Do Christians actually want evidence?

[Whateverist]

Yes, it is impossible. The materials came from God and His ability to create them. After that, if you would pay attention to what you read, God made the universe from them, the greatest work of art ever.

GC

It feels like someone left the window open and the IQ just went out of the room.

[Yahweh]

And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

Just going to skip directly to this part, because everything else you posted was a waste of time to read, and is illogical bullshit sprinkled with cop outs.

You're saying we should have no independent freedom from God?

No, what I interpreted from his previous statement was, it's alright for god to watch rape, murder, and other sick shit that he created happen, but your morals tell you to prevent said things from happening if you were to witness them. In my opinion, that makes you better than god. Why worship someone who is fine with what you're against?
WATCH THIS.
I know you won't watch this video with an open mind. You christians tend to do that.

[Esquilax]

That's your own opinion of the evidence we have. That's not the same thing as having no evidence. There's no proof certainly there would nothing to have an opinion on if we did, we would just know it factually. You don't need proof to have a reasonable belief based on evidence however.

No, actually it's not just my opinion: it's factual. Evidence cannot apply toward two mutually exclusive positions, and in terms of the evidence we have, it does not lead toward theism, let alone christianity. Anything you care to show, all you can present, has a core of wishful thinking tainting your view of it: one can easily see the generality behind it that puts the lie to the claim.

You can't prove there is and you can't prove there isn't so either you believe there is or believe isn't based on the evidence we have.

Or you could just be honest and not do either.

There is scientific evidence but there can be other kinds of evidences. Certainly nothing we know from science would negate the existence of God and may even point towards him if you into fine tuning of the cosmos in relation the conditions required for the complex structure of living beings to form.

The concept of fine tuning begs the question, because it presupposes that there was an aim to be fine tuned toward, which is a concept that you have not demonstrated. See, this is what I mean, when I told you all your claims involve wishful thinking before: you say that the universe is designed for us because we couldn't live here if things were different, and all I have to do is remind you that the only way that claim is even coherent is if you can show that the universe cares whether we live here or not.

Heck there was even a point of creation where time itself began to exist. Theists were claiming that for thousands of years while atheists were postulating an eternally existent self contained universe.

And what did science bring when it made that claim, that theists didn't? Evidence!

How about implanting a microchip in peoples brains that causes their head to explode if they attempt to do someone harm or do anything wrong in at all? Before the explosion they well have a splitting headache warning them not to carry out the action. God doesn't particularly want us to live under that kind of control he wants us as free agents. As free agents we can be good benefit other or evil and harm others. Without freewill we wouldn't have the true capacity for good or evil we would be controlled like machines.

Or how about a series of coincidences within the physical world that prevents harm from resulting from evil actions? The rapist finds himself flaccid around his victim, guns jam before they're fired in anger, etc etc. No violation of free will, and no harm either; I'm a limited human, and I could figure that out.

Why couldn't your god?

You're saying we should have no independent freedom from God?

I'm saying if you can stop someone from being hurt and you don't, you're a dick. And if you're in possession of information about every murder that's ever taken place and you don't surrender that to the police, you're an accessory.

[xpastor]

Evidence yes.



(It's a little bit dated in some ways but still perfectly viable as a revelation from the creator of the universe)

Hard concrete proof not so much as then you would remove the freedom of will aspect.

Yeah, yeah. Just what I thought during my many years as a devout Christian. I realized later that I had been reading the bible, as I express it, with my mind on cruise control. You know how you drive along without really paying attention and then you see something striking or interesting, and you pay attention for a moment.

It was the experience of going to seminary which disengaged the cruise control on my mind. I had to slow down and read the bible carefully, some of it in the original languages. No, I didn't go to one of those liberal seminaries where the professors poke holes in the bible. Quite the opposite, it was an ultra-conservative seminary committed to biblical inerrancy. It was just that I finally had to pay attention to every word, not just the comforting proof texts which Christians lap up from their pastors. And I came to the conclusion which is embodied in my signature line.

Yes, the bible has some fine noble thoughts in both Old Testament and New Testament. However, they are no better than you will find in other religious traditions, and they are seriously outweighed by all the faults.

