religious debate

[unreality]

I agree with you argument, but it does make me wonder what kind of a school you went to. A crowbar??

Nah I just made that up lol

[Guest]

Sorry for coming in on page 31 without having read this entire thread, but that's a lot of pages to get through, and I believe the topic has changed a few times anyway. If I'm not welcome to jump in, please just ignore my post.

MY POSITION: I am a theist

MY RESOURCE: The Bible (translation: NIV-New International Version)

In response to unreality

1) what can you possibly do on Earth that deserves you INFINITE suffering?

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10)

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

One sin deserves infinite suffering. Sin is a horrible, horrible thing. Many would say this proves an unloving God. But a loving God would not have sent his son to suffer and die to remove the sins of the world, thereby freeing us from Hell. That is a loving God. We sin in the face of our God. We are the unloving ones.

2) the "life would get stale" arguement works for Hell too. Eventually it wouldn't be much suffering anymore after thousands of years of the same repeated punishment. You would probably actually grow to LIKE said punishment. Only if they could find an INFINITE number of DIFFERENT ENOUGH punishments, mental and physical, would you be able to continually punish the subjects...but that sounds so cruel and pointless to me. What's the point? Subjecting someone to repeated pain will make them more bitter, not less so.

Hell is complete separation from God. That is the horror of Hell. God is not with you in Hell. That's the punishment, that's the suffering. The longer you are without God, the worse it is for you. That's why Hell grows ever worse. It's not literally demons poking you with forks - it's separation from God. People do not go to Hell so that they start behaving, like the reason a teacher would punish a student. Once you're in Hell, it's too late, you're done for.

[unreality]

Then that's a ridiculous point of view, in my opinion, after giving a long think about your post and it just seems.... I dunno, like I said, ridiculous. It means everyone is going to Hell, cuz I'm sure according to your strict rules, that EVERYONE has sinned. Do you really believe that people are done for and are completely hopeless cases if they commit just one single sin? I think that sounds ridiculous even to most theists (though I could be wrong).

And about new people in the debate, we like new people! Thanks for stopping by but be prepared to have things that you hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning. You have to be open-minded and willing to possibly change positions, or at least put yourself in our shoes for a bit, or at least listen to what we are saying, otherwise nobody will value you in this debate, just warning you ;D

So, just curious, WHY are you a theist? Were you raised in a theist background and never actually THOUGHT about why you think God exists, or whatever, tell us your story

[Guest]

Then that's a ridiculous point of view, in my opinion, after giving a long think about your post and it just seems.... I dunno, like I said, ridiculous. It means everyone is going to Hell, cuz I'm sure according to your strict rules, that EVERYONE has sinned. Do you really believe that people are done for and are completely hopeless cases if they commit just one single sin? I think that sounds ridiculous even to most theists (though I could be wrong).

And about new people in the debate, we like new people! Thanks for stopping by but be prepared to have things that you hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning. You have to be open-minded and willing to possibly change positions, or at least put yourself in our shoes for a bit, or at least listen to what we are saying, otherwise nobody will value you in this debate, just warning you ;D

So, just curious, WHY are you a theist? Were you raised in a theist background and never actually THOUGHT about why you think God exists, or whatever, tell us your story

Oh, of course not everyone is going to hell. It is true that everyone has sinned:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

But God's remedy:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

That's where Jesus' death and resurrection come in. He suffered death and Hell, in our place, so that, even though we deserve Hell, we may inherit Heaven instead, by the grace of God.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— (Ephesians 2:8)

As a new member of the debate: I am prepared to have things that I hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning, put myself in your shoes for a bit, and listen to what you are saying. My goal is to remain professional and curteous throughout.

My Background: I am a theist by faith. I was born into my current religion and though I was not turned against it by my family, I was neither encouraged in it, as most of my family believes that as long as you have God, you are good, no matter the details. So religion was never emphasised by those around me, but I have held it of importance since I can remember. I have examined many other religions both on my own and in school settings. I do not believe that I can choose the truth or decide what I think is best concerning God and religion, as the truth is the truth whether I believe it or not. It's not up to me. But I do believe that the Bible is, in fact, the inerrant Word of God.

There were a few times in my life when I very seriously considered the existence of God, whether my religion was the right one, whether the Bible is true, and every time I have come to the conclusion that God does exist, the Bible is the truth, and salvation is found in its words. Salvation is obtained by God's grace through faith in Christ, not by what we do.

Knowledge of God is not based purely on logic. So when a debate occurs on a website founded on logic, such as this, that's where I'd expect the most argument to occur: on matters of logic. Obviously, the supernatural is not necessarily logical, and God is supernatural, so he is not bound by the laws of science we have come up with.

I hope that is a good summary of my background.

[Guest]

As a new member of the debate: I am prepared to have things that I hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning,...

Knowledge of God is not based purely on logic. So when a debate occurs on a website founded on logic, such as this, that's where I'd expect the most argument to occur: on matters of logic.

Knowledge that's worth anything and worth debating is based on logic and rational reasoning. I can tell you I have knowledge that an invisible pony lives in my backyard, but if I claim it can't be refuted by logic because my knowledge isn't based on logic, my knowledge isn't worth very much and isn't very convincing, is it?

But I do believe that the Bible is, in fact, the inerrant Word of God.

It seems like you're waiting to be asked "why?".

Salvation is obtained by God's grace through faith in Christ, not by what we do.

Only if you pick and choose which verses you'd like to believe:

Psalm 62:12

For you render to each one according to his works.

Proverbs 10:16

The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

Jeremiah 17:10

I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Ezekiel 18:27

When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul.

Matthew 5:20

Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 12:37

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Matthew 16:27

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 19:17

If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew 25:41-46

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Luke 10:26-28

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

John 5:29

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Romans 2:6, 13

Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

2 Corinthians 11:15

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Philippians 2:12

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

James 2:14

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

James 2:17

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:21-25

Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Peter 1:17

The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work.

Revelation 2:23

I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Revelation 20:12-13

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.

[Guest]

Knowledge that's worth anything and worth debating is based on logic and rational reasoning. I can tell you I have knowledge that an invisible pony lives in my backyard, but if I claim it can't be refuted by logic because my knowledge isn't based on logic, my knowledge isn't worth very much and isn't very convincing, is it?

I mentioned logic would be the hardest issue here. I can't use logic to prove God anymore than someone could use logic to disprove God, as I believe has been discussed earlier. The logical proof that I can see in God's existence is creation. It isn't logical to say that everything just happened on it's own. It's more logical to say someone put it there. I'm also aware that the problem of "well, who put God there, then?" has been discussed. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. He has always been there. That is not logical, but still true. If I must go with only logic, then I can't go. I believe what the Bible says and it reports many illogical things (i.e. - miracles, the flood, the resurrection). To an atheist, that indeed may be unconvincing, as you say.

