Help with a God debate

[ThinkingSapien]

Give us what you think is the single best argument against the existence of God.

I don’t think his statement was on how good or bad one argument was over another, but that there are various reasons that people don’t hold the belief of a God. Awareness of only a singular argument (or singular argument form) is taken as an indication of a lack of exposure to people that have other arguments.

 

[elizaveta01]

1. God created the Universe.
2. The Universe is defined as ‘everything that exists’.
3. In order to create the Universe, God must exist as a separate entity to it.
4. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Good try, but a bit faulty. Your “proof” depends entirely on how you define “universe”. You have defined it in a way that specifically fits your intended argument.

There are many definitions of “universe”. Some possible definitions are “All matter and energy, regarded as a whole”. Or “The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place”. In both of these instances your #3 and #4 would not follow. God is neither matter nor energy. He also does not exist within a definable sphere or realm.

 

[wanstronian]

Give us what you think is the single best argument against the existence of God.

There are many, I’m not sure which one I’d consider “the best.” Here’s just a few that spring to mind:

1. The main one: There’s simply no evidence that any gods exist, or have ever existed
2. The bible is demonstrably false in many areas, so cannot be relied upon to be a record of truth
3. The omnimax attributes afforded to the Christian God are mutually incompatible
4. There’s not even a common, agreed definition of the Christian God (don’t know about the others). One might say that the hypothesis is “not even wrong.”
5. There have been thousands of gods postulated by humans over the ages - they can’t all be right, and the odds of any one of them being right are vanishingly small
6. Phenomena previously attributed to gods are constantly being explained by advances in science

Now - tit for tat - give me your single best argument for the existence of your God.

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t think his statement was on how good or bad one argument was over another, but that there are various reasons that people don’t hold the belief of a God. Awareness of only a singular argument (or singular argument form) is taken as an indication of a lack of exposure to people that have other arguments.

Yes, thank you, this was my point.

 

[josh987654321]

There are many, I’m not sure which one I’d consider “the best.” Here’s just a few that spring to mind:

1. The main one: There’s simply no evidence that any gods exist, or have ever existed

Your kidding right? well if that’s the case there is simply no evidence that suggests the emperor Nero existed or any other person from history for that matter.

1. The bible is demonstrably false in many areas, so cannot be relied upon to be a record of truth

In the New Testament? What parts?

1. The omnimax attributes afforded to the Christian God are mutually incompatible

Do you mean all the denominations of Christianity? Not sure exactly what you mean here can you explain it to me please.

1. There’s not even a common, agreed definition of the Christian God (don’t know about the others). One might say that the hypothesis is “not even wrong.”

What do you mean when saying that? because all us Christians believe in Jesus Christ who is one with the father and the father is one with him, therefore if you want a definition of the Christian God all you have to do is read the Gospels to find out what he is like.

1. There have been thousands of gods postulated by humans over the ages - they can’t all be right, and the odds of any one of them being right are vanishingly small

Very true, they can’t all be right. 3 people witness a car accident, 2 people catch a glimpse of the accident and 2 simply hear it happen, they are told to give an account of what actually happened, all 7 people will tell you 7 different stories, do we say “They can’t all be right” and therefore conclude that there was no car accident?

Just because people don’t know God, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t existed. If you asked 3 different friends to give an account of what you were like, I bet you would be surprised at how different each one was, does that mean that you yourself do not exist?

1. Phenomena previously attributed to gods are constantly being explained by advances in science

What advance in science discounts God?

Now - tit for tat - give me your single best argument for the existence of your God.

Please go back a few pages and read my first post on this thread

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

1. The main one: There’s simply no evidence that any gods exist, or have ever existed
2. The bible is demonstrably false in many areas, so cannot be relied upon to be a record of truth
3. The omnimax attributes afforded to the Christian God are mutually incompatible
4. There’s not even a common, agreed definition of the Christian God (don’t know about the others). One might say that the hypothesis is “not even wrong.”
5. There have been thousands of gods postulated by humans over the ages - they can’t all be right, and the odds of any one of them being right are vanishingly small
6. Phenomena previously attributed to gods are constantly being explained by advances in science

All of these are assertions, rather than proofs.

For example, you might assert that there is no universe other than our own. You might assert that because there is no proof of another universe (see your first argument). But that does not prove there is no other universe.

You must not make flat out assertions without proof. You must build an argument. No such argument can be built … and for the simple reason, as atheists like to often brag, that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Denying the existence of God would be an absolute truth.