For the most part, the Old Testament is a compendium of

• ridiculous rituals practised by ignorant people in the early Iron Age, see Exodus 29:19-21
  
• a lot of cruel and unusual punishments, see Deut 19:20-21 & Deut 25:11-12
  
• one genocide after another commanded by Yahweh, see 1 Sam 15:3
  

The major theme of the New Testament is that the world would end shortly in that era. Jesus thought so, Paul thought so, and so did the crazed author of Revelation. This is a complex subject; it's treated in detail in the thread Poll for Christians: Are the End Times Imminent?

[Minimalist]

Yes, it is impossible. The materials came from God and His ability to create them.

Poof - here comes the universe.

Your mind is so delightfully childish, G-C. Most times I think you are about 7.

[Sword of Christ]

And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

The idea is you have to have the option to rape and murder and if you don't rape and murder it's because you're a decent person. But seeing as the option is there some people will decide to go for it. God doesn't want a relationship with a bunch of machines that can only do what they're told that's not why he created the universe. He wanted free independent being who can decide for themselves what they want to do and this was the only way to do it. There is also the question of where you draw the line, do you want God to stop you from using cuss words and looking at porn?

[Yahweh]

And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

The idea is you have to have the option to rape and murder and if you don't rape and murder it's because you're a decent person. But seeing as the option is there some people will decide to go for it. God doesn't want a relationship with a bunch of machines that can only do what they're told that's not why he created the universe he want free independent being who can decide for themselves what they want to do. There is also the question of where you draw the line, do you want God to stop you from using cuss words and looking at porn?

Did you NOT watch the video I put in my last post? You look foolish trying to defend your god. God has no control of me. I don't even believe in the motherfucker. If god doesn't want people following orders, why does the bible exist? Why do the 10 commandments exists? HUH? Continue being close-minded. It makes you look silly.

[Sword of Christ]

No, actually it's not just my opinion: it's factual.

How do you what you just claimed is factual? It could be true sure but this isn't something actually know. So it's your opinion then, an opinion of the evidence. Opinions are open to being wrong/mistaken of course though that applies equally to everyone.

Evidence cannot apply toward two mutually exclusive positions, and in terms of the evidence we have, it does not lead toward theism, let alone christianity.

Obviously it can lead that way if there are 5 billion theists and 2 billion Christians. Of course this faith in the absence of certain factual knowledge but atheists are pretty much in the same boat here, they don't know either. They make a big issue about that in fact like it proves something.

Atheist: "You see I don't know!"

Theist: "...I know you don't know?"

Anything you care to show, all you can present, has a core of wishful thinking tainting your view of it:

Why is it wishful thinking? Is that just your own opinion again? You statements of opinion don't become objective fact because you stated it, that's something to get through here.

one can easily see the generality behind it that puts the lie to the claim.

It's a lie and not a genuine belief people throughout history have sincerely held because of your own opinion again? Do you have a strong faith in the power and strength of your own opinion or something? So like if something matches fully your own opinion it becomes factually true otherwise can be automatically dismissed? It would nice if the world did actually work that way but it doesn't really. It's a little more complicated than that.

Or you could just be honest and not do either.

I being 100% honest but the opinion I have appears to be different from yours. I know perhaps the idea of this will make go like this.



But it's just something to bear in mind if you want to argue for a position. You don't say something is true and it becomes true you have to explain why, show your working here.

The concept of fine tuning begs the question, because it presupposes that there was an aim to be fine tuned toward

Either it was or it was a one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 trillion coincidence of pure chance. That would work if you had an infinite assortment of random universes I suppose but if you want to apply Occams Razor you can just say there is one universe and it was purposely made to generate life, intelligence, civilizations and that kind of thing. So that's an opinion I have but I supported it with some reasoning. I could have just said "No God done it" and expect that to be a hard hitting point which is the equivalent of most of your own points.

, which is a concept that you have not demonstrated. See, this is what I mean, when I told you all your claims involve wishful thinking before:

How is it wishful thinking if I'm giving you what I consider to be the rational reasons for the existence of purposeful origin of the universe/life? You see I'm supporting the opinions I have while you just state your opinions as though they were factual true and can't be argued against.

you say that the universe is designed for us because we couldn't live here if things were different, and all I have to do is remind you that the only way that claim is even coherent is if you can show that the universe cares whether we live here or not.

The universe doesn't care about whether we live here or not but it was created by a God who does.

And what did science bring when it made that claim, that theists didn't? Evidence!