You listed a lot of passages, and I think it would take a long time to go over all of them, but none of them mention "salvation", which is what I referred to in my last post.

[Guest]

The logical proof that I can see in God's existence is creation. It isn't logical to say that everything just happened on it's own. It's more logical to say someone put it there. I'm also aware that the problem of "well, who put God there, then?" has been discussed.

But it doesn't seem you understand how relevant that follow up question is as you go on to say:

He has always been there. That is not logical, but still true.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that it isn't rational that complexity exists, so it can't without a god, and then claim that it isn't rational in the case of God's complexity either...but it's true anyway because you say so.

I believe what the Bible says and it reports many illogical things (i.e. - miracles, the flood, the resurrection).

Yeah, we got that. Still waiting to be asked "why?"?

You listed a lot of passages, and I think it would take a long time to go over all of them, but none of them mention "salvation", which is what I referred to in my last post.

How are you defining salvation? More than one of the passages I listed say that faith without works are dead.

[Guest]

But it doesn't seem you understand how relevant that follow up question is as you go on to say:

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that it isn't rational that complexity exists, so it can't without a god and then claim that it isn't rational in the case of God's complexity...but it's true anyway because you say so.

Yeah, we got that. Still waiting to be asked "why?"?

How are you defining salvation? More than one of the passages I listed say that faith without works are dead.

I'm working on the passages right now.

I have admitted that you can't argue God's existence with logic. God is not logical, he is supernatural. There is much about the Bible that is not logical. Because you can't explain something, does not make it untrue. I've also mentioned, that the truth is the truth, regardless of what I say or think.

As for wanting to be asked "why?" I started out saying I am a theist by faith. I believe the Bible by faith.

Salvation - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (Ephesians 2:8) God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:19) Salvation is what Jesus did for us by dying on the cross and rising again so that we may inherit eternal life in Heaven.

[Guest]

I have admitted that you can't argue God's existence with logic. God is not logical, he is supernatural. There is much about the Bible that is not logical. Because you can't explain something, does not make it untrue.

Of course it doesn't. What point are you trying to make? That's it's somehow as rational to believe in a god as it is to not have that belief because I can't prove gods don't exist?

As for wanting to be asked "why?" I started out saying I am a theist by faith. I believe the Bible by faith.

Meaning evidence isn't required, yet you stated this:

I am prepared to have things that I hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning

Holding beliefs "sacred" based on faith means that believing in incredible claims only for rational reasons is not required by you.

Salvation is what Jesus did for us by dying on the cross and rising again so that we may inherit eternal life in Heaven.

Okay? And you said, "Salvation is obtained by God's grace through faith in Christ, not by what we do."

I showed you several passages that disagree with you. They clearly say that faith in Christ is not enough to have eternal life in Heaven and that works are required.

[Guest]

Of course it doesn't. What point are you trying to make? That's it's somehow as rational to believe in a god as it is to not have that belief because I can't prove gods don't exist?

My logic point was in response to your

"Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that it isn't rational that complexity exists, so it can't without a god, and then claim that it isn't rational in the case of God's complexity either...but it's true anyway because you say so."

Meaning evidence isn't required, yet you stated this:

Evidence isn't required.

Holding beliefs "sacred" based on faith means that believing in incredible claims only for rational reasons is not required by you.

Believing in incredible claims only for rational reasons is not required by me. That means I shouldn't have said "I am prepared to have things that I hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning"?

Okay? And you said, "Salvation is obtained by God's grace through faith in Christ, not by what we do."

I showed you several passages that disagree with you. They clearly say that faith in Christ is not enough to have eternal life in Heaven and that works are required.

I pasted all of your passages into an attached word document and added my explanations, though I can't say they are perfect, I'm by far no scholar.

passage_explanations.doc

[unreality]

It is well known the Bible has many flaws, irregularities, falsehoods, etc, let's not debate individual passages. And it's clearly not the "Word of God" either, as you put it, since it is made up of little accounts written by many people... and at the Council of Whateveritscalled, that guy decided which passages would go in (the ones that made Jesus seem more holy, as opposed to the passages that showed Jesus as a mortal man and a good man and a religious leader, but not a magical superhuman like the ones put into the Bible say). Anyway, yeah, so moving on to something else you said:

It isn't logical to say that everything just happened on it's own. It's more logical to say someone put it there.

Sorry but you should take a course in logic or something.... it's MORE logical to assume that the universe has always been here than to assume that an UBER GOD has always been here. An UBER GOD is much more incredible and there is no evidence for such a being. It's much more logical to assume the universe has always been here. You worked yourself into a loophole

I'm also aware that the problem of "well, who put God there, then?" has been discussed. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. He has always been there.

The universe is eternal. The universe has no beginning and no end. The universe has always been here. Your so-called "logic" is not proof of a God

(referring to God always existing) That is not logical,

you're right, it's not

but still true.

who says?

[Guest]

My logic point was in response to your

"Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that it isn't rational that complexity exists, so it can't without a god, and then claim that it isn't rational in the case of God's complexity either...but it's true anyway because you say so."

Your what? You gave no logic. You said "It isn't logical to say that everything just happened on it's own. It's more logical to say someone put it there. I'm also aware that the problem of "well, who put God there, then?" has been discussed. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. He has always been there. That is not logical, but still true. "

That isn't logical at all. You said, "It isn't logical to say that everything just happened on it's own". You already realize that it also isn't logical that an all-knowing, all-powerful god can always exist yet you give no explanation why not understanding how that could be gets a free pass but not understanding how everything can exist without a god doesn't.

Believing in incredible claims only for rational reasons is not required by me. That means I shouldn't have said "I am prepared to have things that I hold sacred be put up to scrutiny and questioning"?

Yes, it does mean that you shouldn't have said that. You certainly aren't prepared to scrutinize or question your beliefs if rationality is meaningless in coming to conclusions.

I pasted all of your passages into an attached word document and added my explanations, though I can't say they are perfect, I'm by far no scholar.

passage_explanations.doc

They're typical apologist answers that bend what is most likely the intended meaning of passages to suit your needs in believing the Bible is without contradictions.

James 2:14

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

NIV TRANSLATION:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them?

EXPLANATION:

Someone with faith will naturally do good things as God commands. Someone who proclaims to have faith, but does only evil, does not have faith.

Your explanation doesn't fit at all with what was written. It doesn't say that one can't believe based on faith that Jesus died for everyones sins and "do only evil" You totally made that up!

