Thank you to everyone who responded to my post yesterday and answered my questions. Who says nobody wants to discuss religion (or lack thereof)? What a diverse set of answers! I enjoyed reading each one.
I leave on my short trip tomorrow morning. This will be my last post until I return. So while I’m gone I’d like you all to chew on this one. Maybe those of you who answered yesterday can respond to these again? Thanks.
- If you believe in the God of Abraham (Christian/Jew), why? How is He real to you?
- If you believe in a different god, who is it (or who are they)? How is he or she real to you?
- If you do NOT believe in any God/god, why not? What convinces you of the absence of one?
Again, this is for my own curiousity. I have never had a forum in which to ask these questions to such a multifarious audience. I sincerely want to know what people think about this subject and why. I am going to temporarily remove the moderation restriction for these next few days so this topic can be openly discussed. Please remember my “rules” — be mature, be wise, and don’t cut anyone down. You guys can handle this. I know you can! 
I’ll see you in a few days.
Until then, blow my mind.
Let’s see if we can get 10+ comments this time.
the God of Abraham is the same God of yesterday, of today and of tomorrow. He is the same God that I worship. I am not capable of making the things around me, I am not capable of leading a life without him, I look at my life and see the evidence of his existance.
If you do NOT believe in any God/god, why not? What convinces you of the absence of one?
I don’t believe in any god because there is no evidence to suggest one exists. As a negative atheist, I don’t make any positive assertions, such as “there is no god.” No one can know for certain whether or not god exists, but it is perfectly reasonable to say, “I don’t believe in god because I’ve never been given any good evidence to believe.” I admire religion for the various ways in which it has influenced Western culture, as well as the countless transformed lives that are owed to religious belief and observance. But none of that makes it true.
1. N/A
2. N/A
3. In short, I am convinced that God does not exist because of the overwhelmingly strong evidence availible in history, science and literature that that God is a man-made fairytale.
There is a phrase in use regarding a span of time called the ‘New York Minute’ that is intended to mean the ’shortest amount of time that is detectable to the human experience’. The idea in the phrase is that the New York Minute is the length of time between a traffic light turning red and the person behind you leaning on their horn when stuck in peak traffic in New York.
Similarly, I have always found that the shortness of delay between a person asserting the existence of God and subsequently claiming that God has delegated to that person the authority to tell me what to do is a much better contender for the definition of the New York Minute. This would have to be my strongest – but by no means my only – piece of evidence for my argument that God is an invention of man, and not the other way ’round.
I believe in the God of Abraham- because He has shown Himself in my life in amazing ways. He is real to me because I have faith and trust that He is who He says He is in the Bible.
Bloody typos:
I am a panentheist and a pagan. I believe that the Divine is too big to put a single name or a personality to, the way many religions choose to. I believe that all dieties that man has managed to invent–including the Abrahamatic one–cover just a tiny facet of the true nature of that which is divine…but as symbols of the various forces and archetypes at work in the multiverse, they are a useful “tool” by which we can interact with the Divine. As there is no objective proof of this concept, I can only say that my belief is based as much (if not more) on reflection, meditation and personal experience as any external sources of information.
I know that the God of the Bible is real because of how He has revealed himself to me threw my life and time I spend with Him in the Bible and prayer as well as through what some say proves their atheism — reasoning.
Science clearly points to God through aspects such as the very existence of the universe. It either had a beginning or did not. If it did not, then where is all this energy coming from? An infinitely old universe (as it would now be if it had no beginning) should have converted all energy to completely useless energy according to laws of the universe, but useful energy is not only present but abundantly so. If it had a beginning which is the only possibility left, it follows that something began it before any matter existed. Also, the existence of creatures such as the beetle that shoots out explosive chemicals through such a complex process that the steps of evolution would have definitely killed the bug as the chemicals tried to balance (exploding each beetle every time) is a condition which agrees with Darwin’s cases in which evolution should be revoked. Not to mention the incredible complexity of a “simple” bacterial cell which has an amazing motor for movement which could not have evolved because of the uselessness of any part without the rest (and they could not have all appeared at once and in order) — ok, I guess I did mention it : ) . The unnecessary beauty of the universe also screams of God.
Next, the evidence of the incredibly correct prophesies of the Bible as well as the amazing archeological findings that confirm Biblical descriptions demonstrate that the most likely god that would have created the universe is the God of the Bible.
In addition, God’s sacrificial love (through Jesus) sets Him apart from other gods. His demand that we do not try to work our own way out of the trouble we are in because of sin (as do other religions in one way or another) also sets apart Christianity because it reveals the fact that sin has made us so unutterably filthy in the presence of God’s holiness and purity (through disobedience of the ten commandments and other ordinances of God) that there is no way we could make it up to God. Only God himself (through death on the cross) could clear our sin. It is not anything we do (as Paul points out numerous times) that clears us.