 

[wanstronian]

All of these are assertions, rather than proofs.

For example, you might assert that there is no universe other than our own. You might assert that because there is no proof of another universe (see your first argument). But that does not prove there is no other universe.

You must not make flat out assertions without proof. You must build an argument. No such argument can be built … and for the simple reason, as atheists like to often brag, that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Denying the existence of God would be an absolute truth.

I never claimed they were proofs, and you didn’t ask for proofs.They are demonstrably true arguments that point to the existence of gods being extremely implausible.Therefore they are, as requested, arguments against the existence of God.

 

[wanstronian]

Your kidding right? well if that’s the case there is simply no evidence that suggests the emperor Nero existed or any other person from history for that matter.

In the New Testament? What parts?

Do you mean all the denominations of Christianity? Not sure exactly what you mean here can you explain it to me please.

What do you mean when saying that? because all us Christians believe in Jesus Christ who is one with the father and the father is one with him, therefore if you want a definition of the Christian God all you have to do is read the Gospels to find out what he is like.

Very true, they can’t all be right. 3 people witness a car accident, 2 people catch a glimpse of the accident and 2 simply hear it happen, they are told to give an account of what actually happened, all 7 people will tell you 7 different stories, do we say “They can’t all be right” and therefore conclude that there was no car accident?

Just because people don’t know God, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t existed. If you asked 3 different friends to give an account of what you were like, I bet you would be surprised at how different each one was, does that mean that you yourself do not exist?

What advance in science discounts God?

Please go back a few pages and read my first post on this thread

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Will respond tomorrow, off out for the day now.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Here is what he said. Be warned, it hits home.

"The reason I don’t believe in god, Lathan, is because I don’t want to believe someone, something could sit there and make some guy millions in America, help the touchdown in a sports game …:

I basically told him about God giving us all free will, and that sometimes people do bad things that have negative consequences. I was pretty upset and that was all that I could think of, and I feel that what I said wasn’t enough.
The more I think about it, things would be A LOT EASIER if God still smite’d people like he did in the old days.

The argument is the argument from evil and you gave a response that failed to meet the problem. Different apologists/philosophers have given similar responses with no success.

I believe the only reasonable response is that God purposefully remains distant, having allowed Christ as the only witness to the Father. Aside from this example of the way to the Truth and the Life God remains removed from the world. The reason is that God has not yet returned to take over control of this world. It’s abundantly obvious, isn’t it, given the evidence of so much evil, which your friend rightly points out?

The only reason I can come up with to explain this absence of God is because He chooses to remain distant. The time is not right for His return. When He does return evil and suffering will be eradicated, but not until then. God is allowing humanity to run its own course and by doing this humanity is learning a lesson. The result of God’s absence can only result in widespread evil. Humanity is incapable of avoiding this result. We cannot create a system of human governance on this Earth that will not inevitably fall apart, no matter how perfect it may be thought to be. All human institutions, including the American system of government founded on the Constitution is imperfect. God will not return until humanity’s attempt to build a workable system of self-governance is allowed to run its course to its full, and inevitable end.

What is that end?

That end is nothing short of our total annihilation through nuclear war. We have enough stored nuclear weapons now to wipe all life off this planet. And this is a fact. But many people will refuse to believe that such a possibility lies on the not too distant horizon.

Hence, the lesson has to be allowed to run its full course. God is removed from this world because he is allowing us to learn this lesson, that without His help/intervention, only such an ultimate catastrophe can result.

Evil is the inevitable result of God’s absence. And it is not by God’s will that evil exists. It exists because God chooses to remain removed so that we can learn through hard experience what life is like in His absence.

We need God present to prevent all the things mentioned by the person you gave a failed response to.

Incidentally, Matthew Chapter 24 mentions this very thing, and this forms the basis for my response to your thread. This chapter states quite clearly, that ‘no flesh will be saved alive unless those days be cut short.’ This is speaking of the days just prior to Christ’s return. It states in no uncertain terms that we will annihilate ourselves from the Earth unless Christ returns to cut that possibility off. He will return to prevent our total annihilation and not until that very critical moment in our history.

The next time someone asks the same question, try this answer. And hope and pray for Christ’s return. He’s our only hope for salvation, both personally, and collectively.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

They are demonstrably true arguments that point to the existence of gods being extremely implausible.

As indicated earlier, your remarks are not arguments. They are assertions.

