I don't understand how anyone could be an atheist other than total mindless belligerent obstinacy, because obviously, that which does not exist can't cause anything so the universe can't come from nothing. We only have evidence for causation from something. Some atheists claim outside the universe doesn't abide in the cause and effect inside of the universe, but if that were true then the universe would never come into existence. Of course God can created from outside of time and space since God would transcend time and space. People say God can't create without time. Sure He can. He creates timelessly.
The only other approach I have ever seen atheists attempt is to claim the universe always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects; but of course, that's false, because if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. It gets even doubly worse for the atheist, because if a past eternity was true, then you should never have existed because that past eternity would go on for eternity never reaching this point. Therefore, infinite regress is a man made delusion.
I guess I should say why I believe Jesus is God over other faiths. The reason I believe this is because I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Group hallucinations are medically impossible - people never hallucinate the same thing. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so the Apostles truly believed it; that is, they did not fraudulently make up their eyewitness testimony. Swoon theory fails because Jesus wouldn't convince anyone He is the risen Messiah all tattered and torn, scourged down the bone, holes in His feet and hands, unable to walk on the 3rd day. Legends theory fails because the Apostles believed it from the beginning, set up the first churches on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and even Paul who was converted about 2 years after the cross said he spent 15 days with Peter, with James, and with John who were key eyewitnesses. Their faith goes right back to the cross. I know the movie "The Enemy" (2014) might convince someone Jesus had a twin brother, but his character and nature couldn't fool the Apostles who had spent 3 years with Jesus.
I believe a sinner is eternally separated from God because God can't have fellowship with sin. Therefore, God the Son mercifully enters His creation to pay the penalty and ransom for sin so that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but has everlasting life. Those who do not receive what Jesus did for them to redeem them back to Him shall perish in a state of eternal conscious separation from God. The closest thing I can think of what Hell will be like for Muslims, Atheists, JW's, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, other Gnostics, Deists and Agnostics, etc. is simply jail. We throw people in jail for life so they can't harm others so for those who reject Jesus who He truly is, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, must eternally be separated from those God loves, His elect, sons and daughters, namely Christians and Saints from the OT. That would be very unloving of God to allow someone who rejects and despises God to be able to interact with a person who is regenerated, has the Holy Spirit indwelling and eternal blessings, for there is no sin in the New City and New Earth.
Since there is no resurrection accounts (notice you are unable to find any sources from antiquity) except Jesus claiming to be God, He is the One and Only. For the atonement to be authentic, the Atoner must come in our likeness - the likeness of flesh - and that's what Jesus does as the perfect sacrifice for sins. When Jesus returns to reign on earth for 1000 years as the Son of Man, He will defeat the evil [atheist, etc.] nations, and His overcomer believers will reign on earth over the nations for 1000 years before the New City and New Earth commence eternity future.
That's why I believe what I believe since I don't know how disprove it. And there can be no greater proof. I can't even lose salvation, because I gave my life to the God who keeps: those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). Just ask yourself what proof could be better, and you will come up empty handed. You might claim you would believe if Jesus came before you now, but that contradicts His claim when He returns everyone will know it, and why would you even believe it who selfishly comes before you and not others. Why does the universe center around you?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I think any sufficient definition of god can be disproven.
Even (and probably specifically) the christian one can be disproven quite easily "when you look around".
"A" god can't be disproven but "the god of" can be and should be.
God's love is a real biological phenomenon.
I challenge you to convincingly disprove the Creator God.
Love is a biological phenomenom (quite good explained too) there is no divine component to it.
God didn't create anything. We pretty much know how practically everything was created and can use mathematical formular to make predictions on how and when something will be created.
Please define "Creator god" more to talk about it.
That you can reach it via a stroke and not only(!) via some "divine method" is proof enough that it is not divine but medical in nature.
As soon as you can "reach something" via medical means, it is not divine in nature and obviously biological.
So i'm not agnostic to that. At least by this definition.
I understand though why someone is agnostic. Noone can know everything. ((any) God incuded in the last statement)
The originator of all phenomena.
..is the "Big Bang" a very thoroughly (not yet entierly) understood phenomenom.
Yes, but the Big Bang must have come from something. I'm not arguing for the existence of the Creator God, just trying to show that it's impossible to disprove.
The "Big Bang" doesn't need to be disproven, it's already the best theory for explaining the beginnign of the universe.
Despite that: We already know what happened 0.<36zeroes>1 seconds after it, so it's really just a question of time until we know what happend just before it.
If for any reason you want to call the "Big Bang" "God" then don't be surprised if I call an "Orange" "Apple" in following discussions.
"We already know what happened 0.<36zeroes>1 seconds after it, so it's really just a question of time until we know what happend just before it."
That may be true, but I don't believe it. First of all, IMHO, the word "before" is meaningless in this context. There IS no BEFORE the Big Bang. Further (also IMHO) there is no AT the Big Bang. I see time in this context as an asymptote. We can continue "forever" adding zeros after the decimal point - getting closer and closer, but we will never actually REACH the Big Bang.
And that's OK.
Yes, but we need to know what created the Big Bang.
Proof that a creator god can't exist:
A god needs to be a lifeform or else it is just another phenomenon under trilliosn that govern the universe.
A Lifeform can't exist out of spacetime because it would nether have a body+mind, nor the possibility of action because without space there can be no body and without time there can not be action.
Conclusion: A creator god, which needs to exist outside of spacetime, can't exist.
Addendum: "Body+Mind" can also mean "form of energy" a postulated by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
"A god needs to be a lifeform" - but what kind of lifeform? To say that it must have the properties of Earthly 4-D lifeforms, is an unwarranted assumption. In fact, it would be impossible for it to be this kind of lifeform.