James 2:17

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

EXPLANATION:

If you come to faith and then do nothing but evil, your faith cannot live. A believer, out of love for God, will strive to do good.

Again, you're making up stuff that's not there. Whether you believe one will strive to do good is irrelevant. The passage clearly states that faith without works are dead. Period. This clearly shows that faith without works are not enough to be saved.

[Guest]

There is no logical proof that God exists.

I guess I shouldn't have gotten into this debate, seeing as I can't debate using logic, and that's the only thing most people debate with. I was thinking that you would put yourself in my shoes, understanding (or pretending) that logic does not lead to the truth of God and go from there. But I don't think that will work here.

Unreality:

The Bible is the Word of God, written by verbal inspiration. So, yes, men wrote it, as they were moved to do so by the Holy Spirit.

I apologize, I have not taken a course on logic. I suppose an eternal God is less likely than an eternal everything else. Yesterday, I hadn't considered the idea that the world and universe could be eternal.

I reported that the existence of God is not logical, but true. You asked "says who?" My answer is the Bible and faith. But those are not logic, so I see why that would be unsatisfactory to you.

Scraff:

The first point you discuss - It is illogical that God exists just as it is illogical that everything can exist without a God. God is beyond logic. Man determines science and logic. We observe things and make guesses, then try to prove them. We can't prove all of our guesses. That's why there are so many theories. And just because we do "prove" a theory doesn't mean it's the truth. As I have said, the truth is the truth whether someone believes it or not. Man cannot determine the infinite truths of the universe on his own. God is not bound by science, hence miracles, hence creation, hence everything we know about God.

Next, you say my rationality is meaningless. I don't think belief by faith is meaningless. In fact, it has more meaning than anything logic can dictate. Regardless, I am prepared to have my beliefs questioned, as I have just proven by allowing you to question them.

As for your claim that my explanations to the passages are "typical apologist answers that bend what is most likely the intended meaning of passages to suit your needs in believing the Bible is without contradictions." It seems to me you were cramming those passages into your own context to bend what is most likely the intended meaning of passages to suit your needs in believing the Bible is full of contradictions.

Your explanation doesn't fit at all with what was written. It doesn't say that one can't believe based on faith that Jesus died for everyones sins and "do only evil" You totally made that up!

I'm having trouble making this out. The passage says:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them?

and I said:

Someone with faith will naturally do good things as God commands. Someone who proclaims to have faith, but does only evil, does not have faith.

I didn't calim it says "that one can't believe based on faith that Jesus died for everyones sins and "do only evil"."

In fact, one can believe based on faith that Jesus died for everyone's sins. I was trying to explain that someone who claims to have faith may in fact have no faith. That explains the "faith without deeds". Those with faith, as a result, do deeds. The passage is not saying faith + deeds = Heaven. It does say a dead faith will not save them. I was explaining the dead faith. I'm sorry, does this make sense?

As for your last point, you are right on. Faith without works is dead, like the passage says. But obviously, logically in fact, someone who believes that God gave his own Son up to torture and death, forsaking him, to save us lowly sinners who deserve Hell, purely out of love for us who do so much wrong...that someone who believes this, how could they not try to obey God's will and do good? That doesn't make sense. If a man died for you, would you slap him in the face and not listen to him. I think it's more logical that if a man died for you and asked you, before he died, to go do something nice for someone, you would attempt it. Then again, I haven't taken any courses on logic.

Oh, unreality, you mentioned "the Council of Whateveritscalled, that guy decided which passages would go in (the ones that made Jesus seem more holy, as opposed to the passages that showed Jesus as a mortal man and a good man and a religious leader, but not a magical superhuman like the ones put into the Bible say"

The Bible has several passages declaring Jesus to be a mortal man and a good man and a religious leader, as well as the holy Son of God. He couldn't have died had he not been mortal and he could not have saved us from sin had he not been God.

In conclusion, I'm not sure it would be of any benefit for me to continue with the debate, as there is no logic to explain God's existence other than looking outside and realizing it's not mere chance that we have this beautiful word, or opening the Bible and reading his Word. But that also means the debate continuing at all is pretty meaningless. Of course, I will continue to respond to any questions or comments about this post, and will make more if the situation warrants.

[Guest]

Scraff:

The first point you discuss - It is illogical that God exists just as it is illogical that everything can exist without a God. God is beyond logic.

And the universe being eternal or having a beginning is beyond your comprehension. And you already admitted "I suppose an eternal God is less likely than an eternal everything else.".

Man determines science and logic. We observe things and make guesses, then try to prove them. We can't prove all of our guesses. That's why there are so many theories. And just because we do "prove" a theory doesn't mean it's the truth. As I have said, the truth is the truth whether someone believes it or not. Man cannot determine the infinite truths of the universe on his own. God is not bound by science, hence miracles, hence creation, hence everything we know about God.

No one here is claiming that anyone can prove anything 100%. This does not make it reasonable to believe in things in which there is no evidence for.

Next, you say my rationality is meaningless.

I didn't say that. You said, "Believing in incredible claims only for rational reasons is not required by me.".

I responded with, "You certainly aren't prepared to scrutinize or question your beliefs if rationality is meaningless in coming to conclusions.".

I stand by my statement.

I don't think belief by faith is meaningless. In fact, it has more meaning than anything logic can dictate.

That is such a load of garbage which you backed up with nothing. Believing in incredible claims based on "faith" is no where close to belief based on evidence. Beliefs based on evidence are the reason we can cure diseases and do all of the other wonderful things we do. Why not just believe based on faith that you can walk through a speeding train? Faith has become a catch all excuse for explaining any cockamamie theory that one chooses to believe. It's not only not near the same level as using rationality, logic and evidence to form conclusions- it's pathetic.

Regardless, I am prepared to have my beliefs questioned, as I have just proven by allowing you to question them.

No, you're not. You already used the "logic" that God exists because the Bible says so and that rationality is of no use to you for belief in God. There's no reason we have to question you on anything as it's a waste of our time.

As for your claim that my explanations to the passages are "typical apologist answers that bend what is most likely the intended meaning of passages to suit your needs in believing the Bible is without contradictions." It seems to me you were cramming those passages into your own context to bend what is most likely the intended meaning of passages to suit your needs in believing the Bible is full of contradictions.

If you say so. I gave you an entire list of quotes from the Bible that prove works are necessary for salvation and you hand-waved them away and gave "explanations" that don't fit at all with what was said. I don't believe for a second you have interpreted the passages to fit your explanations but have forced explanations to fit what you'd like the passages to mean. The following passages are pretty clear:

John 5:29

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

James 2:14

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

James 2:17

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

[Guest]

I'd like to start by saying I really don't appreciate you referring to my beliefs as a load of garbage. I've said nothing to offend anyone, yet you seem to enjoy insulting me. I don't know why not believing in God gives you the right to be rude. I guess you were never taught otherwise.