The early physicists who argued for the existence of atoms did so because of logical arguments in favor of their existence. Those who argued against the existence of atoms did so by arguing their implausibility (how can you argue the existence of something you cannot see?).

Now who turned out to be right?

 

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

I hope you don’t mind that I just copy and paste something I have written before:
(3) Addressing the Problem of Evil and Suffering:
By far the most common argument against the existence of the Christian God would be the Problem of Evil and Suffering. It basically attack the idea the God is all-loving. Now, there are generally three prongs of this argument that must be hurdled:

1. The logical problem of evil and suffering
2. The evidential problem of evil and suffering
3. The emotional problem of evil and suffering
   In my opinion, 1 is the easiest to conquer while 3 is the most difficult. The logical problem of evil is generally formulated as follows:
4. Evil and suffering is logically incompatible with the Christian God, meaning if suffering and evil (S&E) existed, then God would not be
   a. all-powerful
   b. all-knowing
   c. all loving
   or d. a mixture of some or all of them.
5. Suffering and evil exist.
6. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity does not exist.

There are a couple major flaws with this problem. First of all, unless one is omniscient, one cannot know what the outcome of a certain event might be, meaning, there might be proper reason for an instance of suffering that we cannot foresee. It is simply too difficult to know if suffering right now might bring about a greater benefit later. There is a (small) personal one for me. I was in Washington D.C. on a school trip. It was our last day, and we were visiting the Air and Space Museum. After awhile, we left to go to our last museum of the day. About half-way there, I realize that my wallet is missing, which worries me horribly. After a little while, a teacher and I head back to the Air and Space Museum to find my wallet. Luckily, we were able to get it back at the security desk. As we were leaving the building, my eyes come across a Lamborghini across the street. This was a time in my life when I was a huge fan of luxury sports cars. Amazingly enough, the gentleman was standing outside talking, and allowing people to sit in his car and take photos. I was ecstatic. I had my photo taken (which now resides on the wall in my bedroom) and then went back to meet up with the group. This was simply one example. This invalidates premise (1). There are a couple other objections, but they can be found in response to the evidential problem of evil:

1. The more evil and suffering there is in the world, the smaller the chance of there being a God (as described in the logical problem of evil).
2. There is A LOT of evil and suffering in the world.
3. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the Christian God exists.

Now, there are several ways one can go about attacking this. First off, one of God’s main desires is to bring us closer to Him and make us dependent on Him. Suffering is one of the things that makes it easier. I know for me, personally, that it is far easier to pray to God and be dependent on Him if things are going wrong or there is something I need. Also, it seems that the poor and lowly, those we tend to associate the most with suffering, tend to be the most generous and pious, which speaks to how suffering can actually strengthen one’s spirit. Also, suffering can be a means of testing somebody. Not, in my opinion, a very strong point, but it doesn’t hurt. Also, with regards to evil, we have free-will to make good or bad choices. Furthermore, a corollary point to that is that if one believes in actual evil, the give credence to the axiological (moral) argument. It goes something like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
   If someone is using evil, not as their opinion, but as an absolute, it sets an objective standard for morality, which supports premise two. As far as premise one, I have never seen a non-arbitrary reason that morality is objective with God that doesn’t also presupposed intrinsic value without God. However, this is a corollary, not a major point.

Finally, there is the emotional problem of evil. It is difficult for two reasons. One, people seem to have much more difficulty dropping things with emotional connections. Second, if an apologist is faced with a “Why did God let X happen” question, they probably don’t have enough info to provide a pleasing answer. The best that can be done in these situations is to pray for the person, remind them of your and God’s love, and assist them in their time of trouble.

You’re a genius.

wanstronian

 

[wanstronian]

Your kidding right? well if that’s the case there is simply no evidence that suggests the emperor Nero existed or any other person from history for that matter.

Hmmm, so you equate the plausibility of the existence of a specific emperor, one of thousands whom never did anything that any other human couldn’t do, with the plausibility of the existence of a being who created the universe?

If I told you I had a son, you’d believe me. If I told you I had a son who could fly, you’d want a bit more in the way of evidence.

In the New Testament? What parts?

Well that’s the thing, you see. You can’t just go cherry-picking one part of a book and say that because nothing in there can be proved false, the whole darn thing must be true. In fact, quite the contrary - because one part of a book is demonstrably false, the rational thing to do is to doubt the whole thing, unless presented with clear evidence regarding specifics.

However, to answer your question: Walking on water is impossible. Resurrection is impossible. Therefore by far the most plausible explanation for those (and other impossible) part is to assume that they are fabricated, not that they are true.