Another point — Jesus is the prophesied Messiah because He fulfilled every prophesy about the Messiah from the Old Testament (I can’t even remember how many there were, but it was astonishing). There was no way so many (with numerous ones fulfilled at birth) could have been planned, and the miracles as well as His direct revelation of who He was confirm Jesus’ identity.
There is much more, but this logical evidence is nothing compared to how God has revealed Himself to me when I stop fighting logic. The Bible simply comes alive and every word excites me in those times when God chooses to give me those “first love” feelings — like when I realized that I really was so filthy that I could not be in the presence of God and realized what Jesus’ death on the cross really meant. I wish everyone would experience this!
Mandy: Awesome!!!
If we grant the premise, consider:
The something that began it may have been a God.
The something that began it may have not been a God.
There is no evidence to distinguish between these two possibilities. In this absence, even if we grant Primum Movens it does not follow from this that God exists. On top of that, Primum Movens is far from demonstrated.
Remember: We may not understand how something that is not a God could begin the universe. But in all fairness, neither do we understand how something that is a God could begin the universe.
Incorrect.
(YouTube) cdk007 – Evolution of the Bombadier Bettle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE
Incorrect.
(YouTube) cdk007 – The Evolution of the Flagellum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Nearly always, any recorded attempt to use a prophecy (of any sort) to accurately predict events before they happen will have failed miserably. Occasionally, just by the numbers, they’ll get lucky.
The prophecies of the Bible are only ‘correct’ when interpreted to fit an event after it happens. This is easy to do – the feat is in the post-event interpretation of the prophecy, not the prophecy itself.
This is like saying that the wings of a Unicus (horse with horn and wings) sets it apart from Unicorns (horse with horn). If we want to argue about a Unicorn’s wings, first we have to establish the existence of Unicorns in the first place.
Likewise, if we want to establish that Yahweh’s sacrificial love through Jesus makes him a more likely candidate for the One True God than Odin, we first have to establish that there is such a thing as the One True God.
It is more likely that the authors of the Gospels wrote in things that didn’t happen in order to make it look like Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. For example, there is archaeological evidence that the town of Nazareth did not exist before 300 A.D.
The gospels were written decades after the events they described. How could anyone have checked their veracity in the first place?
Interesting that you mentioned logical evidence. You’ve provided logical arguments, yes – but you’re yet to offer a statement that passes even the most basic material investigation.
Where is this logical evidence of which you speak?
Heh. I’m being such an asshole today. My apologies.
I warmly welcome you to show me the error of my ways.
U. Che: You may have convinced yourself… you have not convinced me. Teetered on the brink of condemning for Mandy, but I’m sure she’s a big girl and you admitted you’re in a bad mood so I’ll let it slide. Please be kind though and leave room for others to disagree and believe differently than you. K? Thanks.
Heidi
Che, if you were wrong, would you sincerely want to know? Really think about it.
I suppose your end note is an invitation to battle, but these battles have always proved pointless to me as well as to many others I have spoken to. No conclusion is reached and everyone simply becomes frustrated. It is a long argument. I am honestly tempted to dive in, and as indicated, I have done so, but I think considering my age as well as advice I have encountered that it would be better to redirect you to observing answers from someone such as Ravi Zacharius, R.C. Sproul, Dr. Del Tackett (from “The Truth Project”), and such others through books and videos. I suppose it is also possible to contact them with serious questions. They are much better at supporting their answers than I am. Many other less-famous apoligists exist who would like to help and would do so better than myself. You could try searching online for Christian apologists.
If you really want to know, as it seems you do, search — you can find. I did. My doubts are conquered, but at this level of learning, I am no good at getting those satisfying sources documented for you. God bless your fishing — don’t let them wait long! (I recommend “The Truth Project”, but there are cheaper options like “The Case for Christ” and other books … for starters).
I prefer knowledge to ignorance. The first step is the ability to admit when I’m shown to be wrong. Easier said then done, of course. But that is the goal.
Hmm… I dislike the military metaphor. It implies that arguments are with enemies, and must be won or lost.
No – consider my words an invitation for logical cross-examination.
I understand: It is hard to find people who argue well.
A long argument is the best kind!
That said, I didn’t make a long argument – neither did you. You made a number of small arguments, and I made a number of objections to the points on which your arguments rested.
I’m not going to pounce on you if you leave anything else, or even brush me to the side. Argument is a dance – to attempt it with an unwilling partner would be ungracious. ^_^
I’ve come across Ravi a number of times before. Each time, I have been disappointed when his logic doesn’t live up to his prose – the arguments of his that I have heard hinge on logical fallacies, which isn’t a good look when he’s trying to persuade by rational discourse.
That said, I don’t recognize the other names. I’ll add them to my list.
I’ll be sure to give them a go. ^_^
If you ever have a logical argument in need of cross-examination, feel free to drop me a line. A logical argument needs cross-examination in order to be a logical argument. A logical argument that is unexamined is no argument at all. ^_^