You say there is no evidence to believe in God, but nature itself is evidence just as the Bible is evidence.

I don't understand how I am unprepared to have my beliefs questioned. I just gave you my beliefs. You questioned them.

I have backed up what I have said. I have not used human observation to back it up, but the Word of God, which is far more valuable.

You think my explanations to the passages are phony, I think your application of the passages to this situation is phony. Most of them don't apply to what we are discussing.

Beliefs based on evidence are fine. When did I say we shouldn't believe anything we have evidence of? I'm not saying logic itself doesn't exist, just that God is beyond it. If you could comprehend everything about an omniscient, omnipresent, Lord of All, you'd be right up there with him. If you can't believe something without seeing it, then that doesn't seem very open-minded. I laugh at the man who looks into the heavens and tells God to prove himself, as though any man can command God. He is BEYOND US. We cannot fathom the glorious splendour and design of God.

What proof would convince you?

John 5:29

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

How does this passage say works are necessary for salvation?

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

How does this passage say works are necessary for salvation?

James 2:14

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

How does this passage say works are necessary for salvation?

James 2:17

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

How does this passage say works are necessary for salvation?

I have used the passage myself and have said faith without works is dead. Yes, salvation is by faith. I'm sorry I didn't clarify with "salvation is by faith that isn't dead". How useful is something that's dead? "I can buy stamps from a postman." I guess that should instead be "I can buy stamps from a postman who isn't dead." Otherwise someone might try to get stamps from a graveyard, the way someone might try to get into heaven with a dead faith.

I understand you don't want me as part of the debate anymore, but you don't need to call what I say "garbage" and "pathetic" to achieve that.

[unreality]

Forgive Scraff for his rudeness... he means well but his points usually come across harsh and hostile. He doesn't represent al atheists, I assure you

You say there is no evidence to believe in God, but nature itself is evidence just as the Bible is evidence.

You can't make claims and then not back them up. Nothing in nature requires a higher deity. It functions on its own and saying the Bible is evidence for God is clearly not evidence at all... that's like saying "Jack and the Beanstalk" is foolproof evidence that giants walk around on clouds above us. There is no evidence in the Bible to assert its claims, just a bunch of religious sayings. Not everything in the Bible is true, so you can't be sure of anything the Bible says.

I don't understand how I am unprepared to have my beliefs questioned. I just gave you my beliefs. You questioned them.

I agree with that... I don't know what Scraff was thinking.

I have backed up what I have said. I have not usedhuman observation to back it up, but the Word of God, which is far more valuable.

It's more valuable to YOU, but not to us. What makes you think you know what the Word of God is? What makes you think you can control God and tell us his Word? According to your own words, you can't. The "Word of God" has no meaning if you don't believe in God. God has never shown himself FOR SURE for the WHOLE WORLD TO SEE.

I laugh at the man who looks into the heavens and tells God to prove himself, as though any man can command God.

Why would you laugh at someone wondering if God exists? Are you saying God considers himself to good for people, he likes to keep people guessing? If God exists but doesn't interact with our world, there's no point in wasting time over him/her.

He is BEYOND US. We cannot fathom the glorious splendour and design of God.

A good excuse. How do you know any of that? The fact that he's "BEYOND US" is no proof for a god. I could say that Zeus is BEYOND US! Odin is BEYOND US! Unicorns and leprechauns exist, but they are BEYOND US, so we can't see them- they very well could exist, but your statement just makes that assumption, it doesn't prove anything. You can't expect to win a religious debate over atheists by saying that God is omni-amazing and we just can't fathom it.

What proof would convince you?

If God showed himself to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt that he existed. You speak of miracles but there have been no such miracles. And remember what I said: BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. He has not done so. So either, he doesn't exist, or he does exist but he wants (at least some) people to not think he exists.

[rookie1ja]

That is such a load of garbage which you backed up with nothing.

choose your words wisely

[Guest]

Forgive Scraff for his rudeness... he means well but his points usually come across harsh and hostile. He doesn't represent al atheists, I assure you

okay

You can't make claims and then not back them up. Nothing in nature requires a higher deity. It functions on its own and saying the Bible is evidence for God is clearly not evidence at all... that's like saying "Jack and the Beanstalk" is foolproof evidence that giants walk around on clouds above us. There is no evidence in the Bible to assert its claims, just a bunch of religious sayings. Not everything in the Bible is true, so you can't be sure of anything the Bible says.

Nature does function on its own. How remarkable that it does! How can it function on its own? How did it come to be? How does our body function? Certainly someone intelligent put it together, someone has a plan, someone has a brilliant design! God. Everything in the Bible is true. I admit I can't prove it. I wouldn't try to. I believe it nonetheless.

I agree with that... I don't know what Scraff was thinking.

me niether.

It's more valuable to YOU, but not to us. What makes you think you know what the Word of God is? What makes you think you can control God and tell us his Word? According to your own words, you can't. The "Word of God" has no meaning if you don't believe in God. God has never shown himself FOR SURE for the WHOLE WORLD TO SEE.

I understand what you are saying. I can't control God, but I can tell you what the Bible says, which is the only Word of God we have. Anyone can tell another what the Bible says. I can't prove that the Bible is true, because I believe it by faith, which here is disregarded, making religion a hard thing to debate since it is founded on faith. God has shown himself FOR SURE. Jesus walked this very earth, and yet people did not believe him who saw him. There will always be unbelievers.

Why would you laugh at someone wondering if God exists? Are you saying God considers himself to good for people, he likes to keep people guessing? If God exists but doesn't interact with our world, there's no point in wasting time over him/her.

I don't laugh at someone who wonders if God exists. It is foolish to challenge God, to demand something of him. Do you demand something of a king? No, he is above you. He doesn't need to answer your every call. God has given you his Word, and that is enough. God does interact with our world. He sent his Son to die for all our sins. There's nothing better to spend our time on! Without God, we'd be doomed to Hell. With God, we have the promise of Heaven.

A good excuse. How do you know any of that? The fact that he's "BEYOND US" is no proof for a god. I could say that Zeus is BEYOND US! Odin is BEYOND US! Unicorns and leprechauns exist, but they are BEYOND US, so we can't see them- they very well could exist, but your statement just makes that assumption, it doesn't prove anything. You can't expect to win a religious debate over atheists by saying that God is omni-amazing and we just can't fathom it.

