske
04-12-2012, 13:44
If unmistakeable proof of the existence of God could be shown, there would not BE any agnostics or aetheists on this forum, or anywhere else.

The continued presence of agnostics and aetheists is solid evidence that the Theists continue to fail to prove whether God even exists or not.

:dunno:

And while they continue to fail to prove God's very existence, they nonetheless continue to insist that we all live our lives in accordance with the "wishes" or "commands" of their unprovable God. :faint:

That does not compute.

:upeyes:

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 21:17
If unmistakeable proof of the existence of God could be shown, there would not BE any agnostics or aetheists on this forum, or anywhere else.

The continued presence of agnostics and aetheists is solid evidence that the Theists continue to fail to prove whether God even exists or not.

:dunno:

And while they continue to fail to prove God's very existence, they nonetheless continue to insist that we all live our lives in accordance with the "wishes" or "commands" of their unprovable God. :faint:

That does not compute.

:upeyes:

There is ample evidence around to inspire faith. Faith is not blind, but it requires a belief. If God gave everything to anyone who asked, there would be no doubt in your mind that there is a God.

So, there would be no room for faith or the testing of faith.

Agnostics and Atheists exist because they are allowed to exist. Another proof of a loving God. Because, if God were all about wrath and destruction there would never been the element of love nor any room for decension within creation.

Moreover, this same God has written on His law on the hearts of all human kind.

Surely, you would be hard pressed to find a culture anywhere on this planet that agrees torturing babies for fun is acceptable.

Further, I don't think you or anyone on this board would find torturning babies for fun as acceptable.

The reason? God wrote His law into the hearts of human kind. That is the result of the New Covenant.

I bet that if you polled the majority of the people here you would find the following:

People feel a need to respect their parents.

People feel that murdering other people is wrong.

A lot of people feel cheating on their spouse to be wrong, and even if they do, feel pretty lousy about it.

People even who steal other people's possessions know they are wrong.

Folks who tell lies about the people around them, probably don't feel all that great about what they are doing.

Being obsessed and jealous of other peoples things doesn't leave them feeling fulfilled or happy.

We've covered the 5 of the 10 commandments right there.

So, why is it that when it comes to God, people have a problem with that?

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 21:38
There is ample evidence around to inspire faith. Faith is not blind, but it requires a belief. If God gave everything to anyone who asked, there would be no doubt in your mind that there is a God.

And what would be wrong with that?

So, there would be no room for faith or the testing of faith.

Whats the purpose of faith? What does it accomplish?

Agnostics and Atheists exist because they are allowed to exist. Another proof of a loving God. Because, if God were all about wrath and destruction there would never been the element of love nor any room for decension within creation.

Actually, I think that makes "God" quite cruel.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 21:52
And what would be wrong with that?



Whats the purpose of faith? What does it accomplish?



Actually, I think that makes "God" quite cruel.

Are you trying to say, your very existance makes God cruel?

Paul7
04-13-2012, 21:57
If unmistakeable proof of the existence of God could be shown, there would not BE any agnostics or aetheists on this forum, or anywhere else.

The continued presence of agnostics and aetheists is solid evidence that the Theists continue to fail to prove whether God even exists or not.



And if God could be shown not to exist, there wouldn't be any Christians.

What Christians claim to be able to prove God exists? They simply say there are good, logical arguments for His existence, and that the God thesis is more reasonable than saying nothing times nobody equals everything, which is what naturalistic evolution boils down to.

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 21:58
Are you trying to say, your very existance makes God cruel?

Yes..

Paul7
04-13-2012, 21:58
Whats the purpose of faith? What does it accomplish?

Salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 22:02
Yes..

Okay, now I am confused. Could you elaborate?

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 22:14
Okay, now I am confused. Could you elaborate?

According to the mythology:

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient.

2. God created everything and everyone.

3. God already knows what will happen to every man, woman and child. He knew this when he made the universe.

So, it follows that he caused me to be born with a skeptical mind. He knew I would be unable to accept his existence without proof. So he made me with the full knowledge that he would be condemning me to hell, or whatever punishment is the current fad.

Free will is BS, if he knows what happens, that throws free will out the window.

Kinda seems cruel to me.

