Debate God

1. People come to better knowledge...

2. What are you trying to tell me here? That you just arbitrarily said most Christians are dumb? Well, great. I could care less, tbh.

3. You're sort of stating the obvious, the Bible merely retaught many morals, and more, for the christian walk.

4. I do the same.

@Nitrous: The Bible states something like.. "For God is the spirit.." and I can't remember the rest of the verse.

 

1. What makes what you believe any better than what they believe?
2. Pretty much.
4. Christians tend to do it less. Take a look at nuns, for example. Chastity and poverty don't seem too fun. This all goes with the idea that religion teaches you no to question the world around you. Repenting sins, obeying arbitrary laws from both your religion and the state, and having an unfounded respect for elders don't serve to make you life any better.

 

1. Like I've said earlier, I haven't given a fair shake at many other beliefs, but their's don't make too much sense to me, and yes, I have done research before giving them up. Many stories of other beliefs don't fit together very well, and I've seen enough contradictions to give up.

4. The Bible doesn't tell us to be nuns, and the Bible doesn't say not to question the world around you, it just says not to test God and not to blaspheme God (there are others, but those are the main things you don't want to do).

And actually, obeying laws from religion does make me a better person. Of course, at least my religion. Respecting others is a big part of getting respect yourself. Again, morals taught in the Bible are very practical.

By the way, all my friends (who are Christians likewise, or at least most) play videogames. Its not as if God said "and you shall not play xbox 360!" My youth pastor even has a 360, though he doesn't play it much anyway.

And what exactly are you trying to tell me? Are you surprised that God is not a human? If he were, he wouldn't be God. His main attribute can be a spirit. What you're doing is taking his main attribute and telling me what he's not. Go figure. Its not a negative attribute, because God can't be compared to man.

 

1. The stories making sense to you doesn't make them right. You say that other religions have contradictions, but yet when I point out to you the numerous passages in the bible that contradict other statements (do not kill, for example), you say it's because the bible was written by people.
4. No, the bible does not, but organized religion does. Telling somebody not to test god is as good as telling them they aren't allowed to question their beliefs or formulate ideas of their own.
5. I'm not saying that religion makes you a worse person. I'm saying that religion doesn't help to make you happy. It is like a crutch for a person with two good legs.

 

1. I never said they did. But Christianity doesn't make sense to you, and you don't believe it. Do not kill? Where is this contradiction? By the way I don't bother using lame excuses like "written by man durr".

4. Also, not testing God is different than not questioning your own beliefs. Testing God is pretty much commanding God to show him to yourself. God stated that he would not show himself to those who test him, he had only done it once, when gideon tested him with the flask and dew.

5. I don't know how you came up with this. Earlier you had stated all religion does is give hope of something after life. So this doesn't promote happiness in anyway, even if that statement is true? If I all I knew was to take drugs (for an example, no reference) I may be happy for a bit, but end effects don't look too good (depends on the drug, but whatever, i'm generalizing drugs here).

A spirit is a type of entity.. therefore in no way can it be used as a negative attribute. At best I find it satirical that you attempt to use God's base trait as negative.

Waste your time? Please. Its your choice to come onto the internet and do anything in the first place, don't begin to cast your wasted time excuse onto me.

 

That's like saying because grass is green its not black.

Now, let me go over some of a spirit's metaphysical contexts:

"An incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things. Unlike the concept of souls (often regarded as eternal and usually believed to pre-exist the body) a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of a living being".

You can quantify God as these traits.

Trinity: The result of God reaching to man by the Father as the source, the Son as the course ('the Way'), and through the Spirit as the transmission.

This is a good example of an ontology of Christian theologic(sp?) premise.

Though a contradiction to many, it is said God is "unquantifiable" because of His omnipotence. However, I would argue that He is quantifiable. So there you have it. The Christian theology of the Holy Spirit, was the last piece of Trinitarian theology to be fully explored and developed. For this reason, there is greater theological diversity among Christian understandings of the Spirit than there is among understandings of the Son (Christology) and of the Father. There are distinct understandings of the Holy Spirit by non-Trinitarian groups and some non-Christian groups that also use the term.