How do I know? What supreme being, even of myth, isn't beyond us? Obviously something supernatural is beyond the natural. That's by definition. False gods have nothing to do with salvation, though. No myths and legends talk about salvation "by grace throught faith" only the Bible proclaims Heaven is ours, free, not by works. It is given to us by God, despite our sins, because we have been saved by his love.

If you did believe in God (step into my shoes here), would it not stand to reason we can't fathom his splendour? Think of all you've heard about God. It's unfathomable, that's why you don't believe it. It's not an excuse. I don't gain anything by "winning" this debate. I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm just presenting the facts as the Bible tells them.

If God showed himself to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt that he existed. You speak of miracles but there have been no such miracles. And remember what I said: BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. He has not done so. So either, he doesn't exist, or he does exist but he wants (at least some) people to not think he exists.

I mentioned God did show himself to the world. It is recorded in the Bible, as are miracles. Why do you feel God owes you this "showing of himself". What have you done to deserve the Almighty Creator's presence in your face? I would feel pretty embarrassed if God stepped in front of me and said "Here I am, there you go, good enough for you? I gave you paradise and you ruined it, I gave you an escape from this sinful planet via my Son, and you rejected it and him. Then you go so far as to say I don't even exist. I, who keep you alive every day? You don't even believe in me. Well, here I am, what else can I do for you today?" Why do you need proof to believe something? Why can't something be true without you seeing it or holding it?

Thank you for your courtesy, unreality.

[unreality]

Nature does function on its own. How remarkable that it does! How can it function on its own? How did it come to be? How does our body function?

and we have all the explanations for that, without God. The brain is a complex thing but even now we understand most of it and are learning more every day

Certainly someone intelligent put it together, someone has a plan, someone has a brilliant design! God.

A brilliant design isn't needed. You can't understand our arguement without understand, at first, that. There is no worldly proof or need for a God at all, thus existence of a God is entirely faith-based. There is nothing here in the universe to prove that. I think you've said the same thing actually, in different words, in a few of your posts. I think we both agree that with faith you believe in God, nothing else. No God is needed cuz the universe is complicated- we've been over this several times in this debate, with success. If the universe is so complex to require a God, then God is so complex to require his own maker, and so on. The universe exists, but God (most likely, I'd say 99.9%) doesn't exist, at least if you look at it with evidence found in this universe. But with faith, he exists to you, Lausus. Admit it- you don't believe in a God because it's a necessity based on our world. It's not. I don't and I get by fine. The universe does not require a creator, AT ALL. No, the reason you believe in God is because you have faith that he exists, no doubt brought about by a religious upbringing and a faith passed down by parents and repetitive assertion that God is around us. But he's not, from all that we can tell. There is no basis for the faith, and thus it is a shaky faith. If you want to believe in God then go ahead. I'm sure it makes you feel good. I'm sure you are all cozy with your secured spot in heaven because "Jesus died for us". You can have all the faith you want. Me, I value the truth.

I understand what you are saying. I can't control God, but I can tell you what the Bible says, which is the only Word of God we have. Anyone can tell another what the Bible says. I can't prove that the Bible is true, because I believe it by faith, which here is disregarded, making religion a hard thing to debate since it is founded on faith. God has shown himself FOR SURE.

obviously he didn't show himself FOR SURE, or we wouldn't be saying he doesnt exist, right now

I don't laugh at someone who wonders if God exists. It is foolish to challenge God, to demand something of him. Do you demand something of a king? No, he is above you. He doesn't need to answer your every call. God has given you his Word, and that is enough. God does interact with our world. He sent his Son to die for all our sins. There's nothing better to spend our time on! Without God, we'd be doomed to Hell. With God, we have the promise of Heaven.

we should be able to demand something from a king. If he's a good king, that is. Maybe not each individual person, as that would be quite taxing, but he could at least show himself to his villagers so that they know for sure that he's there in his castle and he likes his people.

How do I know? What supreme being, even of myth, isn't beyond us? Obviously something supernatural is beyond the natural. That's by definition.

What definition? What requires that there must be a supernatural? there is no supernatural!

False gods have nothing to do with salvation, though. No myths and legends talk about salvation "by grace throught faith" only the Bible proclaims Heaven is ours, free, not by works. It is given to us by God, despite our sins, because we have been saved by his love.

so you believe that the only God is God? What about Egpytian faiths? Greek faiths? Mayan faiths? Islam? Buddhism? Shintoism? they're all misguided, are they? Yet their religions are like the same as yours. Are you saying they're all doomed because they don't believe in your God? I'm sure they know that YOU are doomed because you don't believe in THEIR god...

If you did believe in God (step into my shoes here), would it not stand to reason we can't fathom his splendour?

yes, I get that part. If you believed that God did in fact exist, he would be quite unfathomable. But it's irrevelant because he doesn't exist. And if he does, the unfathomableness is no proof that he does. That's what I was saying.

Think of all you've heard about God. It's unfathomable, that's why you don't believe it. It's not an excuse.

Exactly, it's irrational, faith-based, rediculous, silly, etc, that's why I don't believe it. I'm not being insultive here, but saying it as I see it. But you made it sound as if I don't believe in God cuz I'm unwilling to accept the "unfathomableness", which is wrong. It's not for you to say why I'm an atheist.

And again, this "fathomability" arguement is irrevelant. If God exists, then he is unfathomable. If God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. So let's discontinue this part of the arguement

Thank you for your courtesy, unreality.

you're welcome, and vice versa to you ;D

[Guest]

Hmm, I really can't see us getting any further. I think you agree. Yes, I am happy with my faith, the truth. As you are happy with what you believe as the truth. Just as any other religious person is content with what they believe as the truth. Of course, everyone thinks they are right. If not they are looking for what's right.

I don't think there's a good explanation for why nature is here or how are bodies are what they are and how all of our organs work together with muscles, bones, veins, etc. if not that a supreme being created it.

God did show himself for sure, you personally didn't see him and are saying he doesn't exist. As I said, even some people in the Bible who saw Jesus said that he was not God. They saw God and still said he didn't exist. Showing himself is not proof enough for everyone. There's actually a parable in the Bible about it "The Rich Man and Poor Lazarus" in which a man in Hell asks for a man in heaven to return from the dead to warn his still living brothers of their doom if they do not repent. The man in Hell is told that they have all they need, they have Moses and the Prophets (The Old Testament of the Bible). If they do not believe the prophets, they will not believe even someone who comes back from the dead.

In regards to the discussion of the definition of supernatural, there I wasn't saying something supernatural must exist, but that supernatural means "above natural". It was in accordance with the BEYOND US point.

