Tip: Sign up to see adult-rated questions.
Recently Answered
- You haven't answered any questions yet.
Would you rather...
|
live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one |
live a life knowing there is no God, and die to find out there is one |
Tip: Sign up to see adult-rated questions.
deadtreekid
gee, i wonder what the author's stance is on this issue... hmm... no negativity in the blue option, and... yes! there's a horribly in the red one! author's name is... who'd have guessed it? debunkatheists! i don't want to go to a heaven if it's full of stereotypical self-righteous christians eternally chanting "i told you sooooo~" :P
DebunkAtheists
You do understand its called Hell for a reason right? Hell may have the exact thing you do NOT want to spend eternity with.
blombaloooba
Well then it wouldn't be heaven, would it?
Yuffles
This is pascal's Wager. The problem lies in the fact that people worship hundreds of gods, from hundreds of religions, with hundreds of different rules. I would rather be a generous, tolerant, and skeptical atheist my whole life simply for the good of humanity.
DebunkAtheists
Pascal's wager is a bad bet. That would mean God is a probiblity. That is NOT the case at all. It was worded to invoke a reaction. Truth is you already know God exists. People deny this, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Viperxiii
people have no knowledge of anything close to what we all call god, all religions are false as they are man made thoughts and thus are flawed, the existence of a "god" will never be known even after death. a higher power may or may not exist, but he is not what you think of him to be, to be judgmental is a human trait and thus below a "god" so to judge someone to go to heaven or hell is not a capability of a "god". do not call yourself by a label because then you will conform yourself into that label (christian/atheist)
Idiocracy
Um, there's no negativity in the blue because it's "Believe in god and find out it's a lie when you die, or Don't have faith and find out he's real when you die". Think you read into this way to much.
IONTOP
See the funny thing is, apparently, Atheists and Religious people have different views on the definition of "knowing"... Because if I lived my life KNOWING there is no God, there is no way to find out I'm wrong... (Knowing vs Thinking difference here)...
DebunkAtheists
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Scott
I don't recall any point in history where God came out, said hi, shook hands and was like "Sup Earth, I'm here" How has he revealed himself?
DebunkAtheists
The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible, you are still in the world of natural revelation. "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Kindle Locations 602-609). Covenant Media Press. Kindle Edition. In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
Viperxiii
debunk, you must understand the difference between man made things and godly things. the bible and all other writings have all been written by man. he may have said something of a higher power told him to do it but that doesn't mean it happened. next i am not an atheists nor do i fall in any other religious category because i know that there has never been a single human alive who knows the truth of what may or may not be the higher power did. lies have been happening since humans created language. man was never created, he evolved, more then enough evidence for that. because if we did get created in his image, why are we all different? jesus, is by no means have any connection to god, for like all others, he was a man, just a man. you speak of how man has intelligence that no other animal has, but they do have it, just a lesser amount of it. the only thing that keeps me from becoming and atheist is the unknown answer to the beginning of the universe. but using that question i can say that it does not need a beginning for it always existed, because you will say god created it, but when did god get created if everything has to have an beginning.
overtherainbow
I think the author meant that you're beliefs were so strong you felt that you knew there wasn't a god. And I think there would be bigger disappointment in finding out you had lived your whole life chaste until marriage, never commited a terrible sin, and been pretty uptight to find out... HOLY SHIT ALL THIS WAS FOR NOTHING? Rather than find heaven and such. Would be more fun.
DebunkAtheists
Well that is the Atheistic worldview. Arbitrary, relativistic morality. Murdering babies, raping babies, it does not matter. In the end its just darkness and end. Fortunately this is a righteous universe and everyone accounts for their evil.
Viperxiii
you call their view arbitrary, but yours is just as arbitrary.
DebunkAtheists
Viperxii, how do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid? Part two would be, Is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?
Viperxiii
that's going in to psychology, are my thoughts real? do they exist in some other ethereal reality? i don't believe in the dualist perspective on this, our thoughts are created through nerves in our brain. your asking a question that is unanswerable because by asking whether i can reason causes me to have to reason, so no matter what i say you will be like "ah ha, i gotcha to think" ive seen you use this argument further down this comments section. but then again, if i cant prove my reasoning, how can you prove yours? because faith is caused by reasoning that "we cant exist without a creator" or what ever else causes you to believe in the non existent. further, if my reasoning is unable to be valid at all, whats the point of thinking? maybe thats why its so difficult to convince religious people to think.
DebunkAtheists
how can you prove my reasoning? Simple, Same way I can be certain of anything REVELATION. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them. Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
DebunkAtheists
correction: How can I prove my reasoning? ...
Viperxiii
you know you didn't answer anything right? you just said i know it because i said so and god and religious blabber. how has he revealed this to you? like i said, as far as i can see, nothing that happens on this world is an act of god. everything we know is from experiences after our birth, no knowledge is passed through genes or divine acts. ---you are asking me to reason my thoughts which come from reasoning without reasoning. and im asking you to reason your thoughts, which come from........ probably your parents or a traumatic event in your life to make you turn towards religion, with reasoning... we are at an impasse. ---so instead let me ask you something, are you unable to let the dead lie? do you fear that your life will end, and that when it ends you will not exist? do u feel the necessity to cling to something, anything to bring your some sort of relief to these thoughts/anxiety you would feel by knowing you have a limited life span, and that everyone around you who dies, is dead? did something happen in your life, near death experience or death of a loved one, or something related?
DebunkAtheists
When you have a knowledge claim like, "no knowledge is passed through genes or divine acts." I want to know HOW do you know this? Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, HOW? Plus, you are not justifying your ability to reason, you are telling us where you learned things. For the sake of this argument, I could not care less where you learned anything. I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?
andrewp96
There is a Heaven and a Hell! If you chose to follow God you will go to heaven and if you dpnt you will spend forever in HELL!!!!
DebunkAtheists
[link removed]
patdlvr
okay so if gods supposed to be all forgiving then even if your horribly wrong he'll accept you with open arms right?