Animal Mother
04-13-2012, 22:22
What Christians claim to be able to prove God exists? Those who claim direct conversation with the Almighty would be the first such group.
They simply say there are good, logical arguments for His existence, Sadly, that isn't true, or at least no such arguments have been forthcoming.
and that the God thesis is more reasonable than saying nothing times nobody equals everything, which is what naturalistic evolution boils down to. Neither claim here is true, and the latter falsehood has been explained to you many times. It's almost enough to make one doubt your interest in the truth.

Animal Mother
04-13-2012, 22:23
Salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 Assuming salvation is necessary, isn't God able to convey it regardless of an individual's beliefs?

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 22:23
The whole designer thing is silly and is based on misunderstandings of physics. The universe exists as it does not by design nor by random chance but by probability.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 22:26
According to the mythology:

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient.

2. God created everything and everyone.

3. God already knows what will happen to every man, woman and child. He knew this when he made the universe.

So, it follows that he caused me to be born with a skeptical mind. He knew I would be unable to accept his existence without proof. So he made me with the full knowledge that he would be condemning me to hell, or whatever punishment is the current fad.

Free will is BS, if he knows what happens, that throws free will out the window.

Kinda seems cruel to me.

If he were that cruel, He would not send people to you to reach out to you and try to argue for His existance for your benefit.

The reason, at least the reason, I debate with Atheists here is beause I care, because God cares.

I think it would be cruel not to offer you the opportunity to know Him as He really is.

I think it would cruel to see you frustrated and it doubt and not to reach out to you.

I think it would be cruel to know the way to salvation and peace in Christ and not extend the same opportunity.

I think it would be cruel to know that there is a future of health, happiness, and eternal exploration and not share that knowledge with you.

Think of things you can do for yourself in life, and the things you cannot. The things you cannot you must rely on another.

If you were sick and dying you would more than likely go to a doctor to spare if not prolong your life and heal you.

I am here to offer you an opportunity to know the ultimate doctor, the ultimate healer, the One that can save your life.

If God was cruel, would He send messenger after messenger to plead with you?

A Man Fell in a Hole - YouTube

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 22:43
If he were that cruel, He would not send people to you to reach out to you and try to argue for His existance for your benefit.

The reason, at least the reason, I debate with Atheists here is beause I care, because God cares.

I think it would be cruel not to offer you the opportunity to know Him as He really is.

I think it would cruel to see you frustrated and it doubt and not to reach out to you.

I think it would be cruel to know the way to salvation and peace in Christ and not extend the same opportunity.

I think it would be cruel to know that there is a future of health, happiness, and eternal exploration and not share that knowledge with you.

Think of things you can do for yourself in life, and the things you cannot. The things you cannot you must rely on another.

If you were sick and dying you would more than likely go to a doctor to spare if not prolong your life and heal you.

I am here to offer you an opportunity to know the ultimate doctor, the ultimate healer, the One that can save your life.

If God was cruel, would He send messenger after messenger to plead with you?

A Man Fell in a Hole - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTltHR-Hg)


Still, he would know my mind, he would know that I would never accept anything so fantastical on faith or because others believed it.

He would know that I require concrete proof. After all, thats the way he made me.

Animal Mother
04-13-2012, 22:44
There is ample evidence around to inspire faith. Faith is not blind, but it requires a belief. If God gave everything to anyone who asked, there would be no doubt in your mind that there is a God. Have we completely abandoned the arguments from the OP then?
So, there would be no room for faith or the testing of faith. Why does faith need to be tested?
Agnostics and Atheists exist because they are allowed to exist.What about all the people who worship other gods?
Another proof of a loving God. Because, if God were all about wrath and destruction there would never been the element of love nor any room for decension within creation. Have you read the Old Testament?
Surely, you would be hard pressed to find a culture anywhere on this planet that agrees torturing babies for fun is acceptable. It kind of depends on who's babies they are. Christians have been known to do unspeakable things to non-Christian babies.
We've covered the 5 of the 10 commandments right there.

So, why is it that when it comes to God, people have a problem with that?All of which have everything to do with forming a stable society and nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 22:50
Still, he would know my mind, he would know that I would never accept anything so fantastical on faith or because others believed it.

He would know that I require concrete proof. After all, thats the way he made me.

No. He did not make you that way. Through your experiences and choices, you became that way. There is still hope. Don't give up.

I am certain there are going to be more people comming along in your life who will reach out to you in similar fashions. God is trying to manifest His love and care through those people who want you to experience the same peace and serenity that they have.

While you still have breath and life, it isn't over yet.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 22:59
Have we completely abandoned the arguments from the OP then?

It seems to have "evolved" as these threads do.:supergrin:


Why does faith need to be tested?

To strenghten it.


What about all the people who worship other gods?

It is our commission to reach out to them as well.


Have you read the Old Testament?

Yes. I have started over and am currently in Exodus 20 at the moment.


It kind of depends on who's babies they are. Christians have been known to do unspeakable things to non-Christian babies.

Anyone who would do this is no follower of Christ, but profane His name.


All of which have everything to do with forming a stable society and nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

Yes, and no. All of these Commandments were written in the hearts of mankind. For our benefit, yes, most certainly, to provide for our happiness.

When you have a society that is at peace with each other, and at peace with God then you have an ideal and happy society.

When you have the assurance of salvation, you have hope. When you care for your fellow human being you have love. When you faith you have the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

So, if you look at all 10 of the commandments they are for our benefit and betterment of society around us.

More evidence of God's love for us.

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 23:04
No. He did not make you that way. Through your experiences and choices, you became that way. There is still hope. Don't give up.

I am certain there are going to be more people comming along in your life who will reach out to you in similar fashions. God is trying to manifest His love and care through those people who want you to experience the same peace and serenity that they have.

While you still have breath and life, it isn't over yet.

If you subscribe to the omniscient and omnipotent theory (which kinda defines a "God") than he certainly did make me this way.

Who gave me all those experiences? Who put me in the situations knowing what my decisions would be?

My understanding is he knew the entire course of my life long before I was born.

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 23:08
Why does faith need to be tested?





To strenghten it.





I still would like to know what purpose it serves.

Why is it so necessary to make faith a part of the whole deal?

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 23:14
I still would like to know what purpose it serves.

Why is it so necessary to make faith a part of the whole deal?

Because with out such faith others have no basis to tell one how to live their life as they see fit?

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 23:17
Because with out such faith others have no basis to tell one how to live their life as they see fit?

Definitely one possibility.

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 23:18
If you subscribe to the omniscient and omnipotent theory (which kinda defines a "God") than he certainly did make me this way.

Just because He knows the outcome of all things does not mean he predestines them.


Who gave me all those experiences? Who put me in the situations knowing what my decisions would be?

I would suppose other people gave you experience either for good or for bad out of their own choices. This allowed you to make a choice one way or the other, and you chose another. The point is, someone chose, and you experienced. Then you chose. God did not make them choose anything more than He made you choose anything else.

Consider the story of Mrs. Doolittle. She could have chosen to be a very bitter person being beridden for twenty years while married to a crippled husband. She didn't. Think how hard that would be to be.

Words: Ci­vil­la D. Mar­tin, 1905.
Music: Charles H. Gab­ri­el

Early in the spring of 1905, my hus­band and I were so­journ­ing in El­mi­ra, New York. We con­tract­ed a deep friend­ship for a cou­ple by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Doo­lit­tle—true saints of God. Mrs. Doo­lit­tle had been bed­rid­den for nigh twen­ty years. Her hus­band was an in­cur­a­ble crip­ple who had to pro­pel him­self to and from his bus­i­ness in a wheel chair. De­spite their af­flict­ions, they lived hap­py Christ­ian lives, bring­ing in­spir­a­tion and com­fort to all who knew them. One day while we were vi­sit­ing with the Doo­lit­tles, my hus­band com­ment­ed on their bright hope­ful­ness and asked them for the se­cret of it. Mrs. Doo­lit­tle's re­ply was sim­ple: "His eye is on the spar­row, and I know He watch­es me." The beau­ty of this sim­ple ex­press­ion of bound­less faith gripped the hearts and fired the imag­in­a­tion of Dr. Mar­tin and me. The hymn "His Eye Is on the Spar­row" was the out­come of that ex­per­i­ence.

Civilla Martin
The next day she mailed the po­em to Charles Gab­ri­el, who sup­plied the mu­sic. Sing­er Ethel Wa­ters so loved this song that she used its name as the ti­tle for her au­to­bi­og­ra­phy.



Why should I feel discouraged, why should the shadows come,
Why should my heart be lonely, and long for heaven and home,
When Jesus is my portion? My constant friend is He:
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.

Refrain

I sing because I'm happy,
I sing because I'm free,
For His eye is on the sparrow,
And I know He watches me.

"Let not your heart be troubled," His tender word I hear,
And resting on His goodness, I lose my doubts and fears;
Though by the path He leadeth, but one step I may see;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.

Refrain

Whenever I am tempted, whenever clouds arise,
When songs give place to sighing, when hope within me dies,
I draw the closer to Him, from care He sets me free;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me;
His eye is on the sparrow, and I know He watches me.

She was not predestined to be cheerful or to rely on Christ as her savior. Despite her experience, she chose differently.



My understanding is he knew the entire course of my life long before I was born.

Foreknowledge does not mean predestination. Further, your life is not over yet. Choices still can be made.

If you are certain that God doesn't exist, then there is no harm in praying to Him and asking Him to open your eyes is there?

What would you do, if you got a response?

juggy4711
04-13-2012, 23:23
Just because He knows the outcome of all things does not mean he predestines them.

Let me get this straight. An all powerful all knowing God knows the outcome of events but doesn't dictate them?

Lone Wolf8634
04-13-2012, 23:26
Just because He knows the outcome of all things does not mean he predestines them.

Foreknowledge does not mean predestination. Further, your life is not over yet. Choices still can be made.

What would you do, if you got a response?

Sorry, can't wrap my head around the bolded.:dunno:

If you know the outcome beforehand.....Than it's predestined. It can only happen one way. The way it was foreseen.

So it matters very little what choices I make. It will be what it will be.

If your mythology is correct, there is no such thing as free will, your destiny was planned, charted and set in stone long before you ever existed. Every second of every day.

Tried it. Din't work.

ETA. You simply can't have it both ways. God's either omniscient or he's not.

Animal Mother
04-13-2012, 23:53
To strenghten it. Why does faith need to be strengthened? How does God refusing to produce proof of His existence strengthen anyone's faith more than it would be if they unquestionably knew He existed?
It is our commission to reach out to them as well. Not the question at hand. The question is why does God allow them to exist? He wasn't in the habit of doing that in OT.
Yes. I have started over and am currently in Exodus 20 at the moment. By which point, if I remember correctly, God has already exterminated the population of the Earth and cause Pharaoh to behave in such a way that all the firstborn of Egypt were slaughtered. But you haven't yet reached the point of the Israelites committing regular genocide. This is a loving God?
Anyone who would do this is no follower of Christ, but profane His name. That has no bearing on the argument at hand. You claim that "you would be hard pressed to find a culture anywhere on this planet that agrees torturing babies for fun is acceptable." History shows us this isn't the case. The question of whether or not people who do such things are "real" followers of Christ is completely tangential to your claims about morality being written on human hearts by God.
Yes, and no. All of these Commandments were written in the hearts of mankind. For our benefit, yes, most certainly, to provide for our happiness. Do you have any evidence of this "writing"?
When you have a society that is at peace with each other, and at peace with God then you have an ideal and happy society. How does God factor in? Wouldn't such a society be equally at peace without God?
When you have the assurance of salvation, you have hope. No, if salvation is assured, hope is unnecessary.
When you care for your fellow human being you have love. Love is simply caring about others? What supernatural involvement is necessary for that? Isn't there a survival advantage to caring about others? That's the same basis as the Ethic of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule.
When you faith you have the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I hear this all the time, it doesn't actually mean anything though.
So, if you look at all 10 of the commandments they are for our benefit and betterment of society around us. How does not making graven images improve society?

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 23:55
Sorry, can't wrap my head around the bolded.:dunno:

If you know the outcome beforehand.....Than it's predestined. It can only happen one way. The way it was foreseen.

So it matters very little what choices I make. It will be what it will be.

If your mythology is correct, there is no such thing as free will, your destiny was planned, charted and set in stone long before you ever existed. Every second of every day.

Tried it. Din't work.

ETA. You simply can't have it both ways. God's either omniscient or he's not.

Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you predestined it.

Did you predestine the sun to rise tomorrow?

Did you predestine the moon to rise tonight?

Did you predestine the tide to go in and out?

You knew in advance that these things would happen.

Just because God knows what will happen does not mean he caused them to happen.

He gave you free will and choice. He knows what you will choose, and will do His best to help you.

He has sent a whole host of Christians after you to pursuade you to make a choice for Him. However, He will not force you.

If God predestined every choice, then there would be no Atheists or Agnostics.

He created the laws of physics and time. We exist in linear time frame. God does not.

He is a fair and just God, so He will attempt to pursuade you to choose correctly, but He will never force you to do so.

Draw close to God, and He will draw close to you. If you sincerely ask God to show Himself in your life, it will happen. You will not be denied.

Lone Wolf8634
04-14-2012, 00:23
Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you predestined it.

Did you predestine the sun to rise tomorrow?

Did you predestine the moon to rise tonight?

Did you predestine the tide to go in and out?

You knew in advance that these things would happen.

Almost.

I didn't cause the sun to rise, or the moon, or the tides to go in and out. I also can't stop them or affect them in any way.

Just because I know of cyclic occurrence does not mean I "foretold" it.

That trick would require me to know the exact time their gonna stop.

If I had that talent, I'd be $640 million richer than I am.



Just because God knows what will happen does not mean he caused them to happen.

According to Christianity, yes he did.

He gave you free will and choice. He knows what you will choose, and will do His best to help you.

Thats a contradictory statement. He gave me free will, but he knew what I would choose?

He has sent a whole host of Christians after you to pursuade you to make a choice for Him. However, He will not force you.

STOP! It's humor time!

Could he have 'em quit waking me up? I work nights, and I really need my sleep.:supergrin:

If God predestined every choice, then there would be no Atheists or Agnostics.

But he did. And there are.


Again, You cant have it both ways, either God is omniscient, or he isn't. Which is it?

Again, if he has the power to change our circumstances and does nothing, then that's cruel.

Why create something, or someone, just to condemn them for being what you made them?

ksg0245
04-14-2012, 01:08
Salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

What prevents God forgiving sins without that sacrificial lamb? What agency requires God sacrifice himself to himself to forgive people for being the way he made them?

Kingarthurhk
04-14-2012, 09:36
Why does faith need to be strengthened?

Do you have children? I do. As they have grown older they have developed more faith in me as their father. I remember when I was detailed away for the first 6 months of my son's life. When I returned he did not know me. When I laughed, he cried. But, now he has grown closer to me as his faith has grown in me. Faith is about relationship. This is why Jesus teaches about the faith of little children, and how we should be like that.


How does God refusing to produce proof of His existence strengthen anyone's faith more than it would be if they unquestionably knew He existed?

We are taught that if we draw close to God He will draw close us. Have you tried that yet?


Not the question at hand. The question is why does God allow them to exist? He wasn't in the habit of doing that in OT.

Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and New Testament. When He said, "It is written" where do you think the writings he referrenced were from?


By which point, if I remember correctly, God has already exterminated the population of the Earth and cause

Yes, God was grieved by the violence and the selfish evil thoughts of human kind continually. We are told the world will become like that again. It was once destroyed by water, the next time cleansed by fire.

However, despite that God kept a remnant who had not corrupted themselves. He is in the process of gathering that remnant today. You can be part of that if you choose.


Pharaoh to behave in such a way that all the firstborn of Egypt were slaughtered. But you haven't yet reached the point of the Israelites committing regular genocide. This is a loving God?

Actually, God knew what Pharoh would do, He did not actually cause Pharoh to do anything. But, knowing what Pharoh would do, He used it as a teaching tool to the Israelites, and it is codified for us as well as a teaching tool.


That has no bearing on the argument at hand. You claim that "you would be hard pressed to find a culture anywhere on this planet that agrees torturing babies for fun is acceptable." History shows us this isn't the case. The question of whether or not people who do such things are "real" followers of Christ is completely tangential to your claims about morality being written on human hearts by God.

And you have provided no historical evidence that people claiming to be Christians tortured babies for fun. The so-called Christians under the influence of evil and Satan, profaning the name of the Lord by stating they were acting in His name slaughtered whole peoples in the Mideival Period. When in point of fact, they were actually persecuting the saints of God.


Do you have any evidence of this "writing"?
How does God factor in? Wouldn't such a society be equally at peace without God?

The fact that we can come to a consensus that 5-10 of the commandments are good, I doing my best to be a follower of Christ, and you an Atheist would be strong evidence of that fact. If you were not in opposition to God, I am certain you would see the the relevance of the first 4 as well.


No, if salvation is assured, hope is unnecessary.
Love is simply caring about others? What supernatural involvement is necessary for that? Isn't there a survival advantage to caring about others? That's the same basis as the Ethic of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule.
I hear this all the time, it doesn't actually mean anything though.
How does not making graven images improve society?

We have faith in our salvation, the evidence of things not seen? I have never seen the face of Jesus, but I believe in Him. I have never seen heaven, but I am positive that if I continue to walk with Jesus He is preparing a place for me there.

How does following the first four commandments bring you any benefit? It doesn't. In the absence of a relationship with Jesus as your savior, it does you no good as an individual.