EDIT: 1 Corinthians 3:16 should be noted

 

1) You asked for an ontology. Ontology - the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

2) I agree, however, I argue that spirit is quantifiable by human instances. Also, all I disagree with is that a spirit is a negative attribute, and this is only true if it is quantifiable. Notice how I say quantifiable by human instances.

3) Again, you asked for the ontology.

4) Further research is always being conducted, no? There are answers, especially if you're using this analogy towards God.

5) Except that we know what matter is.

6) I would argue that there is a subjective point where nothing is needed, and its not just arbitrary. I mean it literally. Also, I say its quantifiable, I had even stated that.

 

I'm pretty sure i've disproved the Catholic version of God (omni-god*)
Just a bit of logic and the knowledge that bad stuff happens was enough. I'm only 15 and i'm pretty sure ive disproved the entire basis for a religion in five minutes.
I'll give examples of each of my arguments at the end

1. Well, bad stuff happens, caused by man or otherwise. takes no genius to work that out. So, why doesn't God stop it? Well, maybe it's because he can't. But he must be able to, he's omnipotent. Maybe he doesn't understand the suffering. But no, he is omniscient. Maybe he doesnt know about it. He must know, he is omnipresent. Well, the only conclusion is that he just doesn't care. Yet no, he is omnibenevolent.
Therefore, the simple fact that there is suffering means there is no omni-god.

2. The only convincing argument against this i have been presented with is that god gave us free will. But why do this? he is omniscient, he knew we would be stupid and do bad things with our free will. If he is omnibenevolent, he loves us and would just want us to be happy. Well, we can be happy without free will. Theres no need for it if the ultimate goal is happiness.
If he is omnibenevolent and anmiscient, he would know it would be one of the stupidest things possible to do- to give us free will.

3. Pure logic dictates that God cannot be an omni-god. Any educated person would, or at least should, accept this. However, i do not claim any of my arguments disprove god entirely. It would make a lot of sense if god had the potential to stop all suffering and make a perfec world, but just didn't care for example.

Examples.
1. accept this hypothetical situation (it might be a bit distressing for some people).
A girl, 8 years old goes to sunday school. She is a good, Christian, benevolent girl who all love and cherish. A man is waiting outside her school, says he is her uncle and he was to take her home. The man takes her to a nearby wood where he beats and rapes her until she dies of starvation. He then leaves the country, starts a new life and lives happily ever after.
an omni-god would have known this was going to happen, was there when it happened, had the power to prevent it and loved the innocent little girl. And yet, did nothing to prevent it. He did not ease her suffering or smite the man years before he comitted such a horrible crime.
No omni-god could do this. I'm sure i do not need to explain further

2. yesterday, i gave my five year old brother a stick. i said to him he was only allowed to pplay with that stick for the next half hour. I took away his free will, basically (this really happened). Five minutes later i came back and he was having the time of his life, running around the garden, waving his stick around, having the time of his life. He did not need free will to be happy, so why give it to us? after half an hour was up i said he could do what he wanted now. he kept playing with this stick for 40 minutes after. lol, it was funny. Hopefully, you get my point.

Concerning omnipotence: Noone seems to realise onmipotence itself is impossible- Can an omnipotent being make an object so heavy they themselves cannot lift it?
If they can- then there is something they cannot lift, therefore, not omnipotent
If they can't- then they cannot make an object that heavy, so cannot do anything, so is not omnipotent.



I'm kinda bored now so i'm gunna stop typing, but seriously, i have found no hole in my argumennt, and neither has anyone else. can you guys see a loop-hole god could get through?

* A divine being who is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. (all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, all-loving)

 

I rofl'd. You honestly think these arguments disprove religion?

1) We have free will, and God does intervene if we ask. So no, you did not disprove God.

2) God didn't want people to accompany him like robots, he wanted people that choose to be with Him. I believe Romans 1:20-something states some verses that say "For God gave them up for their lusts, etc"

3) Or maybe you're not educated enough to understand God. I don't think anyone can.

examples:

1) Wow, are you serious? I see arguments like this used all the time, and its pathetic. Since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence. As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so. The world is now under God's Curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man's rebellion against God's Word. This “bondage of corruption,” with the "whole world groaning and travailing together in pain" (Romans 8:21, 22), is universal, affecting all men and women and children everywhere. God did not create the world this way, and one day will set all things right again. In that day, "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Revelation 21:4).