I do believe that only God is God. There is only one true God. Regardless of what any man says his religion is, in the end there are only believers and unbelievers - those who believe in the one true God as revealed by the Bible, and those who don't. That is the division between Hellbound and Heavenbound people.

Because there is no logic to prove it, you say it is irrational. Okay. Still true. I don't know how to go more in depth. I believe in God even though he defies logic. That's the difficulty in having a debate about it. That's why it's not possible to have a logic-based debate at all about God's existence or many of the other great truths of the Bible, like miracles and the resurrection.

Is there anywhere else we can go with this?

[Guest]

I'd like to start by saying I really don't appreciate you referring to my beliefs as a load of garbage. I've said nothing to offend anyone, yet you seem to enjoy insulting me. I don't know why not believing in God gives you the right to be rude.

You said that believing in claims based on faith has more meaning than belief based on evidence. I see nothing wrong with calling a claim such as that which is downright dangerous if put into use in our everyday world as a load of garbage.

I guess you were never taught otherwise.

So, it's okay for you to insult my parents?

You say there is no evidence to believe in God, but nature itself is evidence just as the Bible is evidence.

The Bible is not evidence for God just as the Qu'ran is not evidence for Muhammad receiving revelations from an angel just as The Bhagavad Gita is not evidence of Krishna.

I have backed up what I have said. I have not used human observation to back it up, but the Word of God, which is far more valuable.

Circular logic will get you nowhere. You first have to prove a God exists before we judge the value of words that He supposedly is responsible for. Until then, you have backed up nothing.

Nature does function on its own. How remarkable that it does! How can it function on its own? How did it come to be? How does our body function? Certainly someone intelligent put it together, someone has a plan, someone has a brilliant design!

Would you like me to recommend some books that answer those questions?

Who put God together? You're forgetting that requiring that things you don't understand needing a God as an answer also requires God to have a creator as an answer.

[Guest]

But Martini, have you ever honestly explored the possbility with an open mind so that you might actually find extraordinary evidence? Most atheists are "passivists" in my experience, just kind of resting on some notion that if the evidence was there that "science" would find it. Do you take that attitude, or have you ever genuinely tried to explore spirituality? I am not harping on your personal ways at all, just asking in a truly curious attitude.

Apologies if I'm repeating what anyone else has already posted. I'm new (at the invitation of an existing poster) and skimming through, trying to rapidly absorb this ping-pong game, but...

You're missing the point entirely. I don't believe in anything before I'm provided with evidence, otherwise I may as well believe in everything that hasn't been disproved, like the Tooth Fairy (sorry but I don't buy Darwin's notion that that was my Dad putting pennies under my pillow all the time).

Why are you so convinced that your personal experiences amount to evidence of God? Why aren't they a result of the chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain, the same ones that amount to consciousness and give rise to enquiry? When I was a teenager (suffering what I found out 30 years later was OCD and mild unspecified autism), in that twilight between wake and sleep, I felt a nasty scary presence in my bedroom that bore me up to the ceiling. I think I then whimpered for a bit before I fell asleep. Would you prefer to believe that I was visited by a demon or an alien or some other unexplained phenomenon or that my mind was temporarily whacked out due to unremitting anxiety? If you accept the latter explanation, why do you not apply it to your notions of God? Is it simply that you want to believe in Him?

If God does exist, he's a bit of a funny bugger - let's create some creatures, let their brains evolve into maginificent organs so that they may ceaselessly enquire about everything I've created but let's not allow them to fully comprehend my greatness so that everyone believes in me

Like that quip about arrogance, btw - let's put off all but the most passionate/arrogant from questioning your belief system; rather like your insistance that questioning the existence of God is beyond debate. Frankly, it is the only question worth discussing where God is concerned. You're presumably happy for people to discuss the nature of God, just so long as they don't question His existence.

[Guest]

I'm curious. The gist of your argument for atheism not being belief was that you don't think there's reason to believe in God, but you aren't saying he doesn't exist. Ok, I can accept that. So what if he did exist, but simply hadn't provided evidence of his existence that you found convincing? Then, if there was some phenomenon that was a direct result of his supernatural action, how would you explain it? After all, you allow for that possibility, but you're just not convinced of it.

However, since I am convinced that God exists, the answer of "God did it" has weight to me. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in how it was done. It doesn't make me any less curious about the observable nature of things. It doesn't give me the logical basis to infer purposeful design unnecessarily. But at the end of the day, if I do believe in God, then yes, "God did it" is meaningful to me. Contrary to your repeated assertions, I'm pretty sure that simplistic line of reasoning doesn't make me an idiot. It's perfectly logical if I believe there's sufficient evidence to support belief in God, or even the possibility of belief in God. Naturally, that evidence is in debate, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you like to make it.

You, however, reject such reasoning out of hand as irrational, even stupid. So, in the event that God did exist, and did something that you could observe, how would you explain it?

Duh Puck,

Please note the following argument/rationale I have posted elsewhere in regard to atheism, agnosticism and theism. It was addressed to a person named Oliver in another forum.

"Oliver,

Could you please provide for me the following?

On the hypothesis that Mickey Mouse was indeed the creator of the Universe and came to earth in a two dimensional form and spent a brief period with humanity. Mickey took the two dimensional form, as to see him in complete three dimensional form would have caused bubbles of hyper-thermal oxygen to form in the human brain. These would have caused incredibly painful seizures resulting in catastrophic convulsions and eventually a long and lingering death.

Fortunately for us, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, Mickey did not appear in his full three dimensional form and spared us such horrible deaths.

Mickey's two dimensional form did many fantastic and incredible things that were mistaken for acts of comedy and his great message has not been fully understood by humanity. The very important parable of his first attempt in Steamboat Willie completely went over the heads of humanity because we were not ready to listen.

What people do not understand is that the earth and the Universe were actually created on the 18th November 1928 in their entirety. For reasons unknown to us, Mickey created false memories of events preceding 1928 and artificially aged the earth.

Mickey moves in mysterious ways and we are not to question his reasons for doing the things he has done, even if they do not make sense to us.

I put it to you, that if you do not accept the truth of Mickey Mouse, you are not a rational human being. If you do not believe that Mickey Mouse is our almighty creator, I ask you to provide incontrovertible proof of such.

If you cannot provide proof and persist in not believing in Mickey Mouse as our creator then I put it to you that you are irrational and delusional.

Regards,

Peter

[Hypothesis 2.]

Oliver,

Could you please provide for me the following?

On the hypotheses that Bugs Bunny was indeed the creator of the Universe and came to earth in a two dimensional form and spent a brief period with humanity. Bugs took the two dimensional form as to see him in complete three dimensional form would have caused bubbles of hyper-thermal oxygen to form in the human brain. These would have caused incredibly painful seizures resulting in catastrophic convulsions and eventually a long and lingering death.

