god or no god?

[satchelmcqueen]

convince me as to why there is or isnt a god? especially the KJV god and jesus. i am on the fence.

discuss

 

[Elfshadow]

The annoying thing about the creator debate is that there is no way to prove or disprove that one exists.

 

[Exponent]

People often debate the answer to this question. But I have discovered that a far more important question to ask myself is, "Do I care if some particular deity exists or not? If so, why/if not, why not?" People will debate the first question around and around in circles, but I suspect that in many cases, they differ in their answer not due to details in that question, but due to details in the second question. Those that believe in some god really do care if that god exists or not. Those that don't believe in that god probably don't care even if that god did exist; it still wouldn't affect their behavior or views much.

 

[Jtorsella]

The annoying thing about the creator debate is that there is no way to prove or disprove that one exists.

You're absolutely right, and I don't really care about this debate as it wouldn't affect my politics either way, but a rebuttal to that statement can be found in my signature.

 

[Danke]

Oprah, highest-rated program of its kind in history that was nationally syndicated from 1986 to 2011.

...no God.

 

[WilliamC]

If you can't figure it out for yourself you don't deserve to know one way or the other.

Just my two cents.

 

[ctiger2]

Mathematically it makes sense to believe in God because it's the only path to #winning!:

God/Believe = #winning
God/No Believe = #fail
No God/Believe = #dead
No God/No Believe = #dead

 

[Elfshadow]

You're absolutely right, and I don't really care about this debate as it wouldn't affect my politics either way, but a rebuttal to that statement can be found in my signature.

I like that. Have to remeber that.

 

[pcosmar]

discuss

I'm not nearly eloquent nor persuasive enough to attempt it.
But you are welcome to stop by and discuss, and i will share what I have found and seen.
I find it visible in the woods and fields around here.

I can show you some, but you have to chose to believe.

 

[ClayTrainor]

especially the KJV god and jesus. i am on the fence.

discuss

If "God" is claimed to have the following characteristics

1. God is all good (He/she/it always makes the correct moral decision)
2. God is all Powerful (ability to carry out his/her/its will without restriction)

And we accept that...

3. Evil and Bad things happen

Only 2 of the 3 statements above can possibly be true at the same time, therefore that God can't possibly exist.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

This is evangelism made easy.

There is a God. There is sufficient evidence that it is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The evidence of a god is overwhelming, and if one were to choose a religion, the Christian faith wins hands down.

If you are looking for scientific, or logical arguments for a god, there are many, but here are five:

the cosmological argument from contingency
the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
the teleological argument from fine-tuning
the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

All of these can be explained by Dr. William Craig here:



I like this guy. He debates many prominent atheists.

The god of the KJV bible is the most likely god because the most important part of the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his resurrection, is very likely to have been a real historical event. If that is true, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus was who he claimed: the Son of God.

Here are more sources:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

 

[Jtorsella]

This is evangelism made easy.

There is a God. There is sufficient evidence that it is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The evidence of a god is overwhelming, and if one were to choose a religion, the Christian faith wins hands down.

If you are looking for scientific, or logical arguments for a god, there are many, but here are five:

the cosmological argument from contingency
the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
the teleological argument from fine-tuning
the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

All of these can be explained by Dr. William Craig here:



I like this guy. He debates many prominent atheists.

The god of the KJV bible is the most likely god because the most important part of the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his resurrection, is very likely to have been a real historical event. If that is true, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus was who he claimed: the Son of God.

Here are more sources:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

Thanks for your videos, interesting. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I happen to think that Christopher Hitchens is one of the funniest public figures out there, though a prominent socialist. Here's my favorite video.
AGAIN: I'm not endorsing what he says and will not argue on his behalf, but he's pretty awesome .

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Christopher Hitchens is one of the funniest public figures out there, though a prominent socialist.

One of the funniest neo-cons actually. Ron gave a speech slamming him as a neo-con, but I've never known much about his politics, but your right he's funny as hell.

 

[Jtorsella]

One of the funniest neo-cons actually. Ron gave a speech slamming him as a neo-con, but I've never known much about his politics, but your right he's funny as hell.

Yeah he's the most contrarian person I've ever heard of. You should read the original article in Vanity Fair. I love how he's soooo sarcastic and condescending; it's hilarious.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Ron gave a speech slamming him as a neo-con,

Really? Remember which one?

 

[Jtorsella]

Really? Remember which one?

He's actually not a neocon. His politics are really screwy. He essentially supports war to fight radical Islam, is economically liberal, and supported the Burka ban in France. The social and war positions may translate across all social and FP issues, but I feel that he just has an extremely deep-seeded hatred of Religion and is using political positions to express that.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Really? Remember which one?

I'm not sure when exactly, but it was on the house floor. Here it is with pics:



@1:16

 

[jmdrake]

He's actually not a neocon. His politics are really screwy. He essentially supports war to fight radical Islam, is economically liberal, and supported the Burka ban in France. The social and war positions may translate across all social and FP issues, but I feel that he just has an extremely deep-seeded hatred of Religion and is using political positions to express that.

Let's see, he's economically liberal and supports expansionist wars against Islam? That's the definition of a neocon.

 

[CaptUSA]

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" - Christopher Hitchens

 

[erowe1]

If "God" is claimed to have the following characteristics

1. God is all good (He/she/it always makes the correct moral decision)
2. God is all Powerful (ability to carry out his/her/its will without restriction)

And we accept that...

3. Evil and Bad things happen

Only 2 of the 3 statements above can possibly be true at the same time, therefore that God can't possibly exist.

This would only be true if there were something about premises 1 and 2 that made it impossible for evil and bad things to happen. I don't see anything about them that does that.

However, I do notice something else that's telling in that syllogism. It requires acceptance of there being such a thing as evil, and such a thing as "correct moral decisions." But there can only be such a things as evil and correct moral decisions if there is such a thing as an objective moral standard, and there can only be such a thing as an objective moral standard if there is a God. So, in order for anyone to accept the premises of that syllogism, they would have to be a theist already.