If you go in with the presupposition that God and Jesus etc. exist and can do all these impossible things, then a book saying one of them did an impossible thing seems reasonable. However, if you discard your desirous presuppositions, you’ll see that the whole idea is ludicrous. You wouldn’t believe it if someone claimed these things today, so why do you believe it when it’s written in a thousands-of-years-old book with demonstrably dubious provenance?

Do you mean all the denominations of Christianity? Not sure exactly what you mean here can you explain it to me please.

It doesn’t matter which denomination, does it? In general, God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The evidence is all around you, on the news every day, that this cannot be so.

What do you mean when saying that? because all us Christians believe in Jesus Christ who is one with the father and the father is one with him, therefore if you want a definition of the Christian God all you have to do is read the Gospels to find out what he is like.

Really? Then why all this false apologetics to try and explain away the inconsistencies? “You can’t put God under a microscope” etc.?

Where does God live? How do you know?
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? How do you know?
And so on.

You can’t define your god in enough detail to test the hypothesis.

Very true, they can’t all be right. 3 people witness a car accident, 2 people catch a glimpse of the accident and 2 simply hear it happen, they are told to give an account of what actually happened, all 7 people will tell you 7 different stories, do we say “They can’t all be right” and therefore conclude that there was no car accident?

No, but if one person said that the vehicle that crashed was a blue bus with yellow wheels and that it crashed into a bridge support in Idaho, and someone else said that it was a purple flatbed with a donkey chained in the back, and that it crashed into a reservoir on Moscow; and you believed that there was only one vehicla and one crash; and further if you visited both bridge support and reservoir and found no sign of a crash… you’d have a bit more of a problem on your hands.

What advance in science discounts God?

Don’t twist my words, that’s not what I said. What I said was that phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural are being explained by science. Primitive man used to believe that thunder was a sign of an angry god. Many primitively-intellected people still believe today that God created human beings, when there is abundant and indisputable evidence of evolution.

Please go back a few pages and read my first post on this thread

I read it. If anecdote and weak analogy is enough to convince you of the almighty, then nothing I can say - no rational argument at all - will change your mind. And, I suspect you might even consider that a good thing!

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

They are demonstrably true arguments that point to the existence of gods being extremely implausible.

As indicated earlier, your remarks are not arguments. They are assertions.

Well, what you “indicated” earlier was that I didn’t provide “proofs.” So you’re off to a dishonest start in this post already.

They’re not assertions, they are either physically or logically demonstrable. However one has to start with an open mind, which is why you’ll never concede the point. At least not in public.

The early physicists who argued for the existence of atoms did so because of logical arguments in favor of their existence. Those who argued against the existence of atoms did so by arguing their implausibility (how can you argue the existence of something you cannot see?).

Now who turned out to be right?

Oh please. The physicists who argued for the existence of atoms did so because they saw cause and effect and needed a model to explain it. They devised experiments to test the model - both to try to prove it right and - are you listening, theists? - to try and prove it wrong (hint - this is why science works and theology fails). After many years and many experiments, the model held up to scrutiny so the existence of atoms was accepted into the scientific mainstream.

Now, compare and contrast with, “I can’t explain X, ergo Jesus.”

 

[josh987654321]

Thank you for your reply wanstronian.

Hmmm, so you equate the plausibility of the existence of a specific emperor, one of thousands whom never did anything that any other human couldn’t do, with the plausibility of the existence of a being who created the universe?

If I told you I had a son, you’d believe me. If I told you I had a son who could fly, you’d want a bit more in the way of evidence.

Okay, my apologies, I didn’t explain this well and it wasn’t in direct relation to your original question, it was to show that it’s not a question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed or not, because that’s like asking whether or not any historical person existed with so much historical evidence.

So I don’t know whether you have heard this argument before, but with that in mind Jesus can only be 1 of 3 things.

1. Lunatic
2. Liar
3. Lord

Well that’s the thing, you see. You can’t just go cherry-picking one part of a book and say that because nothing in there can be proved false, the whole darn thing must be true. In fact, quite the contrary - because one part of a book is demonstrably false, the rational thing to do is to doubt the whole thing, unless presented with clear evidence regarding specifics.

In the Old Testament yea, but not in the New Testament and you must remember that these things were not written down and recorded as they happened, especially with the Old testament, alot of these stories were handed down to generation after generation through word of mouth before they were written down, thus it’s like Chinese Whispers for some of it.

