Doesn't this statement prove there's a God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnthonySorensen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnthonySorensen

Guest
I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God :rolleyes:)…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?
 
I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God :rolleyes:)…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?
Afraid not. At least not to me. I can’t see the connection to be examined that you are making between aborted and unwanted children and the alleged non-existence or existence of “God.”
 
If God’s plan of only having children in wedlock is wrong. Then why are there so many unadopted children, abortions and unwanted children?
 
I think I know what you are saying. The Bible is full of commands that if followed are good for us and all mankind. Look at all the simple commands about handwashing, not eating meat with blood still in it. If we just do what seems good to us things start going wrong, but God knows what is good.

Is this the point you are making?
 
I think I know what you are saying. The Bible is full of commands that if followed are good for us and all mankind.

Is this the point you are making?
Yes exactly and when we go against them there are disastrous results. Don’t you think the sheer efficiency of his laws and commands prove he exists? Why can’t non believers see this? Because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong?
 
Yes and when we go against them there are disastrous results. Don’t you think the sheer efficiency of his laws and commands prove he exists? Why can’t non believers see this? Because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong?
When I have gone against God’s will I have ended up very unhappy. It always amazes me to think how God gives us laws not to make life dull and boring, but to give us joy. Even though I know this I still rebel sometimes. I think that people who don’t see this are afraid that what God asks will make their life miserable, when it is just the opposite. JMO
 
Well… Your making an assumption that there is a moral law giver who decides what is good and what is bad…I can see where you are going with this argument, but the first thing is to determine whether what you’ve stated (abortion, children out of wedlock etc) are actually bad things.

To an Atheist, i don’t see how they would necessarily equate the above with actually being bad. Well…i don’t see how they could equate anything being wrong if they do not know what good is.

That would be the first thing…to show that these things are wrong…then show that has to be wrong on the basis of a higher moral law…and then show that there is a moral lawgiver…

maybe i’ve oversimplified it…:confused:
 
I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God :rolleyes:)…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?
I think I see the error you are making, Anthony, at least from the perspective of a non-believer. A non-believer would say that the law itself–no fornication, chaste living–was invented by human beings who observed how destructive such behaviors were. These laws were interpreted religiously–God said it–but behind the law was human insight.

The Buddhists or the Greek philosophers are an example of this. Consider this quote, from the Greek philosopher Epicurus: “We cannot live pleasurably without living prudently, gracefully, and justly; and we cannot live prudently gracefully, and justly, without living pleasurably.”

Epicurus, who was an atheist, also preached chastity, writing: “sexual passion has never done a man any good; to the contrary, he should count himself lucky if it has not done positive harm.”

For him–and for the Buddhists–virtue is not a divine command but is wisdom and prudence – common sense.

The origin of the prohibition against pork, or the rite of circucmision, can be similarly explained by a non-believer as being connected with good hygiene.
 
Yes exactly and when we go against them there are disastrous results. Don’t you think the sheer efficiency of his laws and commands prove he exists? Why can’t non believers see this? Because they don’t know the difference between right and wrong?
But there are other laws out there that have the same effects. Follow the teaching of humanists and you get the same result.

Also, following all the laws God gave us would certainly not lead to the best possible world. According to the OT you should kill a rebellious child, a woman who is raped in a city, an adulteress, homosexuals, and many others. We obviously don’t follow those laws because they’re clearly wrong. How do we know they’re wrong? Because we have a conscience. You can say that God gave us a conscience, but then you’d be saying at the same time that God gave us commands that go against our conscience. And how does that make any sense?
 
The origin of the prohibition against pork, or the rite of circucmision, can be similarly explained by a non-believer as being connected with good hygiene.
This is what always sticks out to me. I’ll admit I don’t know anything about how people lived thousands of years ago, but I do know many people died even just 150-200 yrs ago due to poor hygiene. Did the people have better knowledge of good hygiene 4-5000 yrs ago? Or did they do these things because of God’s commands? Did they know about
ecoli and trichinosis? Just wondering.
 
But there are other laws out there that have the same effects. Follow the teaching of humanists and you get the same result.
What “humanist” laws say do not fornicate that pre-date the bible?
 
But there are other laws out there that have the same effects. Follow the teaching of humanists and you get the same result.