If one kind of evidence fits with the other kind of evidence then you kind of have quite a considerable amount of evidence in total. You go where the evidence takes you even if takes you towards some uncomfortable ultimate conclusions. Uncomfortable at first anyway here's a good quote from C.S Lewis.


“In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

That's from Mere Christianity which a recommended book there, it was written in the 1950s so a little dated but still good.

Or how about a series of coincidences within the physical world that prevents harm from resulting from evil actions?

It's the same difference really, and I doubt it could work how would the natural world suppose to function if nothing could ever harm anything?

The rapist finds himself flaccid around his victim, guns jam before they're fired in anger, etc etc. No violation of free will, and no harm either; I'm a limited human, and I could figure that out.

If you couldn't do these actions no-one would try in the first place and freedom of will is entirely removed. You may as well not bother making the universe at all if you're going to do that. But with this set up you can separate the wheat from the chaff, you have good free independent beings, you have evil free independent beings. Make sure you're on the right team. The right team has God, Jesus Buddha, Confucius or whoever else on it the other team has Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and so on. If there isn't any freewill to be evil there is no freewill to be good. As a consequence the world is how it is but that's not evidence against God.

Why couldn't your god?

He could be he didn't want to for very seriously good reason. Do you want to be able to be good through your own independent free action or not? If you do you will have to accept that others will have equal freedom to be evil. What applies to you applies to everyone else. But God has given us some guidelines both in revelation and in our own inner heart.

I'm saying if you can stop someone from being hurt and you don't, you're a dick.

It's up to us to prevent people from coming to harm on God behalf, God works through us. That's how we grow spiritually and morally. God wants a relationship with beings like us.

And if you're in possession of information about every murder that's ever taken place and you don't surrender that to the police, you're an accessory.

All evil doers will be brought to justice you don't have to worry about that. But they have to have the freedom to be evil if we are to have the freedom to be good. If we don't have freedom and genuine morality then there is no point.

[Thackerie]

* Faith here is defined as belief without sufficient evidence.

How much faith did Christ say that is required? That of a mustard seed. Everyone has been given that amount of faith.

Which explains why we routinely see mountains moving around.

[Esquilax]

How do you what you just claimed is factual? It could be true sure but this isn't something actually know. So it's your opinion then, an opinion of the evidence. Opinions are open to being wrong/mistaken of course though that applies equally to everyone.

Great, so if everything's an opinion and nothing is objectively true, then why are you even here having a conversation?

Obviously it can lead that way if there are 5 billion theists and 2 billion Christians.

And how many kids believed in Santa Claus? The only difference is that your wishful thinking regarding god is validated by this traditional structure, even after society grew out of needing it.

Of course this faith in the absence of certain factual knowledge but atheists are pretty much in the same boat here, they don't know either. They make a big issue about that in fact like it proves something.

It proves that we're honest enough not to assert belief without evidence, and that you theists are dishonest enough not to do the same.

Why is it wishful thinking? Is that just your own opinion again? You statements of opinion don't become objective fact because you stated it, that's something to get through here.

It's wishful thinking because there's always a huge leap of logic that one needs to take: like in your claim of fine tuning earlier, even if we one hundred percent accepted that to be true, it still doesn't point toward the christian god specifically, or any god at all, actually. Hence, it cannot be evidence for a god; the only reason you're claiming it is, is wishful thinking.

It's a lie and not a genuine belief people throughout history have sincerely held because of your own opinion again? Do you have a strong faith in the power and strength of your own opinion or something? So like if something matches fully your own opinion it becomes factually true otherwise can be automatically dismissed? It would nice if the world did actually work that way but it doesn't really. It's a little more complicated than that.

I find it interesting that everything I say, where it disagrees with you, is "just my opinion," and yet you don't hesitate when presenting your own views to remind us that the same is true of you. Could it be that you're trying to dishonestly remove credibility from my position, as though it makes yours more plausible?

I being 100% honest but the opinion I have appears to be different from yours. I know perhaps the idea of this will make go like this.
But it's just something to bear in mind if you want to argue for a position. You don't say something is true and it becomes true you have to explain why, show your working here.

There is no evidence for a god, or insufficient evidence, if you like that better. I agree with you that we don't know the answer for this question yet; the difference is that I as an atheist stop there and just say I don't know, which accurately reflects the current state of our knowledge. You, on the other hand, say that there was a god that did it all, which does not reflect the current state of our knowledge at all, and is therefore less honest than a simple profession of ignorance.