Fortunately for us, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, Bugs did not appear in his full three dimensional form and spared us such horrible deaths.

Bugs' two dimensional form did many fantastic and incredible things that were mistaken for acts of comedy and his great message has not been fully understood by humanity. The very important parable of his first attempt in A Wild Hare completely went over the heads of humanity because we were not ready to listen.

What people do not understand is that the earth and the Universe were actually created on the 1939 in their entirety. For reasons unknown to us, Bugs created false memories of events preceding 1939 and artificially aged the earth.

Bugs moves in mysterious ways and we are not to question his reasons for doing the things he has done, even if they do not make sense to us.

I put it to you, that if you do not accept the truth of Bugs Bunny, you are not a rational human being. If you do not believe that Bugs Bunny is our almighty creator, I ask you to provide incontrovertible proof of such.

If you cannot provide proof and persist in not believing in Bugs Bunny as our creator then I put it to you that you are irrational and delusional.

Regards,

Peter

** I concluded with the following: **

Oliver,

What I have done is provide you with evidence of the falsity of your position. If there are simply two opposing possibilities regarding any particular position and neither is provable, I suppose it would be relatively acceptable to take no position and be neutral.

When the number of possible situations begins to rise, then there is an increasingly rising obligation to investigate and seek a position. What atheists do is look at the data and then select the scenario that most closely matches the available data.

So, rather than invoking an infinite number of possibilities (for that is indeed the reality of your position), I have limited it to four. I will select one aspect of each of these hypotheses (for that is what they are).

Hypothesis 1. A being called Mickey Mouse, created the entire Universe on November 18, 1928. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 2. A being called Bugs Bunny created the entire Universe in 1939. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 3. An invisible being called god, who has not been seen by any human being created the entire Universe 6,000 years ago. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 4. The Universe came into being about 13.75 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Our planet was created approximately 4.5 billion years ago from a contracting cloud of interstellar dust and gas. There is a great deal of independent observational and physical evidence to support this hypothesis.

Now, what we have here is a series of conflicting hypotheses.

When presented with such, a rational person would look at the PROBABILITY level for the truth of each hypothesis. After examining all the available evidence, a RATIONAL being would draw a conclusion based on the evidence.

I have NOT proven the existence of a god. I have NOT proven the non-existence of god, nor do I need to.

What I HAVE proven is the logical process required for a RATIONAL human being to take a reasonable position.

Agnosticism is NOT a rational position (and neither is theism).

Oliver, please, with all due respect, THINK things through."

So far, I have had no reply from him. I'd be interested to know the thoughts of others.

(My apologies to those who are disturbed that I left out The Flying Spaghetti Monster. No discrimination was intended.)

Regards,

Peter"

I'd like to see what people here have to say about this.

Cheers,

Poydah

[Guest]

Hi Guys

I'm another New face here. Invited from another forum to participate.

It seems like this debate has possibly stalled here at present. So I thought I would respond to The last Theist's post.

Oh just to get us up to speed:

I am an atheist, have been discussing theism and Atheism on the Richard Dawkins.net forum for quite a while now. And was invited to this forum and thread based on what I had been posting there, A fresh bit of insight I guess.

Hmm, I really can't see us getting any further. I think you agree. Yes, I am happy with my faith, the truth. As you are happy with what you believe as the truth. Just as any other religious person is content with what they believe as the truth. Of course, everyone thinks they are right. If not they are looking for what's right.

Okay.

"Faith" - What this word (in the religious context) means to me: Belief or Conviction through The Willful Abandonment of Reason.

That's it, that is what I get from discussing it with people of faith, and from that bible verse which explains it (posted long ago on this thread, KJV if I recall).

In evoking Faith, in my opinion you are correct that in a rational discussion we are unlikely to "get any further", for the simple reason that you have admitted, well openly declared, to abandoning the very thing required to engage in a reasonable discussion, you have relinquished that invaluable tool (some would say God given gift) of Reason to what you believe is a higher power.

As to what "We believe as the truth". First I should say this; I realise was not directed at my beliefs, because I just got here

But speaking for us Atheists (no small task, we are so varied, and not a collective group at all - The "Organising Atheists is like Herding Cats" line springs to mind) I will say that we in general do not have a belief as such in any one particular Truth. We do not for example believe that Evolution is the truth. Not as such - Most of us believe in relying on empirical evidence, Reason, science and philosophy (although there is a lot of contention on that last one). What we believe is true therefore is that we don't know what is true, but try to do the best we can on the information and evidence we have, and try to improve that information as much as we can. The Main point is that there is no hard and fast Atheist belief - No not even "there is no God". Atheism is not a belief that there is in God, it is simply not being a Theist; not sharing the kind of belief that you yourself hold.

That makes "Atheism" something of a non-word, as it is merely a negation of theism. To paraphrase Sam Harris; is there a label for people who don't believe in fairies (Afairyist?) or astrology (anastrologist?)?

That is why, by the way, that I prefer (if labeling myself at all) to call myself a Reasonist. You Lausus need not apply because the direct opponent of Reasonism is not religion or theism but Faith; the greatest of all human evils.

I don't think there's a good explanation for why nature is here or how are bodies are what they are and how all of our organs work together with muscles, bones, veins, etc. if not that a supreme being created it.

Sure there is It comes down to a lot of things of course - You are referring to the entirely of the existence of the universe and all that 'sails' in it after all.

As for human beings and all life on this planet. Well we all know the answer to that one: Evolution. A theory older, as it happens than even your bible, but really got going with the work of one Charles Robert Darwin, and his famous work The Origin of Species - I will give the full title, as it is rarely used: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (they liked 'em long back then )

Evolution is a FACT, The theory of Evolution is the set of explanations for those known facts. For an excellent description of the "Design" work of Evolution I must recommend Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett (A philosopher of Science). He explains it beautifully as a matter of design without any need for a designer.

Lausus, the wonderful thing is that evolutionary biology not only helps explain how our incredibly complex bodies operate so well (believe me I recognise this fact, I used to be an Army medic - Anatomy & physiology and all that, as well as actually working with all those bits and pieces in there! It is truly an amazing piece of 'design') but ALSO all of the 'Flaws', things like all the photo-receptor cells in our eyes being 180^o from the optimal, the useless appendix and so on.

Beyond that we have the work of Biology, Physics and Chemistry of course - And finally in recent history some decent coming together of them all (Biophysics etc.). Astrophysics and Cosmology for instance have had much success in explaining how the universe and all it contains came to be.