DebunkAtheists
No He does not forgive all. You need to approach God with a broken and contrite heart. " The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." ~ Psalm 51:17 You see, you are unable to UNDERSTAND or know the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Viperxiii
there you go citing man made words again, you will never change anybodies mind citing these things, use your own knowledge, not someone elses.
jadea98
At least if you know there is a God, it might have made you to be a better person in life. And you would at least have strived for something.
DebunkAtheists
Although it was a poorly worded question because it is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
imaghostbuster
You do not have to believe in god to be a good person. Thank you very much.
DebunkAtheists
False. Ray has an analogy: “A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, “That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!” It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man’s standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God’s standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day.”
Tiki
You're the one who's wrong. The fact is that if you look at people, you'll find that atheists are no less moral than believers. Morality does not stem from religious doctrine, it exists within everyone. The standard you hold yourself to when deciding how strictly to adhere to your morals changes radically from person to person. It has nothing to do with religion. All of the atheists I know are very kind and honest, and I've met many christians who are unsympathetic and cold.
DebunkAtheists
>>You're the one who's wrong. How do you know? How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
Demon1981
@DebunkAtheists Are you completely brain damaged? There are just as many people out there that believe in "GOD" that are murdering bastards, and you know what some of their reasoning is for doing so? They state they are "fulfilling gods will." If you think for one second that just because you believe in go it makes you a better person you need to get a glimpse of reality.
imaghostbuster
I do not have one religion. I think that certain beliefs in multiple religions are correct. That is my personal standing. Now you say the fact that I'm not religious automatically makes me a bad person. However, I would never kill anyone. I don't steal, rape children (or anyone for that matter) and I'm honest almost to a fault. I go to school, and go to work and always show up on time. I treat people with the utmost respect. I am kind and loving to my friends and family. I say please and thank you ALWAYS, and have better public manners than most people I know. I don't believe that anyone's rights, or life is more valuable than anyone else's. I have never even had a traffic ticket! And the only time I've ever been pulled over was when I had a headlight out. Tell me that all of those things make me a bad person. Tell me that just because I confine myself to a religion that I make bad choices, and have low moral standards. But, the thing is, is I really don't care what you have to say, or think. I am a good person, and I don't have to believe in one god or one religion for that to be true.
imaghostbuster
just because I don't* confine myself....
Tiki
I am able to discern that my reasoning is valid because, unlike you, I use a faculty known as logic. If you believe that my reasoning is invalid, than go ahead and post an actual refutation of my argument rather than brushing it off.
MichaelsProp
I can't "know" there is a God if there doesn't turn out to be one.
DebunkAtheists
Agree. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Viperxiii
stop repeating your same arguments.
Stolkmen
It makes sense. i would rather be horribly surprised that there is a god rather than have my beliefs crushed before me
DebunkAtheists
The thing is that you are unable to UNDERSTAND or know the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Brian
“I decided as long as I was going to hell, I might as well do it thoroughly.” Edward:87, Book of Twilight
SqueekyClean
Apparently God is meant to love everyone, therefore regardless of the way you've lived your life, in theory you'd still be accepted.
DebunkAtheists
False. How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid? You cannot believe that God loves unrepentant sinners. Romans 9:13, Proverbs 14:17 The question is should we hate what God hates? Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Lev. 20:23, Prov. 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15
pseudoROO
In my opinion, I'd rather "know" (believe, think, however you wish to look at it) that there was a god and not be right, then refuse to accept it as a belief (or be completely clueless) and wind up in hell forever. You can say that if God was loving, he'd "let you in anyway", but that's not true. The belief is what gets you into heaven. Ignorance won't keep you from hell.
DebunkAtheists
Well I disagree that "The belief is what gets you into heaven." ITs God's grace and our Lord's sacrifice that does that. Its an alien righteousness. Also, Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26 Lastly, It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Viperxiii
i really feel like you are copy/pasting these things now debunk. also, people are flawed, we are made flawed. and he supposedly created us this way so why is it he would punish someone for being flawed and not being able to believe? (not that they are flawed, but in your eyes they are)
Tiki
So long as God isn't an asshole, there shouldn't be a problem.
DebunkAtheists
Well its impossible for God to be that. Nothing is more loving then since you will not have His will be done, he grants your will to be done. That will to be separated from God for eternity. How great is that, God grants your demand when you have denied Him your entire life.
Tiki
So long as God isn't an asshole, there shouldn't be a problem.
DebunkAtheists
^^look up^^ :7)
jhuyed
God forgives.
DebunkAtheists
Its not an arbitrary forgiveness
DebunkAtheists
No proof of God? The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Are you certain you're a Christian? If so, how?
cerpintaxt
you do understand you have no proof, right? As a Christian myself, stop making us look like idiots with a screen name like that.
Tiki
For all you know, Islam is the correct religion and you'll also be spending time in hell. The argument you're using is called Pascal's Wager, which is essentially an appeal to cowardice. It has nothing to do with truth, it just tries to scare people into believing. Not to mention that it is inherently flawed. There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what happens when you die.
DebunkAtheists
Qu'ran: [In Surah 19, Maryam, verse 12, Yahya, who lived at the time of Jesus was told "to take hold of the Book, (the Torah)." Surah 3, Ali'Imran, verse 48 tells us that Jesus was also taught in the Torah. Numerous verses, such as Surah 34, Saba, verse 31, Surah 35, Fatir, verse 31, attest to the truth that the Torah was uncorrupted in the time of Muhammad (pbuh) in the sixth century A.D.] So yes, the Qu'ran points to the truth of the Bible, rightly, but that does not mean the Qu'ran itself is truth. That being said, how do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
Tiki
You completely ignored my argument. Any possible religion could be true, not to mention any religion which has yet to be created. It's simple probability.
DebunkAtheists
I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right? It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Tiki
Except for the fact that without using circular logic, there is no way to prove that your religion is correct.
