I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
In any religion where god is omnipotent, your understanding of the nature god is flawed, due to omnipotence paradoxes. ( "Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?"
This is a common, though unfair, charge made against the theist. Consider the straightforward response to your question that no - God cannot create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. The response to this answer is typically something like 'Well, here is an example of something God cannot do, so He is not omnipotent'. But notice that the challenge lies in doing something that is logically impossible. God also can't make a square circle, nor can He make it so that 1 + 1 = 3. But this isn't a challenge to His omnipotence.
In addition, if there are any of you who can justify evil without compromising god's omnipotence or omnibenevolence I'll be very surprised.
This might be asking too much. I'm not even sure how one might go about justifying evil. The Problem of Evil is more about reconciling (a) the clear matter-of-fact that there seems to be unnecessary suffering with (b) God's loving nature. As for this question (and some other nearby ones), there are quite a few interesting responses within the philosophy of religion, though to be fair I've never found these responses all that compelling.
So, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-creating God made everything exactly to His own specifications, leaving no room for error...and still has to wait and see how we behave, as though we weren't programmed (by Him, in all his all-knowingness) to do exactly what we end up doing from the start? How exactly do you see this as making sense?
I read a manuscript (I'm not sure if the paper ever got published) by Jon Kvanvig that developed a logical system that tried to preserve free will with God's omniscience (a position that is broadly called compatibilism). Jon is one of the best philosophers alive, though the paper is incredibly challenging. But the broader point here is that addressing the Problem of Free Will in this way isn't nonsensical. Well, at least to some people!
The idea of a God is irrational and pathetic, invented by humanity to protect their fragile little minds from the dark abyss that is death.
As pang mentioned, you would need to back up this claim. But you might want to hedge a bit here, as your stance is going to be pretty much indefensible. We should also keep in mind that there are very intelligent theists out there who have some deeply interesting things to say about their beliefs. So let's be civil and keep in mind the Principle of Charity (I like Donald Davidson's formulation) when attributing beliefs to the theist.
1) You have taken the stance of gnostic Atheist. Because of this gnostic stance, you must now back it up.
The whole thought or idea of a God or Gods is completely idiotic. Humanity needs to have a babysitter, nanny Jesus is a great example of this as humanity needs the thought of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being to look after them. Pathetic.
Dude, you're the one that has to prove me, considering how there is no evidence of God even existing.
But notice that the challenge lies in doing something that is logically impossible
You are assuming god is bound by logic and cause and effect. God being an omnipresent force that permeates everything but has no substance. Why should an omnipotent being be forced to obey logic anyway?
You are assuming god is bound by logic and cause and effect.
Only logic, not cause and effect.
Why should an omnipotent being be forced to obey logic anyway?
Why shouldn't God be bound by logic? These are rules that necessarily obtain, so holding that God is bound by these laws isn't merely an assumption - it's a position the theist must hold on pain of inconsistency. Think about it like this. The thought that God is bound by logic is a completely consistent position to hold, so this sort of argument is strawmanning the theist's position. This is because holding this position does not, in fact, challenge God's omnipotence in any significant way. But maybe you're just not convinced by any of this, and that's okay! I don't know if I am either. However, there are much better questions to pose to the theist. One example would be whether God is bound by some sort of objective moral framework. If so, this might present a deeper challenge to His omnipotence (though there are compelling responses to this worry, too).
Dude, you're the one that has to prove me, considering how there is no evidence of God even existing.
I think pang's point here is that you're taking on much more than you need. So take this claim:
Humanity needs to have a babysitter, nanny Jesus is a great example of this as humanity needs the thought of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being to look after them. Pathetic.
Now you've charged the theist with beliefs that she wouldn't accept. It sounds like you're suggesting that these are the reasons that people do in fact (or should) believe in God. But the theist would agree with you that these are terrible reasons to believe in God and even worse reasons to worship Him.
pang also mentioned that you're taking on a gnostic atheist position. That means that you're claiming knowledge of the proposition that God doesn't exist. This stance requires some serious justification - the same sort that would be required by a gnostic theist. Since you haven't provided an argument, your position has no grounding.
Why would a benevolent God create us if He knew we would cause such widespread suffering and destruction? There is no benefit to God in creating such beings unless God has some requirement that we can fulfill, God must create beings, or God did not create us. This would suggest that the creation of the human race was a selfish act for God's benefit only or God is not our creator. (You can't argue our creation was for our benefit as it is only beneficial to us if we had already been created.)
Anyway, why should God be our master? What can he offer us that is not attainable in life? Due to humanity's endless capacity to be bored, eternal bliss is something I do not believe is attainable. (furthermore, what is bliss worth without a lack of it?) There is of course, the threat of an eternity hell, but this seems to be an overreaction to a mere lifetime of misdeeds. (And what sort of love is that?)
The final thing I have to say is this. Why does God need worship? If you follow his rules and recognize that He is there, what good is it prostrating yourself sycophantically before Him every day? It could be that proof denies faith and without faith He is nothing. However, that would mean all that would be required to destroy God would be to prove he exists.
And you couldn't do so without delving into their belief system as if it were law?
Dude, you're the one that has to prove me, considering how there is no evidence of God even existing.
As Moe has stated, which is a larger reiteration of what I stated, because of your gnostic stance you must also prove your position.
In case you are wondering how...a picture:
While atheism is the disbelief in a deity, which is inherently a position which does not need to be backed (as same with agnostic theism), gnostic atheism is the belief there are no deities. A key difference, if you can catch it.
pang also mentioned that you're taking on a gnostic atheist position. That means that you're claiming knowledge of the proposition that God doesn't exist. This stance requires some serious justification - the same sort that would be required by a gnostic theist. Since you haven't provided an argument, your position has no grounding.
I don't need to give justification because at least science is capable of giving evidence of the creation of the world, unlike religion
How did god get here? Do you think god just appeared out of nowhere? What is this a fairy tale? Come on, get real. God isn't going to pop out of no where like that, someone had to create him right?
The question of intelligent design also works against God in that were I an omnipotent, omniscient being who could create any life I would build something better than humans.
Anyway, why should God be our master? What can he offer us that is not attainable in life? Due to humanity's endless capacity to be bored, eternal bliss is something I do not believe is attainable. (furthermore, what is bliss worth without a lack of it?) There is of course, the threat of an eternity hell, but this seems to be an overreaction to a mere lifetime of misdeeds. (And what sort of love is that?)
Listen to this guy, with hard work you can get everything you want, without having to waste your time begging for a non-existent being to change your life around.
@Fiends; who exactly are you trying to convince, and how do you intend to convince them?
How is the universe popping out of nowhere any more logical than a god doing so? There is no evidence of the creation of the world by any means. If only for that reason, your argument is not self-sufficient.
How is the universe popping out of nowhere any more logical than a god doing so? There is no evidence of the creation of the world by any means. If only for that reason, your argument is not self-sufficient.
The big bang theory makes more sense than a divine entity that coincidentally never exposes itself.