Either it was or it was a one in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 trillion coincidence of pure chance. That would work if you had an infinite assortment of random universes I suppose but if you want to apply Occams Razor you can just say there is one universe and it was purposely made to generate life, intelligence, civilizations and that kind of thing. So that's an opinion I have but I supported it with some reasoning. I could have just said "No God done it" and expect that to be a hard hitting point which is the equivalent of most of your own points.

You've missed my point entirely: You say that life appearing in a universe is a very unlikely thing to occur, and probability is set against it. Okay, fine. But in order to assert that this means that the universe was fine tuned, you first need to demonstrate that life appearing in the universe was the aim of this universe. That's the difference between a fine tuned thing and an unlikely thing; two specific grains of sand touching on a beach is a highly unlikely event, but because there was never any conscious aim that those two grains touch, one cannot say that they were fine tuned to touch if they do. Conversely, your car might get a tune up to increase its maximum speed, and you could easily say that was fine tuned, because the changes made to your car were done with the objective of increasing its speed.

How do you intend to demonstrate that life in this universe was the goal of this universe, such that its success to yield such life can be attributed to intentional tuning?

How is it wishful thinking if I'm giving you what I consider to be the rational reasons for the existence of purposeful origin of the universe/life? You see I'm supporting the opinions I have while you just state your opinions as though they were factual true and can't be argued against.

See above. Hey, could you do me a favor and actually think about the things I post before you just dismiss them as opinion and move on? If you put even a moment's thought into this, you might actually understand what I'm telling you, and I wouldn't have to go through and retell you everything I've already said in excruciating detail.

The universe doesn't care about whether we live here or not but it was created by a God who does.

Now that's an unsupported assertion, and it really makes it ironic that you've been accusing me of them all this time. How do you intend to demonstrate this?

If one kind of evidence fits with the other kind of evidence then you kind of have quite a considerable amount of evidence in total. You go where the evidence takes you even if takes you towards some uncomfortable ultimate conclusions. Uncomfortable at first anyway here's a good quote from C.S Lewis.

My point, again missed, is that bible quotes aren't evidence, and so theistic assertions that time began to exist before science brought real evidence were just fiat assertions and nothing more. Blather.

It's the same difference really, and I doubt it could work how would the natural world suppose to function if nothing could ever harm anything?

I didn't propose that nothing could ever harm anything, just that criminal activity, that causes only harm, would not be allowed to continue. The harm done in, say, killing for food, is at least justified, although if I were a god, I'd probably want to design a universe where death wasn't a major fuel for life on the planet, if I wanted to be a good person...

If you couldn't do these actions no-one would try in the first place and freedom of will is entirely removed.

I don't think you actually understand what free will is.

You'll be arrested and sent to prison if you assault a cop in the street. Does that mean the police are robbing you of your free will, or that your actions come with consequences?

Free will isn't predicated on the absolute success of every action you attempt to perform. If you try and fail to do a backflip right now, is that gravity curtailing your free will? You have the power to choose: you don't have the power to succeed all the time. It's the same with what I'm proposing.

You may as well not bother making the universe at all if you're going to do that.

What's the point of having all these humans if you can't watch them suffer, eh?

He could be he didn't want to for very seriously good reason. Do you want to be able to be good through your own independent free action or not? If you do you will have to accept that others will have equal freedom to be evil. What applies to you applies to everyone else. But God has given us some guidelines both in revelation and in our own inner heart.

And yet for some reason, when people get diseases and so on that curtail their freedom, that's all a part of god's plan. But if the criminal's guns uniformly jammed, oh no, their freedom would be gone, we can't allow that! And the person he kills with that gun, what happened to their free will, in this scenario?

You are literally positing a universe where the murderer's freedom to murder is more important to god than the freedom of his victims, and everyone else who has ever been struck down due to his "mysterious ways."

It's up to us to prevent people from coming to harm on God behalf, God works through us. That's how we grow spiritually and morally. God wants a relationship with beings like us.

So how come you're holding us sinful humans to a higher moral standard than the god that you worship?

All evil doers will be brought to justice you don't have to worry about that. But they have to have the freedom to be evil if we are to have the freedom to be good. If we don't have freedom and genuine morality then there is no point.

Same question as above.