Tiki
I could claim that the flying spaghetti monster mandated to me that Pastafarianism is the one true religion, and the FSM is omniscient, therefore I am correct.
DebunkAtheists
Congratulations, you've just given up your atheism to defend your atheism, and (2) you've provided us no predictive prophecy grounded in historical events, etc., (3) and thus given us no good reason to believe in your god over a uniplural Flying Spaghetti monster.
DebunkAtheists
Do your use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.
Griffin
Atheists are disagreeing with you on the point that "God has revealed himself to all mankind." You don't know that, you THINK that. You may really, really think it, but you can't say you know it.
Tiki
My logic isn't circular at all. I've clearly presented my argument, something you fail to do. How can you prove that your religion is true? You have yet to provide any evidence.You claim I'm wrong, but fail to back it up with any actual logic or argument.
DebunkAtheists
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Now, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. Also, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Demon1981
All you are doing is restating what you have previously, you have yet to provide any "proof" for your religion. Just admit it you dont know, you are just hoping that you are right. You have no clue what really is, was, or will be.
Tiki
You claimed numerous times that God has revealed himself to everyone, yet you have provided no evidence supporting that notion. This is the reason why atheists reject the concept of a God: the burden of proof is on you, and you have consistently failed to meet that burden. Until you do provide proof of the existence of your God, your argument stems from an unsupported assumption.
Viperxiii
debunk, also, mans default is to not believe and from there he spreads out to what he believes. there is no reason from when we are born to believe in anything, only through human contact do we learn of religions.
Griffin
OK Pascal.
DebunkAtheists
Is God a probable God or a certain God? A probable “god” is not God–a probable ‘god’ does not exist. When we defend a probable God, we are lying about who God is. God does not give us odds, He gives us assurance. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Griffin
You just keep saying that like you have any reason to believe that God exists. You don't. You just want to believe that your version of God is real. Probable, certain, it doesn't make a lick of difference.
Viperxiii
debunk, after reading to this point ive learned that speaking to you is completely wasting my time, for you are a person who has turned your back on your own self and all knowledge available. so i doubt ill reply to anything you reply to me with, good day sir.
p01arb33r
Hi my name is DebunkAtheists and I am so brainwashed and can't accept the fact that people have other opinions than my own....
DebunkAtheists
Look, I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. This is a very serious and real subject for me. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.
Demon1981
Until you die all you have is an opinion.
Darth_Hobbes
Well this is simple.In both cases you probably live a happy life, but in the later you get tortured forever. Of course, this is all assuming we're talking about the Christian God.
drizzy
I would like to live a life knowing there is a god if it means i find out there isnt one. Im aetheist by the way.
DebunkAtheists
God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.
kingshav
To know something is the same as stating a fact. To know that there is no god means that there is in fact no god. Of course, you cannot know something that cannot be proven. The word you should have used in the first option is 'believe,' since you cannot prove there is a god. Obviously I cannot prove that there is no god, but I also cannot prove that there is no unicorns. To say that something is true just because you can't prove it wrong just means you have no idea how the scientific process works. To deny science as many creationists do is to deny all that we know and can firmly hold true as humans. More on topic of the question; don't you think god can see to your soul and know exactly where your heart lies? To believe in god just to get out of hell is not true love, which is what we are supposed to have with god. If fear of hell is all that's keeping someone Christian, you're going right to hell since you're only believing for your own benefit. But then again, why else would we believe? Because god first loved us. That's cool. Because god loved us so much he sacrificed his own son (who is also him) to save us from the evil he created (at least allowed). If god truly is all powerful, he should not have to sacrifice himself or his son. If god truly loves us he would not have allowed evil to exist at all. And there is nothing stopping him from ending all evil. Well god wants you to love him because you love him, not because you have to. Yet god knows we are fallible and can be tempted and will sin (he knows all, correct)? It seems that god is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not all love. He has exhibited traits that show us he is incapable of all three. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to contact me on twitter. @uncledeep
DebunkAtheists
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Also, I do not deny Science, I deny naturalism. No, naturalism didn't produce this laptop. Science and God did. Naturalism artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence for one. Do you agree there are real dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this? Naturalism has not been scientifically evidenced, simply its taken as a philosophical paradigm. Nevertheless, Kingshav. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? @debunkAtheists
MattFoley
Not believing in God should not entitle one to eternal damnation. If God is the almighty being that forgives all sin and is purely righteous then he would not condemn someone to such a place as hell for simply disagreeing with him. If your God is all knowing and punishes non-believers, then that is not a God I would put my faith in.
DebunkAtheists
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God as your statement reveals quite well.
MattFoley
Accountability? Do you even read what you write. Not believing in God does not make one void of morals or a conscience. You remind me of Travis Marshall from Dexter.
DarklordTheo
Without going into religion, I believe that it is each person's duty to better the lives of those around them in this life. I happen to be agnostic, yet try to help those in need without caring about any eternal reward or punishment for my actions. If you can make the world a better place without faith, then would a just God sentence you to eternal agony for refusing to venerate Him?
DebunkAtheists
Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day." You believe you're doing good. Are you really?
DarklordTheo
Anything can appear corrupted in the correct frame of reference. One who gives money to a poor man does a good act, yet if the poor man is killed because he is holding money, was it really a good act? Comparisons are also flawed. For example, nobody in your life is likely to be as kind or good as one of the Saints of yore. Does that make you any less of a good person? No.
Agus
It doesn't say what kind of God. If I spend my whole life thinking there's a mean God and there isn't one, it's OK. If I spend my whole life thinking there isn't one and it turns out there is a cool God that says "Hey, no problem if you didn't believe in me, I really didn't give you much reason to! Let's hang out!!" then THAT would be seriously cool!
DebunkAtheists
There is only one God. The others may call themselves theists, but they are only idolaters. The God of the Bible is the only God due to the impossibly of the contrary. People, like probibly yourself, that deny God do it in their unrighteousness as an ultimate act of rebellion. You KNOW God exists.
