Stump the Christian?

[Ravenshire]

If anyone ever grows back a missing body part, it'll be through the advances of science, not the grace of gawd.

Right.

Because God Cannot. Possibly. Exist. This is known and understood by all who have any brains.

In all of human history, it's never happened. Surely sometime, somewhere there has been an amputee so devout in his belief and in such need of his limb that he was deserving of having gawd re-grow it for him. After all, we are talking about the omnipotent being that allegedly cures all manner of horrible illnesses routinely. Show me a believer who prayed for his arm or leg back and is getting it, before science figures it out for themselves, and perhaps I'll reconsider my position. It would certainly be food for thought, though I don't expect you to actually be able to demonstrate it beyond some unverifiable claim.

[Ravenshire]

Right.

Because God Cannot. Possibly. Exist. This is known and understood by all who have any brains.

Strawman.

Randy does like those.

[emjay]

That's the most annoying part - if god wants souls way not show himself, unambiguously? He'd get a lot more souls that way. What's so special to him about people having to have faith rather than have the facts proven?

Or why not simply create everyone in heaven and move on?

In other words if God's purpose is to give people free will in order to choose whether they accept him or not that can still be done by showing himself or his works unambiguously - people would still have to make the choice. Making it based on faith just adds an entirely unnecessary complication, or so it seems to me.

Well, this is just me kicking around ideas but I think the reason is rather simple. God is really, really big...powerful...and to sinners, terrible in His wrath.

I'm not a Genesis literalist, but there is something theologically sound, I think, to the idea that Adam and Eve HID from God after they had disobeyed.

If we saw God as He really is, we, as people who are separated from Him by sin, would not have much freedom. We would be so awestruck and fearful that we would have no choice not only to accept his existence but also to flee his presence.

Okay well that's an interesting take, thank you. But it still seems to be the case that skeptics are penalised in all of this: people who see signs and miracles in everything, what I'd call a horoscope mentality, do themselves believe what they see are facts (I presume) so to them, in their eyes it's perhaps not about faith but fact. So why not allow skeptics their fact as well even if it meant revealing himself in a different way?

[Esquilax]

He did. First for the Jews, and then for the earliest followers of Jesus - both before and after the ascension. And yet, there are still those who refuse to believe.

I have no way of confirming that, and it contradicts everything I understand to be true about the world I currently live in. There are stories just like that for the existence of every other god; why should I privilege yours over theirs?

Suppose God did another miracle for everyone in this forum, and you all believed. In a hundred years, skeptics like you would deny it.

Yeah, sorry if that seems inconvenient to you, but that's the nature of any claim; sufficient evidence for belief needs to be present in a way that is accessible before it is rational to believe. If we're talking about a long ranging claim, then long ranging proof is required. You're absolutely right, there probably would be people who don't believe in god a few hundred years from now if the only compelling evidence for his existence happened centuries earlier in ways that aren't confirmable, and you know what? They'd be right to do so, because if they don't have access to evidence for the claim, then even if the claim turns out to be true, they have no reason to believe it. Being right by accident is no great feat; being right for good reasons is, and even being wrong for good reasons is worthy of respect.

But then, this is all a moot point anyway, because your god could easily repeat the miracles of the past every few decades to keep up appearances so that people can be rationally justified in believing in him; in fact, if he's timeless then that's no great feat at all. He just won't. Because reasons.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

How big is God?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Strawman.

Randy does like those.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed either it seems.

[robvalue]

In god's own stories about himself, in his first book, he walked around on Earth, fully visible and talked to people. So let's pretend that actually happened for a minute.

If he did it once, he could do it again. So why doesn't he?

1) He can't. He has expired, or no longer has the power to do so.

2) He won't. Maybe he has lost interest in us. Maybe he wants to see which of us use the critical thinking skills he gave us, knowing there is insufficient evidence. Or maybe he enjoys the confusion, the suffering, the exploitation and even the killing that his absence is causing. Maybe he thinks we don't deserve to see him anymore.

Either way, he certainly doesn't want us to know he exists, assuming that 2 is the explanation. He could just come down and walk around, and we wouldn't be able to deny his existence.

Objections?

1) This violates our free will!

Does he want us to believe in him or not? Yes, we would believe in him. It doesn't mean we would worship him. He also has no problem screwing with free will in the past, at several points in his own stories. So he must want us to believe based on insufficient evidence, in other words for irrational reasons, rather than a proper reason like him actually showing up? Well that is dumb. He is favouring the gullible. Why?

2) Why should he do that?

Well, because he wants us to believe and have a relationship with him. He's creating a barrier by not doing it. If he's too arrogant now or enjoys this stupid guessing game, then he is a dick. Too bad.

3) People still wouldn't believe

I think people would in general believe what they could actually experience, and crucially verify with everyone else on a daily basis. Not just people who previously believed, but everyone, including now former atheists.

3) God didn't really walk around on the Earth

Well, I agree. The idea that he did is ludicrous. So either God doesn't exist, or his story is unreliable even in the first book, so should be ignored as deliberately bogus.

[jesus_wept]

Every time I see the thread title, I think this is going to be a thread about whether to dismember a christian or not. And every time I read the thread I'm disappointed.

[Catholic_Lady]

How can I corner, of course with my words, Christians and make them feel they have no choice but admit to rethinking their position or part of their positions when it comes to the bible or their god? I usually go fishing online at conservative news sites like Breitbart News Network. I'll click on a story or headline, look down at the comments and either look for key words that Christians use or post a stimulating comment, which they would of course feel the need to correct me or defend their so called faith. Is there any tools or creative weapons of reason and logic that I can use to stump them?

The bigger question is, why would you even bother or care? Lol.

I don't mean to be rude. But honestly, what concern is it of yours if there are people out there who believe in God? My advice it to just not let it bother you. There will always be people out there who believe differently than yourself, and the best response is to just learn to be tolerant and respectful of different minded people.

[abaris]

The bigger question is, why would you even bother or care? Lol.

I don't mean to be rude. But honestly, what concern is it of yours if there are people out there who believe in God? My advice it to just not let it bother you. There will always be people out there who believe differently than yourself, and the best response is to just learn to be tolerant and respectful of different minded people.

Don't mind the OP. Most of us hold the position of if you keep your fingers out of my pie, I stay out of yours. Most of us aren't missionaries. But we do want to be left alone without religion being sneaked into politics or social issues. I always held the position of religion or lack thereoff being anyone's individual business. Just make sure, what happens in church stays in church.