Christ's birthday

[Edwardo Piet]

First, it seems to me, EvF, that you are taking things out of context. When I said I didn't know, I was not talking about God in general or the issue as to whether God exists, I was merely saying that I do not know all the reasons why God does what He does or allows what He allows. I do not see much difference in that than someone who puts all their trust in the scientific method and then concluding on some point that they do not know. (Or do people who put all their trust in the scientific method have all the answers to all life's questions?)

My point is simply that... I fail to see any evidence of God's existence... you say things such as the universe itself is evidence for God... but I certainly cannot see any such implication. How is that evidence?

...I disbelieve your claim that I'm taking things out of context when I say "What makes you think that there is a God to be mysterious in the first place?"....because my point is simply that I believe it's meaningless whether you are sure or unsure in 'why God does what he does' - if you don't have any valid evidence that he actually exists in the first place.

You say that the universe itself is evidence for God. But in my opinion... you have completely failed to explain that...

By definition, the existence of the universe is self-evidence for the existence of the universe itself... how this implies God, how this evidences God, on the other hand... as I said - I believe you have completely failed to explain. Sorry.

Second, you sound like a broken record in saying that Christians believe in God without evidence.

Well whether it's a repetitive or not is completely irrelevant to whether it's valid or not.

I thought we covered that. I do think there is evidence for God.

And thinking doesn't make it so.

What I fail to see is how what you believe is evidence... is actually valid evidence? How does the existence of the universe itself imply God? How does it remotely evidence that? Please elaborate if you can, please explain - please clarify...

Before I mentioned the fossil record. Now I will mention the universe.

As I said, I don't see how the universe remotely evidences God?

And as for the fossil record... that evidences evolution... according to Science. And sciences job is finding facts about the world... - the evidence of the scientific method is very high standard.

It exists as does life in the universe. That fact is evidence.

Of God?? How???

All you seem to be doing is saying "X is true...and X is evidence of Y!" without actually clarifying how on earth X is evidence of Y...

You say that the universe exists. That is, of course, true. But then you assert that this is evidence for God... but how is it?!

You look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent.

No... these things have separate pieces of evidence...

The evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution. The evidence for the big bang is evidence for the big bang. Without these pieces of evidence the evidence for the universe itself would not necessarily evidence these....

How does the existence of the universe itself imply God? ...how does it evidence....God? How?

I look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of God.

Why do you? How is it?

So to say that I believe in God without evidence is not an accurate statement.

Well you may believe you have evidence. And to you, in your mind, it may evidence it. But whether it actually logically implies it... whether it genuinely evidences it is another matter.

If I believe that the existence of apples is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...then, sure I believe that's evidence....but does that mean it actually evidences it? Does the existence of apples actually give credence to whether the FSM actually exists? Is it actually valid evidence?

...Does it evidence it?

You could certainly conclude that I believe in God based on evidence that you do not accept as evidencing God.

Well who else am I speaking for? I'm the one debating you... so I can only know what I know. That is obvious I would think? So yes... it is me I am speaking for.

I am asking you how what you claim to be evidence...is actually evidence? As in genuine, valid, evidence? Does what you claim to be evidence of God... actually evidence him? Does it genuinely give indication to the truth of the matter?

The situation is similar to a hung jury in a murder trial. All the jurors hear the same evidence. Some conclude from the evidence one thing and some conclude something else. But I think it is not rational to say that one decision is based on evidence and one is not.

Well is it not a matter of who's information actually gives genuine credence, gives indication, to the truth of their position?

There is what one believes to be evidence... and then there's who's evidence actually genuinely evidences their position... right? Finding out who's right is the difficult matter. And you can never be absolutely sure...indeed. This is why we are speaking of evidence and not proof - because we can't be sure.

The fact is that Christian and atheist have all the same evidence. To a very large degree, the facts are the facts. I think where we really differ is in our conclusions from those facts based on the filters or presuppositions we run them through to interpret the facts. Now I'm sure over the years you have heard many reasons/evidence that people use for believing in God. To say that all of them then believe in God witout evidence I think is to redefine the word "evidence" to your own liking instead of using it in the usual sense.

I'm talking about evidence that actually genuinely evidences their position. They believe their evidence does genuinely evidence their position, so they believe they have genuine valid evidence. I don't believe what they call evidence does do that, so I say it's not actually evidence... because I am yet to see how it actually evidences their position.

If you can explain to me how the universe is actually evidence for God, rather than simply saying in your opinion it is and we all look at the facts differently... then fine.

Because I want to know why you think the existence of the universe itself is evidence for God? Whether that's true or not...

EvF

[rjh4 is back]

The bible gave the justifications for his acts. Those justifications are not just...There are these societies... and while this may be a moral of the society: that does not make it just.

Are you suggesting that while morality is merely subjective that justice is objective? On what basis do you make the statement that the justifications are not just? If it is merely based on some subjective criteria of "justness" then why should anyone listen? Without some objective basis for justice then your evaluation only has meaning for you and those who agree with you.

Oh, one family? I see... save one family... destroy all the others. All of the others you created specifically to destroy, and the one family you created specifically to save. Or do you not think that he is omni_____?

That one family provides evidence that Chatpilot's statement was not correct. That was my point.

[Violet]

Are you suggesting that while morality is merely subjective that justice is objective? On what basis do you make the statement that the justifications are not just? If it is merely based on some subjective criteria of "justness" then why should anyone listen? Without some objective basis for justice then your evaluation only has meaning for you and those who agree with you.