Agus
If that's what you believe then I completely support you :) Just don't do this to other people that take this as seriously as you do, they might feel offended since they believe in their God as firmly as you believe in yours. RESPECT before anything else.
DebunkAtheists
Is being disrespectful absolutely wrong? If so HOW is it wrong in your worldview? I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right? Not only did Christ's death and resurrection save souls for eternity, it saves our reasoning now. Again, I beg you to repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW.
Agus
OK, I repent.
kokid913
I would rather not know and have allah forgive me
DebunkAtheists
You know the truth, but you deny it. Go to youtube and watch: /watch?v=YNGqrzkFp_4
DebunkAtheists
OOPS that was the wrong video. THIS was the response to that one I provided, and again THIS is one I wanted you to watch: /watch?v=0X9c_LNwqtU&
serenescreamer
everybody on this thread seems so angry.
DebunkAtheists
When you have contempt for God, that is the byproduct.
GretchenWieners
STFU. Oh my GOD.
Rythmbot
'Knowing' should be changed to 'thinking'. As in, this person wasn't 'thinking' when they came up with this question.
DebunkAtheists
Touché, because everyone KNOWS that God exists.
Demon1981
I don't "KNOW" that god exists that's why I'm agnostic
DebunkAtheists
I reject the premise of your statement. It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's, or agnostic's, contempt toward God.
Vincent
If ALL books and knowledge of the current world would be gone, the next generations would find out all the elements again, science will start to exist again. But I'm sure your book with the talking snake will be gone forever.
DebunkAtheists
Are you certain of that? If so, how? If the Bible was not there, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical. Even if that was the case, I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
LoyalJoker
Better safe then sorry, haha!
DebunkAtheists
More like, better grateful the proud.
DebunkAtheists
More like, better grateful then proud.
LoyalJoker
Why do people keep on asking these stupid religious questions? We know you believe in a God, but stop shoving it down everyone's throat. Everybody believes in something different. People just have to except that. Live and let live. Let them be happy believing what they want to believe, stop trying to change it.
Gus
If you die only to find out there is not god, you wouldn't find out because you would be dead. very poorly thought out question.
DebunkAtheists
That was the point really. We already know the Creator of all. Romans 1:18-21 God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. So the point is, you will indeed be in front of God one day.
Jacob
would rather believe in something less selfesh
Tiki
You ask us how we know our reasoning is valid, but I could just as easily ask you the same thing. How do you know everything you've reasoned to be true up until now is real? For all you know, the universe may not even exist. It order to get past this, all humans make the basal assumptions: The universe and reality exist, and we can learn and reason about reality. You make these assumptions as well, so it wouldn't be right for you to call us out on it. We don't know these things for certain, simply because we CAN'T know these things for certain.
DebunkAtheists
What you just did is called a Tu quoque fallacy but I will answer it anyway in hopes you will do the same. I know things like God's existence, the universe, and reality, because of His natural and special revelations. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. Yes, that includes you, as revealed in Romans 1:18-21 Oh and are you certain that you cannot know these things for certain? If so, how are you certain of that? My buddy once said "I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim." I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
Tiki
You're using circular logic. You're using the bible to prove the bible. That's a prime example of an inconsistent worldview. And you still have no certainty that anything is real, you can only assume the universe is real, that knowledge is real, that reason is real. You're pushing us into an endless back and forth where we both question each other's certainty or lack thereof indefinitely. You can't be certain that anything is real, you must make the basal assumption. You can only be certain of your own existence through: cogito, ergo sum.
Tiki
I did not fall into the Tu Quoque fallacy. I answered your points thoroughly in my previous responses, and then pointed out your hypocrisy. I did not point out your hypocrisy in order to dismiss your argument, which is more or less a Pascal's Wager. You however, have ignored my arguments on many occasions, and simply asked me how I know my reasoning is valid, which is a cop out, I was simply asking you how you know your reasoning is valid, after having refuted your points.
DebunkAtheists
Problem is Timi, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. Does that show your worldview is inconsistent? With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. Also, you used a strawman to claim I use the Bible to prove the Bible. I said natural and special revelations. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right? Are absolutely certain that you can't be certain that anything is real? If so how are you certain? Or is this the inconsistent worldview you speak of? I hope you understand that cogito, ergo sum is viciously circular in itself. BTW, how are you absolutely certain cogito, ergo sum is valid? Could you be wrong? If not, why not?
DebunkAtheists
Sorry Tiki, not Timi (auto correct got me)
Tiki
The problem with your argument is that you also use your reasoning to validate your reasoning, which is "viciously circular." If not, then tell me how you validate your reasoning. If you can't be certain that you're correct, then you can't be certain that I can't be certain, now can you? Seriously, tell me how you validate your reasoning without your own reasoning. Also, I want you to tell me what these natural and special revelations are, instead of vaguely hinting at them. Give me examples of events which prove the bible's veracity.
Tiki
As an example: how do you know the bible is real, that the universe is real? You reason that it must be. Well how to you validate that reasoning? You reason that your reasoning is valid. If you can't tell me how you can be ABSOLUTELY certain that the universe around you exists, using only evidence independant of the universe itself, this debate isn't going anywhere. You also need to tell me how you validate your reasoning.
Tiki
And don't claim anything like you use the bible to vlidate your reasoning. How could you tell whther the bible is a reliable source? You reason that is reliable based on these "revelations." In this case its more indirect, but you're still using your reasoning to validate your reasoning.
DebunkAtheists
Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124. I don't think this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty. It's the same way I can be certain of anything R E V E L A T I O N. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.
Tiki
First you have to prove that god exists before using him in an argument in which you claim your reasoning isn't circular. The quote you gave was made under the assumption that you're god is real, and as a result is fallacious. Until you establish that he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt, you cannot be certain. Now tell me, where is this special revelation? This method of making himself known? I've asked you several times now, and yet you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
DebunkAtheists
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Tiki
How is my ability to reason the result of God? The functions of the human brain are nothing more that a series of chemical reactions taking place within the brain. If you believe that it is given by God, prove it. Since you're making the affirmation that God does exist, the task is on you to meet the burden of prove and provide substantial evidence to support this claim. Humans can make knowledge claims because we all make the assumptions I stated previously. Although we can't claim absolute certainty, this in and of itself is not evidence for God.
DebunkAtheists
The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. This just reminded me of something Bahnsen said. "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
Tiki
If the extent of your evidence is no more than the "You know in your heart he exists" that I've heard oh too many times, you may as well stop right now. I asked for actual evidence, and you gave me absolutely nothing. Even you must see the lack of sense in claiming that 'His light penetrates to everyone, therefore you know he exists.' It's not an argument, it's a claim you make without backing up in the slightest. Man's conscience and ability to reason is a natural construct, and there is no reason to believe that it was given to us by a god. It was the result of billions of years of evolution, which allowed us more complex brain functions than most animals. Show me the proof that God had anything to do with this. Don't just assert that his Revelation is known to everyone. Give me evidence. Remember back when I mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I could easily claim that its magic noodle has touched everyone, and therefore all know of his existence. Would you feel that is a valid argument? Of course not, it's simply a baseless claim.
DebunkAtheists
It follows from the aseity and necessity of the transcendent God who creates and sustains reality—without whom nothing would even exist, much less humans and their acts of cognition. "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17); see also Heb 1:1–3 ("through whom he made the universe ... sustaining all things by his powerful word"), Acts 17:28 ("in him we live and move and have our being"), Rev 4:11 ("by your will [all things] were created and have their being"), and so forth. A more pointed example, the existence of logic is intuitively grasped by anyone whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly; what the presuppositionalism of Reformed theology and Van Til et al. does is expose the necessary preconditions thereof, providing an account of the nature and intelligibility of logic, the fundamental principles of which express analogously the curious fact that reality is non contra se. (1) As a divine attribute (original), logic is coterminous with the nature and character of God, understood in terms of divine necessity and simplicity and constituting the coherence and consistency of his nature and unchanging character; as such, logical order is manifest everywhere that the sovereign and sustaining power of God is, which is everywhere. (2) As a human attribute (derivative), given our nature as imago Dei, logic is contingent insofar as we are creatures whose existence is distinct from and sustained by God; at this level, logic is understood analogously as conceptual formulations expressing the logical order of creation and the self-consistent coherence of God's immutable being. The fact that logical principles (e.g., the law of contradiction) are necessarily true, absolute, and universal is accounted for by their analogical relationship to the divine attribute of logic that is coterminous with the very nature and character of the covenant God of promise.
Tiki
logic has absolutely nothing to do with God, and I'm surprised that after all of the build up all you could offer was such a flimsy argument in support of your position. I don't feel that I would be able to explain the reasons too accurately myself, so I'll quote some one who can. "Let us understand deductive logic to be the study of valid deductive arguments; that is, arguments in which the premises necessitate the conclusion. On this common understanding IF the premises of an argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true. Deductive validity is determined by the form of the argument and not the content of the premises. An example of a valid deductive argument is: All dogs are brown Rover is a dog _______________________ Therefore, Rover is brown. The argument's validity is not a function of the truth of the premises but its form which is: All Ds are B, x is D ______________________ Therefore, x is B So interpreted, Bahnsen's claim is that the validity of deductive arguments presupposes the existence of God. What did Bahnsen mean for something A to presume something else B. To put what Bahnsen meant by "presuppose" in terms he often used: To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true. For example, if I am trying to communicate to an audience by speaking to them in English, my action makes no sense unless they understand English. But it does not follow that they do. They might only understand Chinese. Scientists listening to radio signals from outer space in order to make contact with extraterrestrial life presuppose that such life is possible. But it does not follow that it is. Similarly, if, as Bahnsen claimed, the Christian worldview is presupposed by the deductive validity, it does not follow that the Christian worldview is true. It might be the case that deductive validity is a myth. TAG would not establish the truth of the Christian worldview but only the inconsistency of atheists who presuppose deductive validity. Moreover, as we shall see, there is no reason to suppose that we cannot make sense of deductive validity without belief in the Christian God. Although Bahnsen sometimes means by A presuppose B that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B, this expression may be given another interpretation. A presupposes B often means that A logically implies B. In other words, if A presupposes B, it would be inconsistent to assert A and deny B. For example, being a sister presupposes being a female in the sense that it is inconsistent to claim someone is a sister and not female.[5] Could this be what Bahnsen is getting at? If so, his claim is dubious. There does not seem to be anything inconsistent in asserting that deductive validity exists and that Christianity is false. So interpreted, Bahnsen's claim seems to fail the consistency test. Of course, it is possible that there is a subtle and hidden contradiction that escapes one's notice. But this would have to be shown by arguments that Bahnsen did not provide."
Tiki
"One of Bahnsen's arguments for maintaining that atheists cannot appeal to logic without presupposing the Christian worldview is that atheism is committed to materialism. Because he maintains that materialism is incompatible with the permanent, abstract, and normative character of logical principles, Bahnsen held that atheists cannot coherently appeal to logic.[6] There are three problems with this argument. First, Bahnsen gave no argument at all to support his view that materialism is incompatible with logic. Well-known materialists such as D. W. Armstrong and J.J.C. Smart have vigorously defended materialism against attack and Bahnsen did not attempt to deal with their arguments.[7] Second, although some atheists have been materialists there is no reason why they must be, and, indeed, many philosophically trained atheists are not. Many modern atheists assume a pluralistic ontology in which material entities comprise only one kind of entity in their ontology. Bertrand Russell, for example, was an atheist but believed in abstract mathematical entities. Third, even if atheists are committed to materialism and materialism were incompatible with logic, it does not follow that logic presupposes the existence of the Christian God."