There are of course a number of questions left unanswered. Abiogenisis, while getting tantilisingly close, has not put the lid on how the first replicators arose - which led to evolution of course. Questions of what happened before the "Big Bang" remain

- "Big Bang" by the way was a little insulting jibe by a theist, which much to his chagrin the Astrophysicists liked and appropriated; A bit like the "Yankee Doodle" song the Brits used to insult the Yanks. -

But even (as I have been discussing on that other forum) now the emerging science of astrophysics is severely weakening what was thought to be the firmest ground left to the religious apologists; The Cosmological Argument - This is the argument that there had to be a first cause (and it should be called "God") - It now appears that perhaps something can, and perhaps must, come from nothing, sans cause, after all!

And to be honest "WE DON"T KNOW (yet)" is a better and more intellectually honest answer, that postulating an intentional, purpose driven Universe designing and creating intelligence from beyond space and time, anyway. That postulation is just far too much of a stretch of reason. And requires as much, if not more, explanation and evidence than that which is supposed to explain. Evidence that despite millenia of efforts has not been discovered.

God did show himself for sure, you personally didn't see him and are saying he doesn't exist. As I said, even some people in the Bible who saw Jesus said that he was not God. They saw God and still said he didn't exist. Showing himself is not proof enough for everyone. There's actually a parable in the Bible about it "The Rich Man and Poor Lazarus" in which a man in Hell asks for a man in heaven to return from the dead to warn his still living brothers of their doom if they do not repent. The man in Hell is told that they have all they need, they have Moses and the Prophets (The Old Testament of the Bible). If they do not believe the prophets, they will not believe even someone who comes back from the dead.

Ah, this amounts to the claim that certain non-believers would refuse to believe even if absolute proof was presented to them. At least you didn't use the direct insult that those Atheists are as Dogmatic in there anti-God belief as are certain theists

To me this part of the bible merely demonstrates that even in Jesus time (yes I think that he probably did in fact exist, as a man) there was the need to engage in such religious apologetics. The evidence was not even sufficient then, not on it's own. That is why Faith and claims as those you mention here were necessary, reason and evidence simply could not suffice.

The hearsay of the bible of course is next to useless anyway, it fails on every level to be anything close to proof. But even within it's pages is evidence that the facts and observational evidence available was not enough to convince even many of those present. One has to wonder why anyone would be convinced of it now, at such a great distance of time from those claimed events. If not for the powerful (let logically fallacious) efforts of religious apologists and the indoctrination techniques used (mostly by the previously indoctrinated themselves) on our children and us all.

I do believe that only God is God. There is only one true God. Regardless of what any man says his religion is, in the end there are only believers and unbelievers - those who believe in the one true God as revealed by the Bible, and those who don't. That is the division between Hellbound and Heavenbound people.

No, there are non-believers (Atheists; whatever they call themselves) who do not buy into the (always irrational and flawed as far as I have seen) claims of god(s) existing. And Believers - many many kinds of believers, in all kinds of gods and the like. There are over 10,000 religions in the world (yes many grouped under larger labels) which one would you suggest, none seem to have any better claim to the Truth than any other. In fact human reason and science seems to do much better. Especially much better at self-correcting itself as time goes by.

Why your particular God? Just because it says so in your magic book? A book full of fallacies, falsehoods and errors?

I know you have gone into this already so I wil be brief:

What Fallacies?: Appeals to consequences, fear, Faith etc.

What Falsehoods?: Oh many, the whole Genesis Origin Myth; the evidence denies it. The Global Flood; never happened. The Exodus; Nope sorry (Jewish Archaeologists tried to prove this one, came to the conclusion that it never happened). The Parting of the Red sea; nope, again many efforts to prove that one, all failed.

Errors?: Well see above, but also little snippets like; Bats are birds, Insects with four legs, Rabbits chewing their cud....

On that note, did you know that one Pope noting the apparent inconsistencies got a team of experts together to rewrite the bible, with all of the inconsistencies and contradictions explained? The aim was to rewrite and rearrange it so that one could readily find the explanations of what appeared contradictory and erroneous. Long story short; they failed, many of the experts in studying the bible so closely gave up either in fear of losing their waining faith entirely (appeal to consequences again) or actually did so and left the religion all together. The next Pope had (almost) all of the attempted works burnt and declared such attempts to be a heresy. The greatest Catholic theologians couldn't even fix your precious bible.

And the thinly vield threat of hell is hardly going to impress any one with a rational mind, who doesn't believe in such a thing any way. The Carrot - Stick of Heven and Hell (already mentioned in this thread) is a childish appeal to emotion (fear/hope) or an Appeal to Consequences as it is also known. It is a Logical fallacy, and thus worthless in rational discussion.

Because there is no logic to prove it, you say it is irrational. Okay. Still true. I don't know how to go more in depth. I believe in God even though he defies logic. That's the difficulty in having a debate about it. That's why it's not possible to have a logic-based debate at all about God's existence or many of the other great truths of the Bible, like miracles and the resurrection.

Right, your reliance of that great evil known as "Faith" renders any such discussion with you, or anyone like you pointless. What it does do is provide material for those "on the edge" as it were.

As we say fairly often over in the forum I frequent - I'm not doing this just for their benefit (the person I am responding to).

We don't really have much to discuss because you have willingly abandoned logic, reason and common sense in favour of Faith. It is difficult indeed to argue or reason with one in that position, because they do not truly value reason.

It is as if you realise that there is no rational reason to believe what you do, but being desirous to continue to do so at any costs, including the cost of believing the wholly irrational (and therefore most likely false) that you simply give up your Reason, the very thing that makes us the amazing creatures we are! You are living in a fantasy world, believing what you do on no more than wishful thinking - You believe it to be true because you want it to be true. - NOTE: This is the case even if (by some great fluke) what you believe through Faith, was actually true.

And No, I do not think it better to believe the Truth for bad reasons (or no reasons as in this case) than to not believe it for good reasons.

The really good discussions that can arise from this kind of debate between Theists and Atheists are with those like the Creationists and I. D.ists (Intelligent Design), or as we like to call them: cdesign proponetsists (it's a Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board Trial joke ). Because they actually believe that there is evidence for God. And sometimes that they can prove it or provide good evidence for it. They too often resort to Faith, and always to Logical Fallacies, but at least they try to remain in the realm of reasonable and rational debate.

[Guest]

... on the proof of a God. the thing that has always bothered me about the big bang theory is this. If a truck driver with his truck full of bricks backed up to an empty lot and dumped them all out, would a house ever, ever automatically form? No, so from this analogy, someone or something had to at least facilitate the original creation of the universe.