Justice is 'what one deserves'. Morality is 'what is acceptable'. Neither of these are objective... but they are based on entirely different principles. I used the wrong word when I said 'those justifications are not just'... i meant 'those justifications are not logical' (nor are they fair, or sound).

In example of why I mean this: you punish someone for being evil... because you created them specifically to be evil. You let one family escape the situation by 'choosing' you... when you designed them with choosing you in your intent. Why would you punish what you designed for doing its task perfectly? There is no logic in even having created anything in the first place... let alone destroying a system that worked to the letter of your design (considering that 'God' is perfect and stuff ).

That one family provides evidence that Chatpilot's statement was not correct. That was my point.

What statement? Your point is that god shows extreme favoritism to a very small handful of the population... while he brutally annihilates those who stand against his hand-picked band of people?

[Craveman]

Yes I believe in the whole Bible.

That would mean that you also believe in all the miracles that happened. Why aren't there any evidence? By the way, you still need to convince us that there IS a god out there to start with...

Yes I have truly read the OT, a couple of times in whole. No you have not convinced me that there are many inconsistencies in the Bible. (I'm sure you are not surprised by this.)

No I'm not. Seems to me like you've made up your mind and that you will have a perfect excuse for each inconsistancy that we would throw at you. You keep on coming back to the "God is too complex for us to understand why he did certain things" argument which indicates to me that you havn't read any of the websites I've given you. Inconsistancies in the Bible also refers to all the contradictions and forgeries. What excuses/apologetics have you got for those?

If God exists, created the universe, created man, and told us how we should behave, then God and what He told us is the standard for everything else.

If we are unable, as humans, to understand how and why God did certain things, how would you ever know what his word is? How can your simple human brain comprehend what he stated in the Bible is actually what he meant? Taking into consideration that the Bible is not God's word after all. The Bible was written by primative men long after the death of Jesus so you're making a big mistake taking the Bible as the "word of God". I think it should be re-named to "the Word of men"...

So I think it is in an analogous sense that God and the Bible are not inconsistent or irrational when it tells of God doing certain things that he told us not to do or you think God should not have done.

So if you really think that the God is rational then I'm sure you won't mind following his laws and therefore start killing people (and lots of them) for 1: being gay, 2: believing in other gods, 3: women not obeying their men, 4: rebellious children etc. (the list is long...)
All of these things are "consistant" with what the Bible tells us so why do you not follow these laws dictated by your "consistant" God? You do believe it is his word after all don't you? Or have you also, like millions of other people,thought about these laws and saw them for what they are: "inconsistant"?

You are making the same mistake as millions of other people who's lived before you. The Egyptians, Aztecs, Incas, etc. These days we laugh at those civilisations for their beliefs and you are making the same mistake with your Christian God.

[chatpilot]

Saerules, EVF, and Craveman I commend you all for having the patience of Job with our xtian friends. I hate circular reasoning and this discussion has taken the same as all arguments with xtians normally do. Honestly, I feel like I am on a merry go round.

rjh4 the facts as Sae said come from your pages of your sacred lie the "holy bible". God wanted to prove to his people that he was the one true god and almighty ruler of the universe and so he supposedly led the Hebrews on a campaign of destruction and death to all that worshiped other gods and practices other belief systems. The best case for this scenario is illustrated in the story of the exodus from Egypt. God did give pharaoh the opportunity to let his people go, but not the opportunity to convert and worship him. In fact, even if Pharaoh wanted to give in and convert according to the bible he couldn't because god hardened his heart to prove his point to his people.

Exodus 10:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

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.

[solarwave]

chatpilot: I believe I have already explained in a past post to you that you can't believe that murder is wrong and at the same time think there is no God. You cant say God is evil by your standards since you cant believe in any real morality. You could then try to say God is evil based on His own commandments but to be consistent you would also have to consider the biblical explaintions of Gods actions too.

Saerules: How do you believe the bible tries to justify Gods actions then?

[Violet]

Saerules: How do you believe the bible tries to justify Gods actions then?

Under the guise of him doing 'good'... when it is from him whence came evil. Example: Sodom and Gomorra getting destroyed is viewed as 'good' by most Christians... who don't understand that 'God' created every single person in Sodom and Gomorra to be exactly that way.

[chatpilot]

solarwave your answers to my posts border on the absurd. Are you really using that tired ancient argument that atheist can't know morality since they don't know god? As I said many times morality does not come from god but from how we are brought up in our respective societies and how they interpret right from wrong. You don't need a god to know that killing is wrong since killing your own people will stunt the growth of your society and lead eventually to extinction as a race.

[fr0d0]

Atheists have proven on here that their morality is socioculturally influenced chatty. You simply don't see the difference.

[rjh4 is back]

That one family provides evidence that Chatpilot's statement was not correct. That was my point.

What statement? Your point is that god shows extreme favoritism to a very small handful of the population... while he brutally annihilates those who stand against his hand-picked band of people?

You know you could go back and read what Chatpilot said and how I responded. But I will help you out here.

Chatpilot said: "But those other cultures and people whose land was usurped by force by the Hebrew's never had a chance to see what god can do and convert."

I responded: "I think you are wrong here again. Joshua, Chapter 2, tells of Rahab and her family which did have a chance to convert, did, and were then saved from the destruction. Why would you think it was any different for the rest?"

I think my point is still valid based on what Chatpilot was arguing. I think you are going off on a large tangent.