2) Lol. God didn't give us free will to be happy.

Last point: God is limited to his own power. The Bible also states not to test God.

 

But all religions claim at least some sort of "understanding" of God. Example: Some say he is benevolent others say he is harsh. We know that no one can understand God, so why do religions say they know something about God? Again, you can hypothesize anything you want, but there is nothing you can know. That statement is also somewhat silly; if you think no one can understand God, then there is no way anyone can become educated enough to do so.

What are you saying in this second part? If you think God is unlimited in his power, then why say he is limited? He is limited to his unlimited power?

Also, what if God told people not to test him to see if we would break out of the "shell" of religion and question what God is?

 

Pop God Quiz

Makisupa Tests God

Dear God,

There have been so many concepts tossed around during this debate, so many theorized versions of who you are. I am personally tired of your games. Why did you create so much suffering, poverty, and violence in this world? Why did you create such an unbelieveably large universe, with so much in it, if only humans and Earth are important? Why were you so insecure that you needed to make us just to worship you, anyway. Were you lonely? I think it was incredibly negligent to let so much pain, death, and pillaging be done in your name during the Crusades. Where were you? And what is with all of the molesting done by your supposed representatives? I mean, an amazing amount of molestation, where these priests used their position of moral and spiritual power to horribly harm young children. Where the hell were you? Why did you have to kill my uncle in that fire? He was a good man. He was a man of honor, dependability, and he was fair. I can not say the same for you. I'm calling you out. I think you are nothing but a collection of our deepest fears that have melted together into an answer to a question that can not be answered. If you are real, if you are almighty, all powerful......if you created everything in the universe, it should be absolutely no trouble for you to create an account here at Forgehub and post in our debate. I dare you to show yourself. Even if you are real I don't think you have the stones to come down here and try to defend your position.

Sincerely,

Makisupa007

P.S. - If you are going to get all wrathful over this test, please don't harm aMoeba.....he warned me.

 

Y'see here, and I'm being honest, and honestly not trying to be a douchebag, and if I come off as one, I apologize. I don't think, and personally think, that using bible quotes in your arguments isn't as effective in describing creationism, because that does not provide direct fact to many. If you can find scientifical evidence of God, I encourage you to post it, but using bible quotes is kinda like showing me an instruction manual for Halo, and saying because they give you directions it's true...

 

No no, I just noticed in the past, it was more of just saying something, it was a little off topic I admit, but I thought to put it out there...

 

1) If you want to believe that I'm a computer, go ahead. There is indeed a chance that I am, but there is a much, much greater chance that I am a human. First, computers today aren't powerful enough to emulate a human so well, and the chances that I am one of those imaginary computers are even slimmer. It doesn't take much thought to be rational, in many cases we are naturally so. I'm pretty sure that you thought I was a human even before reading the above, because your brain subconciously went through those thought processes for you.
But if you would rather base your life off fables than rationality, go ahead and become a scientologist. They take your ideas to the extreme- look how great they turned out.

2) Stop being so offended. I never called you stupid. If I said 'all christians are stupid' then you could be offended. I didn't. I said that from my own personal experience they are, and I even explained how I came to this conclusion. It isn't an insult, its a conclusion drawn from observing my environment.
So far, you are the only one to make baseless generalizations...

3) Getting a little hostile? This is a debate, let's support our claims instead of flinging poo at the people who we disagree with.
First of all, it is disputed whether Hitler was religious or not, but it is true that Mussolini and Stalin were both atheists. The difference is that all three of them did not get their ideas from the fact that they were atheist. They weren't driven by their atheism to commit the crimes that they did; the two just coexisted.
Naming three (two?) atheists who were evil means nothing- I can name many many more religious people who were evil, if you want. Also, you need to understand that all three were incredibly smart people, who would have realized that the presence of a God would undermine their own power. If the people believed in God, they would be less likely to blindly follow Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini.