Does God exist? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
cosmo 2
the head cheese
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2016
- Messages
- 651
- Location
- the hall of the hundred columns
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2023
zzzz
Squar3root
realest nigga
God doesn't exist
if he is so perfect why did he invent so many dickheads, dishonest muslims and people who question his existence
if he is so perfect why did he invent so many dickheads, dishonest muslims and people who question his existence
dan964
what
I don't think the existence of unbelievers proves the non-existence of God. It is like saying the existence of capitalists (non-commies) proves that communism doesn't exist.
Nor does it put a blemish on his character. A good king is still good even if his subjects are totally rebellious and jerks.
Squar3root
realest nigga
But a king does definitely exist and there is no doubt about that. Some of The kings subjects will not be loyal to him and that's understandable. Also the king did not create the people in his whole kingdom so it's not the best analogy to use.
If I created something, i would want it to behave exactly how i want. Doesn't make sense to me that someone so perfect would flaw every one of his creations
Queenroot
I complete the Squar3
Well If god does exist, he's a cunt like everyone else.
dan964
what
Maybe the analogy of family is better? A father can love his children but his children can still be jerks to him.
Although, it comes down to whether God is responsible for his creature's rebellion.
For Christians it is the concept of sin, and the origin of sin. It brings up a really contentious discussion about free-will and God giving his humanity the choice to rebel.
Paul says "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."
Basically the question is why on earth did God create the tree for instance or created the devil? Most answer with free-will
Using the family analogy, parents and children have a natural relationship with their children. However, children to some degree can rebel against their parent's and disobey (and many do). But maybe children wouldn't learn how much their parents really do care for them, unless seeing the affects of disobedience?
It is a big can of worms...
Fair enough. Probably frustrating why didn't God force us to love him and make it impossible for us not to follow him.
Although, it comes down to whether God is responsible for his creature's rebellion.
For Christians it is the concept of sin, and the origin of sin. It brings up a really contentious discussion about free-will and God giving his humanity the choice to rebel.
Paul says "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."
Basically the question is why on earth did God create the tree for instance or created the devil? Most answer with free-will
Using the family analogy, parents and children have a natural relationship with their children. However, children to some degree can rebel against their parent's and disobey (and many do). But maybe children wouldn't learn how much their parents really do care for them, unless seeing the affects of disobedience?
It is a big can of worms...
Last edited:
Also, what is the single most convincing argument for the existence of God (in your opinions)?. I can't see why a rational person would believe in a magical immortal dude .
Especially when there are so many scientific innacuracies within the Bible or any other holy text.
Especially when there are so many scientific innacuracies within the Bible or any other holy text.
Last edited:
dan964
what
tldr?
Summarise the main points , the first post seems to only include arguments against the existence of God
Tldr; too lazy didn't read
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
dan964
what
Not to mention scientific inaccuracies in the past with regards to any text, not just the religious. (Aristotle cannot certainly be entirely right).
You would have to mention specific examples.
By magical I presume you mean "relating to, using, or resembling magic." You probably need to explain yourself.
Rational is defined as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
Reason is defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:"
You will find that Christians generally are convinced of creation pointing to some what the existence of God;
and are convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. That is our reason for belief, because we are convinced that Jesus is the "real deal" if you would like.
This is something that has somewhat some historical bearings.
Note: Also just to really stir the pot, if God exists, then it is perfectly rational to believe in him.
Your real question is on the accuracies in the Bible. If you are referring to the first part of the Bible, Genesis 1-11, that will depend on interpretation.
If you are referring to measurements and inaccuracies: most can be attribute to the inexactness of the science/maths at the time, of when for instance the temple was constructed.
The Bible was written originally with those people in mind, it would make no sense to them, if it started teaching things about the universe which at the time, had no proof or evidence for, or that we only know now, I don't think its relevance would have lasted; mainly because it wasn't intended as a
scientific text.
What you find there isn't a single argument by itself, but a collection of arguments.
Besides I wouldn't believe in a God that I could just make up in the moment in my mind by reason/logic.