Tiki
"However, it is a long way from admitting that the deductive validity, for example, is not conventional to the conclusion Bahnsen needs: namely, that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God. As Bahnsen himself argued, there are many different interpretations of logic.[11] No doubt. But on the vast majority of these interpretations deductive validity is independent of God. What possible arguments could be constructed to arrive at the conclusion that deductive validity presupposes the Christian God? Perhaps this is what Bahnsen had in mind: (1) Either deductive validity is conventional or it is not. (2) If it is not conventional, it must have a metaphysical explanation. (3) If it has a metaphysical explanation, then the best metaphysical explanation is that it is created by the Christian God. (4) Deductive validity is not conventional. _________________________________________________ 5) Therefore, the best metaphysical explanation of the deductive validity is that it was created by the Christian God. This argument is formally valid. The crucial question is whether the premises are true. Let us grant premises (1) and (4). However, premises (2) and (3) are problematic. Consider (2). Just because deductive validity is not conventional it does not follow that they need a metaphysical explanation. On one interpretation deductive validity is explained simply because of the meaning of terms such as "All," "Some," "if ... , then ... ," "not," "and," "or," and so on. In this case, one can see that the premises of valid deductive arguments necessitate the conclusion, and why, simply by understanding the meaning of the terms involved. But then, the explanation of the deductive validity is not metaphysical but semantical, that is, the necessity of deductive validity is a function of the meaning of concepts involved. There is nothing conventional about this, however. The terms used to express these meanings may be conventional, but not deductive validity itself. In short, the explanation of deductive validity is close to the surface, and no deep metaphysical explanation of it is necessary. Now consider premise (3). There are, of course, other metaphysical interpretations of logic besides a Christian one. For example, Aristotle believed that the laws of thought--the law of identity (if anything is P, then it is P), the law of contradiction (it is not the case that something is P and not P), and the law of excluded middle (either something is P or not P)--(which he believed to be presuppositions of all reasoning) are descriptive of being "as such" and are only secondarily standards of correct thinking. For Leibniz, the laws of thought held in every logical possible world and are "therefore descriptive of facts in such a way that not even God can change them."[12] By implication he held a similar position on deductive validity. Obviously, such interpretations of deductive validity are independent of Christian theology and, indeed, could be embraced by atheists. Moreover, they do not seem any less satisfactory than a Christian interpretation of the laws of thought."
Tiki
"There is another reason that a Christian apologist might give in support of the view that logic presupposes the existence of the Christian God. Whether or not Bahnsen actually accepted this argument it is certainly in the spirit of his thought. One might argue that only the Christian worldview provides an explanation of why logic applies to the world. Without postulating God one might maintain that the correspondence between formal logic and its application to reality would be a mystery. However, this may be a pseudoproblem for it is difficult to see how logic could not apply to the world. To suppose that God brings about an otherwise inexplicable congruence between logic and the world suggests that we can imagine what it would be like if the world did not correspond to logic. But with respect to deductive validity this is impossible to do. What would the world be like if deductive validity did not apply? That a deductively valid argument with true premises has a false conclusion? However, this makes no sense. To be sure, it has been claimed that the Law of Noncontradiction does not apply even in our own world. But this claim is based on a deep confusion. One might maintain that the sentence "Michael Martin lived in Cincinnati" was true in 1950 and was not true on 1960. Hence it is true and false and hence the Law of Noncontradiction fails. But there is clearly a misunderstanding here. The complete proposition is either "Michael Martin lived in Cincinnati in 1950" or "Michael Martin lived in Cincinnati in 1960." The one proposition is true and the other is false and there is no need to say that the same proposition is both true and false. To be sure, learning how to apply the Law of Noncontradiction to cases like this takes training and practice, but once this skill is mastered the Law of Noncontradiction remains in harmony with the world, and there is no mystery in this harmony.[13]"
DebunkAtheists
argumentum verbosium - FTW
DebunkAtheists
Now, how about telling us what that book means to you. Oh, and how do you know that position is valid?
Tiki
I fail to see how this is an example of argumentum verbosium. You seemed to enjoy quoting Bahnsen, so I provided you with an article that refutes his claims. Sure, it was lengthy, but it was also necessary in order to cover all of his points. To be quite honest, your argument prior to my quote was a far better example of argumentum verbosium. Instead of explaining your position easily and understandably, you opted to use several odd words, and a rather complex style of writing which made the entire thing rather confusing. By the way, I love how you didn't take any time at all to refute the claims listed in the article, and instead opted to fall back on "Yeah, but how do you KNOW for certain" approach. The fact is, other than our own existence, we can't know anything for certain. That's why we make the basal assumptions that the universe exists and that we can learn about the universe. I could just as easily ask you how you know your position is valid, and in fact I have. You used your argument claiming that logic presupposes God in order to support the idea that You're reasoning is not circular, because you appeal to a higher power. The problem is, as I have just shown, there is no demonstrable validity to that claim. The way things are working themselves out, questioning my reasoning and certainty is meaningless unless you can provide a sound argument for the existence of the christian God, otherwise your certainty and reasoning fall into the same pit, don't they? We could go back and forth forever dogging at each others certainty and logic, but would that really get us anywhere? The only way this discussion is going to progress is if you step up to the plate and prove your God exists.
DebunkAtheists
I will not engage you on this topic, unless you first justify your ability to reason about said topic, which of course you will be unable to do.
DebunkAtheists
Erm, ‘proof' also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?
Tiki
Like I said, without proving that God exists, you cannot justify your ability to reason either, which, as I stated previously, causes us to run in an infinite loop where we question each other's logic and certainty. What I'm trying to get across to you is that by doing so, we're not accomplishing anything more than childish bickering. Despite not having conclusively proven your God to exist, you speak as if you have done so, thereby proving justifying your reasoning. I'll say it once more: until you prove God exists, any demands you make regarding my reasoning or logic is pointless.