This is why Jesus said he didn’t come to do away with the old testament, but to give it it’s full meaning.

However, to answer your question: Walking on water is impossible. Resurrection is impossible. Therefore by far the most plausible explanation for those (and other impossible) part is to assume that they are fabricated, not that they are true.

Okay. St. Thomas also had a similar problem, he refused to believe until he had touched the wounds of the resurrected Christ and remember, these miracles were just as shocking to them as they are to you and thus why you have so much trouble believing that they happened, when all of the historical evidence points to it happening.

Not to mention that the pharisee’s and teachers of the law most definatly wanted to prove that Jesus did not resurrect and that it was a trick or hoax, they even guarded the tomb where his body was placed, don’t you think if it was fabricated they would have been the first to find Jesus’ body and put an end to this so called nonsense of Christianity? Don’t you think someone would have found his body and that we would have some evidence of his remains as we do all of the other disciples today?

My “If” (that he did do the things he is said to have done) might be big, but your “If” (That it was all made up) is even bigger my friend.

If you go in with the presupposition that God and Jesus etc. exist and can do all these impossible things, then a book saying one of them did an impossible thing seems reasonable. However, if you discard your desirous presuppositions, you’ll see that the whole idea is ludicrous. You wouldn’t believe it if someone claimed these things today, so why do you believe it when it’s written in a thousands-of-years-old book with demonstrably dubious provenance?

If someone claimed that a man did those things today, without seeing it, id approach it with skepticism, if many others also claimed that they saw him do these same things, id approach it with slightly less skepticism, if these others went to their deaths proclaiming that they saw these things and that it was the truth, Id approach it with a bit less skepticism, if they told me what this man’s teachings were and they were very big claims that also made much sense, id approach it with even less skepticism.

It doesn’t matter which denomination, does it? In general, God is considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The evidence is all around you, on the news every day, that this cannot be so.

You mean to say that if there were an all loving God there would be no evil? so because evil exists, therefore God must not exist? is that your argument? if so please read my first post again.

Really? Then why all this false apologetics to try and explain away the inconsistencies? “You can’t put God under a microscope” etc.?

Where does God live? How do you know?
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? How do you know?
And so on.

You can’t define your god in enough detail to test the hypothesis.

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped. Evelyn Underhill -

Can I ask you these two questions

1. If God were to smite all the wicked, where would he start and where would he finnish? are we not all sinners?
2. If God were to remove the choice of evil, how could we choose good?

Luke 9:51-56

A Samaritan Village Refuses To Receive Jesus

51 Not long before it was time for Jesus to be taken up to heaven, he made up his mind to go to Jerusalem. 52 He sent some messengers on ahead to a Samaritan village to get things ready for him. 53 But he was on his way to Jerusalem, so the people there refused to welcome him. 54 When the disciples James and John saw what was happening, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to destroy these people?”

55 But Jesus turned and corrected them for what they had said. 56 Then they all went on to another village.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

No, but if one person said that the vehicle that crashed was a blue bus with yellow wheels and that it crashed into a bridge support in Idaho, and someone else said that it was a purple flatbed with a donkey chained in the back, and that it crashed into a reservoir on Moscow; and you believed that there was only one vehicla and one crash; and further if you visited both bridge support and reservoir and found no sign of a crash… you’d have a bit more of a problem on your hands.

Okay. Well look at it this way, if your right and we are wrong, than about 95% of the whole world is completely delusional.

Please read through these quotes on the existance of God - proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

Don’t twist my words, that’s not what I said. What I said was that phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural are being explained by science. Primitive man used to believe that thunder was a sign of an angry god.

Okay. I apologise, I don’t mean to twist your words.

Many primitively-intellected people still believe today that God created human beings, when there is abundant and indisputable evidence of evolution.

I absolutely believe that God created human beings.

You say “there is abundant and indispisputable evidence of evolution.” Well, okay, that doesn’t mean that God didn’t create us, just explains a little of how he created us, can you please explain to me how we evolved from nothing?

I do not doubt theistic evolution, but I think darwins theory from apes is absolute rubbish, but I have not studied evolution to a great extent so it’s probably best not to go into that.

I read it. If anecdote and weak analogy is enough to convince you of the almighty, then nothing I can say - no rational argument at all - will change your mind. And, I suspect you might even consider that a good thing!

Okay, thank you for reading it.