Isn't the Bible taken as the word of God?Not to mention scientific inaccuracies in the past with regards to any text, not just the religious. (Aristotle cannot certainly be entirely right).
You would have to mention specific examples.
By magical I presume you mean "relating to, using, or resembling magic." You probably need to explain yourself.
Rational is defined as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"
Reason is defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:"
You will find that Christians generally are convinced of creation pointing to some what the existence of God;
and are convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. That is our reason for belief, because we are convinced that Jesus is the "real deal" if you would like.
This is something that has somewhat some historical bearings.
Note: Also just to really stir the pot, if God exists, then it is perfectly rational to believe in him.
Your real question is on the accuracies in the Bible. If you are referring to the first part of the Bible, Genesis 1-11, that will depend on interpretation.
If you are referring to measurements and inaccuracies: most can be attribute to the inexactness of the science/maths at the time, of when for instance the temple was constructed.
The Bible was written originally with those people in mind, it would make no sense to them, if it started teaching things about the universe which at the time, had no proof or evidence for, or that we only know now, I don't think its relevance would have lasted; mainly because it wasn't intended as a
scientific text.
What you find there isn't a single argument by itself, but a collection of arguments.
Besides I wouldn't believe in a God that I could just make up in the moment in my mind by reason/logic.
I'm sure God would know that the Earth orbits the sun
My second point wasn't clear, my bad
If the Bible has severe innacuracies in it, why trust it?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
But the Bible DID teach things for which no proof existed.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
dan964
what
yeah and? we don't yet have a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis? what is your point?
you may need to provide concrete examples
Last edited:
dan964
what
No where in the Bible, does it say that the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible has been used incorrectly in the past.
That is one big if. I take the new testament as fairly accurate because of its preservation. In regards to the Old Testament, it would depend on what inaccuracy you are referring to.
I take the Bible not as scientific, but needs to read as more literature than a research publication.
How can something blatantly contradict itself so many times. It amazes me. If my GP contradicted himself this many times I'd be wary believing anything he says.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
Can you concede that if any text has severe inaccuracies and contradictions, the legitimacy of the author is hindered ? (Any text, whether it be the Bible or the uni textbook you use)
Last edited:
dan964
what
I won't be perfect, but some of those I will/can address. Hold on a sec.
dan964
what
Most of the supposed contradictions can be explained by the fact that they are corroborating accounts. The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.
Think of it as different people recounting the same story, they will tell it slightly different, but the important things will be consistent.
Historians specifically apply this to the resurrection, as this establishes 4 separate accounts of the event. Not to mention other New Testament writings.
Some of the objections are based on misunderstandings of particular Christian teachings or teachings of Jesus, e.g. the Trinity; especially a lot of the ones to do with Pauls.
(Note: Mark 16:16 onwards should not be counted)
-----
Here are just a couple addressed, as I really won't be able to have the time to address all of them.
[1] & [6] Technical Explanation:
One is tracing lineage to Joseph, the other to Mary. The translation isn't super clear for Luke, but that is the difference. The phrasing in Luke "son so it was thought of" was to alert the reader of the non-convention of taking the mother's line instead of the father's line. (But was written as such to demonstrate the theological significance but that is another point).
[2] Actually it is very likely that Matthew is giving Joseph's perspective and Luke is giving Mary's perspective. Two different announcements, and hardly contradictory.
[3] 12 years pass, the parents could have quite forgotten or not fully understood what was said to them 12 years earlier.
[5] Matthew deliberately omitted generations in his genealogy. (7 was symbolic number)
[6] - see [1] above
[7] Peter was called Cephas as well as Simon. Paul was also called Saul. Common practice for people to have multiple names. Emmanuel is more of an allusion to Isaiah 9:6, it means "God with us"
[8] Argument from ignorance. We don't know whether John the Baptist fled or not; or anything concerning him. Some make the claim that John's father was killed, but really I don't know.
[11] John 14:30 taken out of context. It doesn't say Satan has no interest in Jesus. It says that he has no power/hold over me, something completely different. Claim made is false or misleading.