Tiki
The article I quoted by Michael Martin explains a good deal about logic and you argument regarding it. You can go read that post if you care to learn about his point of view on the matter. As a matter of fact, he thoroughly covered a lot of what your argument seems to consist of. It seems to be the Transcendental argument for God. If you'd like, I could easily link you to more articles he's written about the subject.
DebunkAtheists
The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview? How you people can be so blind never ceases to amaze me. The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence! (Alright, this is where you say AHA, so there is no evidence that God is the necessary precondition for evidence - I win!)(And then I become even more amazed at how blind you really are).
Tiki
Martin addressed your point regarding logic being an abstract concept as well. I believe that the second post where I quoted him is where you'll find that response, and how logic fits into an atheistic worldview. I'm not to versed in philosophy, so if you really want to learn about how logic and evidence fall into our worldview you can feel free to read other articles by Martin, who knows far more about the topic than myself. From what I've read, he addresses all of your points very well. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians cling so desperately to a book written 2000 years ago by desert nomads, especially when no Christian is able to prove he exists. You fail to realize that when you fail to prove conclusively that God exists, you are relying on a worldview which is based on nothing more than speculation. I'll say this one more time: If you want to learn about atheistic philosophy, go read Martin's work. I'm more interested in science, so if you want to convert this atheist, simply prove to me, conclusively, that God exists. Not just any God mind you, but the Christian God. Don't give me an argument where "God" is interchangeable with any deity.
Tiki
If you can't so much as provide a verifiable proof for your own God, don't bother responding. I'm getting tired of you dancing around the issue regarding the burden of proof which rests upon your shoulders. Either step up, or get out.
DebunkAtheists
Which God? We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, He's the Creator of all things and thus He created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all. If they have no basis in which to place their faith in logic or exists then they've yet to understand that logic or matter exists because their faith is based in logic and reason itself, yet you can't use either to explain where either originated from (enter circular reasoning). They must assume and accept that both logic and reason originated from a single omnipotent source because without that source, there is no logic or reason, man didn't create logic or reason, we only use them as the tools that were provided to us by God. If we say there is no God, then we put the cart before the horse and look pretty stupid... As for which God (which I believe is where this argument gets hung up) that falls to the legitimacy of the scriptures and the foundation of where the God you serve comes from. I lean on the God of the Bible, not only because he revealed himself to me and I chose to accept and believe on His son, and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true. The God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I say so, but because He does.
DebunkAtheists
It is through God's Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.) that we all KNOW He exists. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
Tiki
As I already explained, Martin addresses TAG, the issue you keep bringing up. Go back and read the article I quoted, and you'll see that. What I want now is actual evidence. I made very clear that If you have arguments pertaining to logic and philosophy, you would find your answer in Martin's writing. And the issue on which God isn't so simple as you make it out to be. Everyone believes that their specific holy book is perfect, and has made predictions before. Give me something from the Bible which proves its validity over other holy books. When I say this, I don't mean dig up a vague prophecy and claim it made an accurate prediction. Give me something with little to no room for error.
DebunkAtheists
You are still stuck in that viciously circular reasoning though. Tell me how do you KNOW Michael Martin's "TANG" is valid. Do you reason that your reasoning about TANG is being valid? IF so, HOW are you certain that your reasoning is valid?
Tiki
I can't count how many times I explained to you why that argument makes no sense. Until you prove conclusively that God exists, you can have no certainty on the validity of your claims either. Now please just do what I've been asking you to do this whole time, and prove that your God exists. Don't you remember how you argued that your reasoning wasn't circular? I'll tell you: You claimed that you appeal to God, on a higher plane, therefore your reasoning isn't circular. Now do you see the very clear problem here? Until you prove God exists, that argument is completely meaningless.
DebunkAtheists
Ok here is my response bit[dot]ly/HH9rgL
Tiki
Like I already told you, Martin's numerous pieces contain the answers to all of your philosophical questions. Despite this, you keep posting philosophical arguments by Bahnsen. What I want is a proof grounded in the physical world and Science. If God had made himself so easily known to all, I imagine that you would have absolutely no trouble doing so. In that case, what'll it be? The universe couldn't have started without God? Human's are too complex to come about naturally?
Tiki
"Evolutionists have an irrational worldview that life spontaneously erupted" That actually has nothing to do with evolution. What Bahnsen is thinking about is abiogenesis, which is a completely different thing altogether. Still, I don't what's so irrational about it. Abiogenesis is backed by science, it isn't some crackpot conspiracy. Looking through his video, I have also noticed other problems in his arguments. The first being that he criticizes us for claiming that human lives are no different from that of animals, and then turning around and visiting some one's funeral. The problem here is that human's instinctively value other human lives above that of animals. If we didn't our species would not have survived this long. It is simply a result of evolution.
Tiki
Another problem is that he points out that we see humans as nothing more than a comlex of biochemical factors, but then acknowledge love by kissing our wives and such. The thing is, love is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain which cause us to feel or act a certain way. When taking that into consideration, it makes perfect sense why human's would be able to feel love. He also claims that we condradict ourselves by defending prostitution and then condemning rape and child molestation. The kay factor here is consent. We are fine with whatever other people do sexually, so long as all parties involved are consenting. In prostitution, both the prostitute and her client know precisely what they are doing, and willingly consent to it. In the case of rape, it is clear that consent is not present. In child molestation, children are far too young to give consent, as they do not yet understand what it is they are consenting to.
Tiki
He also claims that we state that things which occur in the universe occur randomly, then turn around and search for patterns and regularity. What he fails to mention is that when we say that events are random, we don't mean that they are never predictable, we simply mean that they aren't predetermined by an external source, and when events occur there is no intelligence behind that event dictating it. He also doesn't seem to understand AT ALL what abiogensis is or what it entails. He's a good philosopher, but a poor scientist.
Tiki
"Inorganic matter doesn't by mechanical reconfiguration give rise to organic matter." Exactly why not? Organic matter is nothing more than a specific series of elements. Under the right conditions, it could definitely be replicated using nothing more than inorganic substances. He then goes on to discuss atheistic materialism, something which Martin has already refuted.
Asher
It would be too disapointing to find out something I believed in was false, but to find out something I didn't believe in was true would be fine.
Asher
If that makes sense...
PvtWaffles
I'm actually surprised that the comments in this topic are so extensive (after reading through, i realized that debunked and tiki have been arguing for 3 months now). I don't actually like the way that this question is phrased, because i can see a lot of people taking the "better safe than sorry" route on the blue, and a lot of others taking the "screw you for trying to scare me into submission!" with the red. Basically, blue team appears to be the more timid of the two choices, and of course atheists will see this as an offensive move. After reading through all of the comments posted, i still hold my stance on blue, not because i'd rather be safe than sorry. I hold because i would rather go my entire life genuinely believing that there is a higher being out there who loves and cares for me, rather than i'm alone in this world that is progressively becoming more independent with each passing year. Something that also irritates me a bit about what's been said so far is that Debunked is quite obviously trying to (as his name states) Debunk Atheists. The problem with that isn't that Debunk is trying to do it, but that he's trying to do it with biblical references, which will just not work. An excellent example is actually of the 3 month long argument between Debunk and Tiki. If you actually look there, it's quite obvious that both individuals believe that they are correct, but they refuse to see the point of view of the other. Debunk continuously brings up biblical and poetic references, which Tiki continuously rebukes with a demand for non-man-made physical proof. I have to admit, i really don't like atheism because it's too close-minded. It refuses to see the possibility that there might be some sort of deity out in the universe. It's like refusing to believe there's a possibility that one day there's going to be a new invention, because it hasn't been invented yet! I'm indifferent to most religions, and agnosticism as well, because at least they tend to be more open to possibilities. However, i also must admit that i'm fairly frustrated ANY person that tries to force their beliefs on someone else just simply because they don't believe what they do. Debunk, no strong atheist is going to simply drop all that they've believed and suddenly become a son of god without some direct proof, DIRECTLY at them, which is something that you and i cannot provide. It's foolish to even think that it might happen. To reference anything that has been created, or altered by man, does not qualify as proof within theology. Whenever you reference a bible verse, you have to understand that the verse has already been transcribed and translated BY MAN a number of times, therefore questioning its credibility. Me saying "Repent" will actually give the image of a 'self-righteous christian', and people will not respond well to that...even I don't respond well to that because it gives Christians a bad name! I think if you truly want to begin debunking atheism, like your name states, you should probably start by investigating ways to allow them to see that there is always more than one path to take. Bring to light that there is a possibility that there is something more than just this mudball hurtling through space around a gigantic nuclear furnace, and go from there. There is no use in trying to teach the unwilling...people just get angry.
DebunkAtheists
My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. But to those to whom the gospel message is uncomfortable, it is received quite differently. When Jesus preached in His hometown at first they were amazed at His Words, but by the end of His sermon they tried to throw Him off a cliff (Luke 4: 14-30) The truth sometimes moves people to want to throw us off cliffs, but if we withhold the truth due to the reaction we might receive, then we are not teaching like our Lord. As my blog "Debunking Atheists" says, we don't have to debunk because they are debunked the very moment they proclaim their atheistic worldviews. It’s not that atheists cannot explain why logic is valid, it is that they profess worldviews that simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. They are doing something, which, if their worldview were true, would be impossible for them to do, and THAT is the contradiction. I do not give verses so the nonbeliever can judge God, as criminals. I give verses as truth. Denial of that truth leads to absurdity. Your argument is not with me, it is with Scripture. Also, I am in this for their, and your, salvation. I seek to see God glorified by all of us being saved. "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon
losergurl
lol this is stupid
DebunkAtheists
You mean that the Atheists rely on their reasoning to justify their reasoning in a viciously circular manner? I completely agree. :7)
losergurl
No, I'm saying that you're full of sh*t and your comments are just proving how much of an idiot you are. I'm atheist and even I know "God" said that he was all loving and accepting. Well based on that, you're the one damned to hell, not us.
DebunkAtheists
Understand though that I am not here to coddle people, to me that is not love at all. Perfect love is a constant confronter. Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:17-18 tells us how to treat people so that is what I do. I am not here to strive for popularity. It takes far more love to confront to ignore the situation. As it says it Matthew, "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them and their sins will take them to hell. The only way you can show your love to your neighbor was outlined in Leviticus 19:17-18 "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." These are harsh words sometimes. Just because it appears that I am being a jerk to them does not mean that I am one. I know I don't have to explain things to you but I just want you to know that I try to do things out of love, not hate. I also fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth.
losergurl
I understand you have found a way to cover yourself with religion, because my gosh, being religious gives you the permission to be mean to others. And don't try to use the bible against me, I've read it. Great story book, not something to live by.
DebunkAtheists
Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?
Christopher Canton
Damn,this was hard to choose.Either believe with all your heart that God is real and waste your whole life worshiping him,only to find out he's not real,or be completely sure that God's not real,only to find out he is and get sent to Hell.I don't Believe in God,but I'd rather be disappointed than go to a place of eternal damnation.
DebunkAtheists
It really is a trick question as God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
losergurl
@DebunkAtheists And how has he revealed himself? Tell us, oh know it all. Prove to us he exists. And I don't mean with all of this theory crap. Actually prove it.
DebunkAtheists
I reject the premise of your question as you already know God exists. The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.) The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. This just reminded me of something Bahnsen said. "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.
DebunkAtheists
Disclaimer : For those who are reading the conversations I am having, most all of what I say has it's origins from first the Bible, but from my mentor Sye over at proofthatGodexists[dot]org You want answers? Go there.
Nick B.
Believing in God and end up dying into peaceful nonexistence, or not believing in God and then end up going to hell...hmmm...what a hard choice...