Also, following all the laws God gave us would certainly not lead to the best possible world. According to the OT you should kill a rebellious child, a woman who is raped in a city, an adulteress, homosexuals, and many others. We obviously don’t follow those laws because they’re clearly wrong. How do we know they’re wrong? Because we have a conscience. You can say that God gave us a conscience, but then you’d be saying at the same time that God gave us commands that go against our conscience. And how does that make any sense?
Could you please tell me where I can find in the OT where a woman should be killed if she is raped, and also about the rebellious child. I’m not necessarily doubting you, would just like to see it for myself. I know there are commands that seem cruel to us, but I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the command to kill a woman who was raped.
 
If God’s plan of only having children in wedlock is wrong. Then why are there so many unadopted children, abortions and unwanted children?
OP, while God’s plan is certainly good, it would not be any sort of proof of his existence, I’m afraid.
 
Poseidon,
I just found this in Deuteronomy 22:25-26

If, however, it is in the open fields that a man comes upon such a betrothed maiden, seizes her and has relations with her, the man alone shall die. You shall do nothing to the maiden, since she is not guilty of a capital offense.

The few verses prior say to stone both the maiden and the man if in the city, the maiden because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city.

I would take this to imply the relations to be consentual.
 
This is what always sticks out to me. I’ll admit I don’t know anything about how people lived thousands of years ago, but I do know many people died even just 150-200 yrs ago due to poor hygiene. Did the people have better knowledge of good hygiene 4-5000 yrs ago? Or did they do these things because of God’s commands? Did they know about
ecoli and trichinosis? Just wondering.
I’m no expert on the history of hygiene, either, but I do know that frequent bathing was a practice in ancient Athens and Rome, for example. By most accounts I’ve read, a typical European during the Middle Ages would bathe perhaps one or twice a year (!)

There is all kinds of speculation as to the reason for this change in hygienic standards – nakedness as such was considered a source of temptation; Roman bath houses were considered places of immorality, etc.

Yet, for some reason, it was “self-evident” to the ancient Greeks and Romans that bathing should take place frequently; for a European in the time of Columbus, however, it somehow was not self-evident.

I also vaguely remember that, at the time of the Black Plague, Europeans were afraid that stripping down to bathe would make things even worse (therefore, indeed, they avoided bathing “like the plague” 😉 ).

Finally, I had read that native Americans – in and around the Jamestown settlement-- were known to have bathed daily, sometimes more than once a day.

I suppose cooking our food was partially a hygienic measure, as well. Perhaps raw meat gave our ancestors a stomach ache, if not worse! Just as with knowing which mushrooms were poisonous, or which plants to stay away from, it was a matter of trial and error.
 
Poseidon,
I just found this in Deuteronomy 22:25-26

If, however, it is in the open fields that a man comes upon such a betrothed maiden, seizes her and has relations with her, the man alone shall die. You shall do nothing to the maiden, since she is not guilty of a capital offense.

The few verses prior say to stone both the maiden and the man if in the city, the maiden because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city.

I would take this to imply the relations to be consentual.
Consensual or not, in the modern western world I don’t think that most people see the scenarios listed as worthy of execution.

*"[23]If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."*

My personal opinion, I don’t see the world being better off if we were to follow this advice. There’s a lot of procedures and rules in Deuteronomy that, to word it honestly but as kindly as I can, I find to be less than worthy of respect.

Here is the answer to the other part of your question about killing children.

If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him. Lev 20:9.

He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17


‘* Cursed is he who dishonors his father or mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ Deuteronomy 27:16*
I think I know what you are saying. The Bible is full of commands that if followed are good for us and all mankind. Look at all the simple commands about handwashing, not eating meat with blood still in it. If we just do what seems good to us things start going wrong, but God knows what is good.
It also contains some advice that is better if not followed and in many cases would be seen as less than kind. So we are left to our own in figuring out the beneficial advice from the damaging.
 
I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.

In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God :rolleyes:)…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.

Am I making sense?
I think you are saying that if it is true as Atheists say that there is no God, then how is their world any better than the world of those who believe in God? They say evil exists therefore God cannot exist but if God does not exist there is evil in their world as well.

Is that what you are trying to say? If so it is a very good question but perhaps it should not be discussed because " Atheist " threads are forbidden.

👍
 
I think you are saying that if it is true as Atheists say that there is no God, then how is their world any better than the world of those who believe in God? They say evil exists therefore God cannot exist but if God does not exist there is evil in their world as well.

Is that what you are trying to say? If so it is a very good question but perhaps it should not be discussed because " Atheist " threads are forbidden.

👍
Actually that’s not what I’m saying and my thread is not an atheist thread. It only mentions them to prove a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top