As a society, it benefits the whole, becaue Jesus gives us His peace that passes all understanding, and with that peace we want to obey the commandments, rather than do them as a rote ritual in order not to anger the people around you.

muscogee
04-14-2012, 10:00
We are taught that if we draw close to God He will draw close us. Have you tried that yet?

Yes I have. So have many others in this forum. God either ignored me or He doesn't exist.

Actually, God knew what Pharoh would do, He did not actually cause Pharoh to do anything. But, knowing what Pharoh would do, He used it as a teaching tool to the Israelites, and it is codified for us as well as a teaching tool. So God entrapped Pharaoh to make an example of him and his people so the rest of us wouldn't be like him? What about the innocent Egyptians who suffered and died as a result of Pharaoh's "sins"? Once again, why didn't God directly reveal himself to Pharaoh instead of sending Moses? If you were Pharaoh would you believe a traitor like Moses?


And you have provided no historical evidence that people claiming to be Christians tortured babies for fun. The so-called Christians under the influence of evil and Satan, profaning the name of the Lord by stating they were acting in His name slaughtered whole peoples in the Mideival Period. When in point of fact, they were actually persecuting the saints of God.
So the Jews were saints of God? Are they still? If not, when did that happen?

ksg0245
04-14-2012, 10:39
Actually, God knew what Pharoh would do, He did not actually cause Pharoh to do anything.

What does "I will harden his heart" actually mean, then, in light of the fact that Pharaoh is described as acquiescing?

Exodus 9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.

28 Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 7:13
And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 7:14
And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

Exodus 7:22
And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Kind of sounds like God causing someone to act against their own will.

The so-called Christians under the influence of evil and Satan, profaning the name of the Lord by stating they were acting in His name slaughtered whole peoples in the Mideival Period. When in point of fact, they were actually persecuting the saints of God.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Explanation
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

The fact that we can come to a consensus that 5-10 of the commandments are good, I doing my best to be a follower of Christ, and you an Atheist would be strong evidence of that fact. If you were not in opposition to God, I am certain you would see the the relevance of the first 4 as well.

Atheists aren't in opposition to any deity.

Animal Mother
04-14-2012, 18:46
Do you have children? I do. As they have grown older they have developed more faith in me as their father. I remember when I was detailed away for the first 6 months of my son's life. When I returned he did not know me. When I laughed, he cried. But, now he has grown closer to me as his faith has grown in me. Faith is about relationship. This is why Jesus teaches about the faith of little children, and how we should be like that. This doesn't answer the question asked at all. Your child didn't have faith in your existence, he had evidence you existed even if you scared him.
We are taught that if we draw close to God He will draw close us. Have you tried that yet? Is that the process you followed with your children? Ignoring them until they approached you and begged for your attention?
Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and New Testament. When He said, "It is written" where do you think the writings he referrenced were from? Again, this isn't an answer to the question which was asked.
Yes, God was grieved by the violence and the selfish evil thoughts of human kind continually. We are told the world will become like that again. It was once destroyed by water, the next time cleansed by fire. God's reaction to some people being evil and violent was to kill all people. I'll ask again, this is a loving God?
Actually, God knew what Pharoh would do, He did not actually cause Pharoh to do anything. According ot the bible, yes He did as ksg has already pointed out.
And you have provided no historical evidence that people claiming to be Christians tortured babies for fun. There's a plethora of evidence that children and infants were killed by Christians over the centuries.
The so-called Christians under the influence of evil and Satan, profaning the name of the Lord by stating they were acting in His name slaughtered whole peoples in the Mideival Period. When in point of fact, they were actually persecuting the saints of God. Again, ksg has already pointed out that this is an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
We have faith in our salvation, the evidence of things not seen? I have never seen the face of Jesus, but I believe in Him. I have never seen heaven, but I am positive that if I continue to walk with Jesus He is preparing a place for me there. You believe things for which you have no evidence. I understand that, I just don't understand the benefit of doing so. Is there a benefit to believing in Ahura Mazda or Quetzlcoatl?
How does following the first four commandments bring you any benefit? It doesn't. In the absence of a relationship with Jesus as your savior, it does you no good as an individual.

As a society, it benefits the whole, becaue Jesus gives us His peace that passes all understanding, and with that peace we want to obey the commandments, rather than do them as a rote ritual in order not to anger the people around you. Is this why all Christian societies are always peaceful and absent conflict?