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. Peter Kreeft

God Bless

Thank you for reding
Josh

 

[Gospel_of_Chaos]

Regarding emotion: I’ve never heard a religious person argue from any perspective other than blind faith, combined with a reliance on ancient texts which prove nothing.

I felt the same way.

The argument is the argument from evil and you gave a response that failed to meet the problem. Different apologists/philosophers have given similar responses with no success.

I believe the only reasonable response is that God purposefully remains distant, having allowed Christ as the only witness to the Father. Aside from this example of the way to the Truth and the Life God remains removed from the world. The reason is that God has not yet returned to take over control of this world. It’s abundantly obvious, isn’t it, given the evidence of so much evil, which your friend rightly points out?

The only reason I can come up with to explain this absence of God is because He chooses to remain distant. The time is not right for His return. When He does return evil and suffering will be eradicated, but not until then. God is allowing humanity to run its own course and by doing this humanity is learning a lesson. The result of God’s absence can only result in widespread evil. Humanity is incapable of avoiding this result. We cannot create a system of human governance on this Earth that will not inevitably fall apart, no matter how perfect it may be thought to be. All human institutions, including the American system of government founded on the Constitution is imperfect. God will not return until humanity’s attempt to build a workable system of self-governance is allowed to run its course to its full, and inevitable end.

What is that end?

That end is nothing short of our total annihilation through nuclear war. We have enough stored nuclear weapons now to wipe all life off this planet. And this is a fact. But many people will refuse to believe that such a possibility lies on the not too distant horizon.

Hence, the lesson has to be allowed to run its full course. God is removed from this world because he is allowing us to learn this lesson, that without His help/intervention, only such an ultimate catastrophe can result.

Evil is the inevitable result of God’s absence. And it is not by God’s will that evil exists. It exists because God chooses to remain removed so that we can learn through hard experience what life is like in His absence.

We need God present to prevent all the things mentioned by the person you gave a failed response to.

Incidentally, Matthew Chapter 24 mentions this very thing, and this forms the basis for my response to your thread. This chapter states quite clearly, that ‘no flesh will be saved alive unless those days be cut short.’ This is speaking of the days just prior to Christ’s return. It states in no uncertain terms that we will annihilate ourselves from the Earth unless Christ returns to cut that possibility off. He will return to prevent our total annihilation and not until that very critical moment in our history.

The next time someone asks the same question, try this answer. And hope and pray for Christ’s return. He’s our only hope for salvation, both personally, and collectively.

That was a pretty amazing rant.

However, to answer your question: Walking on water is impossible. Resurrection is impossible. Therefore by far the most plausible explanation for those (and other impossible) part is to assume that they are fabricated, not that they are true.

Would you expect God to be a mere man, and to follow the laws of logic for us to believe in his existence, or would you expect God to do the otherwise impossible? Think about that. By your logic, I can claim to be God, and it is possible because I haven’t done anything impossible or unexplainable. I would be a very silent and stupid God, but a God nonetheless.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wanstronian,

You said:

What I said was that phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural are being explained by science.

Ok, all well and good. What explains (or what is the cause of) the phenomena that science describes though?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Yes, Science as we know it can only tell us some of the ‘how’ and none of the ‘why’.

It is interesting that the rest of nature gets by without pondering upon the ‘why’, so why oh why has ‘nature???’ singled us out to wonder why?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I certainly wish that atheists could come up with something new instead of trotting out the same old argument time and time again.

It basically comes down to “If I was God, I would _______ and everything and everyone would be great.”

If a person doesn’t have at least a superficial depth of philosophical/theological understanding, then they are never going to get past square 1. It is like a child in a grocery store who cries and wails because mom and dad won’t get them anything and everything they want. The child does not have the understanding that when mom and dad say “no,” it is for his their own good. It is the same with God. If God doesn’t say “yes” to your prayers and supplications, then there must be a good reason for it. Of course, for the atheist, if they were God they would say “yes” to everyone and everything. I wonder how long it would take them to realize that “yes” isn’t always the best answer? What your atheist friend does not take into account with the surgeon, policeman, teacher and fireman is that the duty to serve others is part of the virtue of charity…and from where does that come from? If we truly are just a product of unguided, accidental evolution, how do we understand and practice the duty to serve and help others?

I’ve yet to hear an atheist position that has any meat to it; it’s all emotion.

And how would he explain the obvious good in the world?

Watch Edward Feser here: vimeo.com/60979789

Whether we can explain evil to his satisfaction is problematical, but Feser explains that God’s existence is inescapable and that is Good is just as inescapable.

Linus2nd