[12] Omission of information on part of Mark or John, doesn't mean contradiction.
[13] Matthew 11:1-3 taken out of context. Even, John the Baptist, had his doubts while in prison.
[14] John's Gospel makes no mention of Jesus beginning his ministry in Galilee. He was baptising but maybe that was not considered as part of his teaching ministry, which is emphasised by Mark.
[15] Different perspective, not a contradiction.
[16] Matthew passage doesn't state who God is addressing. Claim made is false.
[17] Would have to look into the chronology in John.
If you would like particular ones addressed, send a PM, because I probably need to head to bed now!
Think of it as different people recounting the same story, they will tell it slightly different, but the important things will be consistent.
Historians specifically apply this to the resurrection, as this establishes 4 separate accounts of the event. Not to mention other New Testament writings.
Some of the objections are based on misunderstandings of particular Christian teachings or teachings of Jesus, e.g. the Trinity; especially a lot of the ones to do with Pauls.
(Note: Mark 16:16 onwards should not be counted)
-----
Here are just a couple addressed, as I really won't be able to have the time to address all of them.
[1] & [6] Technical Explanation:
One is tracing lineage to Joseph, the other to Mary. The translation isn't super clear for Luke, but that is the difference. The phrasing in Luke "son so it was thought of" was to alert the reader of the non-convention of taking the mother's line instead of the father's line. (But was written as such to demonstrate the theological significance but that is another point).
[2] Actually it is very likely that Matthew is giving Joseph's perspective and Luke is giving Mary's perspective. Two different announcements, and hardly contradictory.
[3] 12 years pass, the parents could have quite forgotten or not fully understood what was said to them 12 years earlier.
[5] Matthew deliberately omitted generations in his genealogy. (7 was symbolic number)
[6] - see [1] above
[7] Peter was called Cephas as well as Simon. Paul was also called Saul. Common practice for people to have multiple names. Emmanuel is more of an allusion to Isaiah 9:6, it means "God with us"
[8] Argument from ignorance. We don't know whether John the Baptist fled or not; or anything concerning him. Some make the claim that John's father was killed, but really I don't know.
[11] John 14:30 taken out of context. It doesn't say Satan has no interest in Jesus. It says that he has no power/hold over me, something completely different. Claim made is false or misleading.
[12] Omission of information on part of Mark or John, doesn't mean contradiction.
[13] Matthew 11:1-3 taken out of context. Even, John the Baptist, had his doubts while in prison.
[14] John's Gospel makes no mention of Jesus beginning his ministry in Galilee. He was baptising but maybe that was not considered as part of his teaching ministry, which is emphasised by Mark.
[15] Different perspective, not a contradiction.
[16] Matthew passage doesn't state who God is addressing. Claim made is false.
[17] Would have to look into the chronology in John.
If you would like particular ones addressed, send a PM, because I probably need to head to bed now!
HAHAHA If only this were true. I could just copy my friends' essays and make it so mine "differs in the details".
Using your logic, because my essay "differs in the details", it shows our essays are independant work.
Seriously dude. Just because two historical accounts differ on the details slightly, it doesn't mean they are not copied.
If my essays SIGNIFICANTLY differs from my friends, then yes, the university would not charge me of any plaguarism
If the Bible differs significantly tho, I would be worried ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does God contradict himself?
1. God loves his children, so he becomes human and suffers and dies for their sins
2. God hates the world so much he committed genocide ( Great flood )
He cannot make up his mind. Two completely different ways of dealing with sinners.
"I will only save Noah because he is righteous"
VS
"I will save all the sinners who are not righteous"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus, if God DOES exist I would be extremely worried. He sounds like a total jerk
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
Some of those verses are just downright disgusting, as if they were taken from some sick sadistic head. Why send the devils to chase innocent animals who then run into the water and die?
Another thing to think about. Why does god create such a terrible world? Why not improve the quality of life, even a little? If I were a god, I would at least do something about innocent children being born with life threatening diseases.
Last edited: