i was talking about the existence of Jesus Christ, is he real? why should i believe him? where is he now?

Views: 1926

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think I'd beg for the needle! Speaking of 10 years in prison, check THIS out:

Pakistan court sentences man to death for blasphemy

(The link is in the headline, but THIS is the paragraph you need to see:)

"'The additional session judge Azar Khan has passed a sentence on him (Shah) of capital punishment and imprisonment for 10 years under the charges of blasphemy,' Syed Zamurd Shah (no relation), the district and session judge in the northern city of Chitral, told AFP."

So how do you suppose that works - does the poor slob spend ten years in the slammer, then get executed, or do they execute him first, then throw him in a cell for a decade?

I think the kid will come up with worse crimes after the whole church thing. After all some of the worse crimes in history were sanctioned by the church.

Thomas Aquinas was of the belief that although the existence of a god cannot be proven scientifically, it is impossible to scientifically prove the non existence of a god. Athiests, when drawing upon natural law and human reasoning to explain the origin of man and the universe, must ASSUME that god does not exist because it cannot be proven by any science that a god does not exist, even Richard Dawkins admits to this.  If you are skeptical of this, i would challenge any athiest to prove that god does not exist.

Strictly speaking if religion is defined by having a belief system based on something that cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, then atheism by definition would be religion.  Atheism, by name, is the belief that God does not exist and because the non existence of God cannot be proven Atheism relies on an unproven assumption, a faith.  Atheism is often considered the polar opposite of Christianity which in a sense is truer than most believe.  While good Christians have faith in the existence of God and all doctrine that is consequential of the faith, Athiests have faith in the non existence of God and the scientific theories that rely on the non existence of God.  

What i am trying to say is that even disbelief relies on the assumption of the non existence of God and that in order to fully discern, one must be open to further assumptions in either direction be it Atheist or Theist.

One reasoning of the existence of God that i find quite compelling is Thomas Aqunas' 5 proofs.  If you are not familiar with them, i will outline them briefly.  What is interesting to note is that although they rely heavily on assumptions, they are extremely diffucult to refute, the first three at least.

1. First Mover - The motion of the universe must have been put into motion by something stationary, some call it the big bang others god.

2. First Cause - everything we know is a result of something so if you go back far enough there must rationally be something that caused everything including the big bang.

3. Something from Something Vs. Something from Nothing - Logically something must come from something, nothing cannot create something.  Back to the creation of the universe, everything in existence must have come from something, no thing spontaneously appears of no cause or creator.

4. Perfect Being - If there was no existence of a God, where would every concept of human perfection originate.  (this one is more simple to refute in that it would be non beneficial for the human species to destroy each other therefore outlining ideal human action, but still food for thought).

5. Cause for Design - Everything in existence has design and design cannot exist without a designer. (however similarily to the fouth proof it can be refuted by the fact that organisms naturally evolve in order to preserve their species.

To Be clear, these proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God nor do they necessarily even prove the existence of a deity, but attempt to answer the question of the origin of the universe beyond what science can prove. 

Let the fireworks begin -->:) devil

Circulus in probando, denying the antecedent, contradictory premises.

As for your weak points (that you have been duped into thinking are "proofs")

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Next time, before you open yourself to public ridicule, do your homework first. All those points have been addressed decades ago.

Thanks for the response, believe me i have looked into this and to be honest, the "proofs" of Thomas Aquinas are only the beginning.  (i didn't come up with the word proofs, it's taken from his work) To be honest prove is not even the right word, all that these "proofs" prove is that there is no scientific explanation for the origination of the universe itself. 

As for the "weak" points that you drew my attention to, simply taking the argument of the first cause:  The refute for the first cause that russell offers is on one hand supportive of the first cause and on the other hand just as ambiguous as the assertion of the existence of god. 

Firstly russell states that if god exist, the question needs to be asked again, "who created god?" to which a christian would respond, "nobody, god is eternal, without beginning without end".  That explanation is easy enough to brush aside and call complete and utter bullshit, but is russell's answer any more revealing? Russell then offers the explanation that perhaps "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always
existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause."

Russell essentially answers that the world may have always existed, the universe may have always existed.  I think that is about as ambiguous as saying that God always existed and that he put the universe in motion.  He says that the reason we don't know what originated the universe is because we just don't know or cannot comprehend eternity which is almost an identical explanation as to why we can't comprehend the eterenity of god, "because we just cant comprehend it".  Russell in the entire article is not able to prove that god does not exist but attempts to answer aquinas' questions.  I'll admit as i did before, some of those questions can be answered by science and reason due to the fact that hundreds of years have passed and advancements have been made, but the answers to the other questions provided by russell are of very little substance and offer no satisfactory conclusions to the non existence of god or the origin of the universe.  I think many scientists would even debate his theories.

