Christian Looking For Debate

[SeekerOfTruth]

If there really were an all-powerful god that wanted everyone on Earth to worship it, would this be such a bad thing to do? I know theists always rely on faith, but would it be such a bad thing if there were no religious faith with a visible deity? You'd still have to have faith that what he's telling you is true, however, and that he really will let you spend eternity with him if you behave in certain ways.

This is the biggest struggle that I've had concerning God. I agree in that it really wouldn't be a bad idea for God to just prove his own existence. I often wish that if God really exists that he would just appear to everyone. My viewpoint on this is that the Bible teaches free will, and that we have a choice to follow and believe in God or not. I believe that if God appeared to everyone then he would be contradicting himself making him less than perfect and not God.

Sure, we would still have the choice to follow him but knowing him would be forced amongst all people rather than being our choice.

So then why do you choose to believe he exists? Why do you choose to believe something that cannot be substantiated and may very likely not be true at all?
Even if you don't take the position of even "I believe god/jesus does exist" then why do you honestly bother?

I choose to believe in him because that belief agrees with the way i perceive the world and recognize existence. Sure, I'm one of those Christians that looks at existence and sees God's creation, but I'd never use that as an argument for God's existence because everyone perceives the world differently and in their own unique way.

there is no evidence anywhere that anything in the bible is true and in fact scientific inquiery over the past several centuries has basically been systematically proving that the bible is anything but true

Yes, more and more of the bible is disproven everyday, but its only disproven because its assumed to be literal while much of the bible is metaphorical in nature. The story of creation for instance initially wasn't taught as a literal 6 days but rather 6 huge periods of time. It was a metaphor even to the earliest Jews.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes seeker, people can debate the existence of the sun, and everything else, and they do, amusingly. Take your creation myth up with your fellow believers, who call BS on you. Even at "6 huge periods of time" it's still bullshit.

[SeekerOfTruth]

Why on earth would I waste my time trying to debate an apologist? I consider them intellectually dishonest. Such people argue from a position of personal certitude, unwilling/unable to concede the possibility of any error in their basic position.IE the existence of god as a given. I do not accept that given,so there is no basis for discussion.


My position is simple; I make no claims.,the believer does. I do not accept that the existence of god(s) can be established by reason alone.,I demand evidence.Either show me some credible evidence to support your claims or piss off.

Nor do I conflate winning a debate or argument with being right necessarily.

I could say "Why on earth would I waste my time trying to debate an atheist? I find most of them to be blind followers of whatever science tells them without really looking into it and forming their own ideas." However, I'm assuming that that's not you in any way shape or form. And I'm simply here to get a discussion or debate going so that I can understand an atheistic viewpoint and how it conflicts with my viewpoint by actually discussing the topic rather than just going off of what I'm told is the difference. As I stated earlier I'm not trying to persuade or reason anyone to conversion.

I am full on willing to accept the fact that I may be wrong and if its proven that I'm wrong then I'll accept that fact and move on with my life. I'm not an ignorant Christian who denies that i make mistakes in my reasoning. However, you must follow through with your own logic, you say you need credible evidence to believe God's existence yet you claim you do not accept God's existence as a given without giving credible evidence as to why.

As for the last statement, I agree winning an argument or debate doesn't mean your right about everything that was said.

[fr0d0]

Take your creation myth up with your fellow believers, who call BS on you. Even at "6 huge periods of time" it's still bullshit.

*Sticks head above the parapet*

I've had my opinion on that rocked by John Walton in his book "The Lost World of Genesis One" Seeker. It shows in a very strongly supported study of Genesis that the way it should be interpreted is as a model for a temple with God at it's centre (on day 7). That these are functions that are desribed, and not literal events in any sense. The actual interpretation of the word to create (bara) means to arrange in context (hope I got that accurately). That there was demonstrably no material revelation of a scientific nature that we would shoe horn onto the account from our hugely materially influenced modern POV. The explanations used were common in neighbouring creation accounts of the time. It all proves pretty conclusively that a functional understanding is what we have to take from it. I'd recommend it to further your understanding.

[The Grand Nudger]

Always surprising me when I least expect it Frodo. You can look into whatever science tells you btw Seeker...and if your opinion is different you either have evidence to suggest that this is so or you're incorrect. Science is data, not opinions. It's not an issue of "forming your own ideas", its allowing the data to form your opinions, regardless of what you wished to find or believed to be there to begin with.

[Minimalist]

Yes, more and more of the bible is disproven everyday, but its only disproven because its assumed to be literal while much of the bible is metaphorical in nature. The story of creation for instance initially wasn't taught as a literal 6 days but rather 6 huge periods of time. It was a metaphor even to the earliest Jews.

Unfortunately, there are scads of fundies who don't know what "metaphor" means.

[The Grand Nudger]

Guess we'll need a way to determine what was metaphor, maybe "I am god, your god" was metaphor?

[Cinjin]

This is the biggest struggle that I've had concerning God. I agree in that it really wouldn't be a bad idea for God to just prove his own existence. I often wish that if God really exists that he would just appear to everyone.

YOUR god?!!? Hell no, I don't want him showing up here. If the bible has taught us one thing it's that your god is a brutal violent SOB with a real penchant for killing anyone who doesn't conform to the smallest of details.

My viewpoint on this is that the Bible teaches free will, and that we have a choice to follow and believe in God or not.

No the bible clearly does not teach that. If you don't choose to worship your god, you face eternal torment in a place he admittedly prepared for you. That is not free will by any stretch of the imagination.

I believe that if God appeared to everyone then he would be contradicting himself making him less than perfect and not God.

How pray-tell would god be contradicting himself??? How does revealing one's self to any group of people make them less perfect or less of a deity?? That is a HUGE non sequitur. (I won't even get into the fact that your god contradicts himself constantly in that bible of yours)

Sure, we would still have the choice to follow him but knowing him would be forced amongst all people rather than being our choice.

How does KNOWING someone have anything to do with justifying whether or not to FOLLOW said person?!??! One has NOTHING to do with the other. NOTHING!
I know George W. Bush is real, and I choose not to support him. That doesn't make him any more or less legitimate as an American president. What exactly are you talking about?????????

[The Grand Nudger]

If your god was shown to be real I still wouldn't follow him, as Ive had three occasions to point out tonight. Where does that leave your argument?

[Jackalope]

If your god was shown to be real I still wouldn't follow him, as Ive had three occasions to point out tonight. Where does that leave your argument?

I'd like to chime in here and say that I'm in agreement with Rhythm on this. Eternal life in heaven doesn't appeal to me, even assuming such a thing exists (which I do not believe). I'm OK with having a limited lifespan, even after personally having a recent brush with death. Didn't change my feeling on eternal life in the least.