As far as i'm concerned Aquinas' "proofs" simply expose the inadequacies of science regarding the origin of the universe, they do not explicitly prove the existence of God much less the christian god.  However they don't disprove god either.

Next time, give me a little credit :) im not simply going to say that because some guy hundreds of years ago said "this", god exists.  I have struggled with the question of theism for my entire life and i think that there is more evidence suggesting that He does exist than there is proving that he doesn't.  I will reiterate that the non existence of god is not supported and that it cannot be proven and i again extend my challenge to prove that god does not exist.

 

The request for proof that god does not exist is dishonest.... but I always provide an answer anyway.

My proof that your god does not exist is the Great Hempilumpifus.... god eater. The Great Hemp ate your god a long time ago and since It exists outside of time and space your god was eaten before he existed (as we could know it).... sorry. You may think this is just a silly argument but the point of it is this: I challenge you to offer proof that the Great Hempilumpifus doesn't exist and that he didn't eat your god.

I got a laugh out of that one :)

But point taken.

If the GH existed and he ate my god before he existed, then according to my beliefs my god does not exist, therefore neither does the world and we are not having this conversation.

If god was eaten by the GH after the earth was created but before we could know him, then i cannot conclusively prove that the GH does not exist, but that would also mean that you cannot disprove my god either leaving us where we stand now.

If my beliefs are false and my god does not exist and the atheist explanation for the creation of the universe is true, then the GH does not exist either.  I would question why it existed if there were no gods to eat. 

The Hempilumpifus is a silly argument... but it is no sillier than the argument it refutes. 

I see no reason why a god eating entity should not exist just because there are no gods to eat. The idea that a super complex entity just exists is completely illogical in my opinion.... so an entity that eats other entities just existing seems just as likely.... without a creator how would this entity know there were no gods to eat before it existed to eat them? 

As far as your belief that the world requires a creator goes.... that's just a belief, based on an illogical argument with zero support. Nothing shows the universe needs a creator. 

And what evidence made you come to the conclusion that the god you chose is the real one, and not any of the 2000 gods that have existed? On what evidence and study do you disprove them, in favor of yours?

For example, Jesus/Yawhwe/HS said he/it/they will defeat Satan and get rid of all evil... Lots of evil still around... Odin on the other hand, said he will rid Midgar of Frost Giants. Now, when was the last time you saw a Frost Giant?

What Ben said is true. The burden of proof is on the believer, not on us. Atheists simply have no gods. Atheos (Without gods). You claim your god is real, and that we all need to believe and base our lives on his bloody book. Prove it. Every theory that we hold true today has been proven. Tried, tested and proven. Those that fail are discarded. Show us proof that will stand up to any scrutiny and we will believe.

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

If I tell you that Sarah can fly, that there are writings, by people who never met her, that claim that she can fly, that her flight is responsible for all the good in the world, and that you should take it on faith, and base your life according to her teachings, plus give her money, you would instantly call bullshit and demand proof of her ability to fly.

You wouldn't go out of your way to prove she can't fly, you would say "Here is a tall building, show me."

No matter what bullshit excuse Sarah's followers might come up with, or whatever happy story, you wouldn't buy it.

I could tell you that on 9/11, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, wasn't the passenger revolt, but it was Sarah, who flew by, and hit the plane and made it crash in order to save the president. You would still call bullshit and want proof.

Now, what if I tell you that there is scientific proof for Sarah's amazing powers! But I can't show you any because the science community is a part of a conspiracy by her evil nemesis Sara, and they are suppressing evidence of Sarah's true glory, in order to destroy humanity.

Blah, blah, blah... The story goes on, and you would keep asking for US to prove it, because we are the ones claiming extraordinary claims.

But in reality, YOU are the one claiming extraordinary claims, so prove them. Do the research on what theistic nonsense has already been debunked, there is a lot of it, because many of us are tired of the same old circular logic and "God did it."

Please return with something new, and worth discussing.

Our explanations work without the need for god. Your reasoning, in order to work, demands that we accept god, because like you said:

If the GH existed and he ate my god before he existed, then according to my beliefs my god does not exist, therefore neither does the world and we are not having this conversation.

You say "If god doesn't exist, then neither does the world."

We say, the world exists just fine without the need for any god.

Explain to us, how god is real, without using him, or his supernatural status as proof, because we do not subscribe to that.

And please, no "belief" or "faith" either. Real, tangible, proof.

OK Sarah - you can come back down now --!

Suggested revision: "Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told sold.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service