Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
I think faith have alot to do with religions, particularly christianity....some people that have faith will have their prayers answered....otherwise many people will leave christianity already....God and whatever names you address him/her will be different in different beliefs....
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
I trust in contradictions, i trust in uncertainty – if u cannot understand this, ignore – as to whehter u agree or disagree – that is ur predicament and u live by it.
To trust in contradictions is to be irrational. It's not my failure to understand this, there is nothing "enlightened" about your trusting in contradictions. I don't see myself in any predicament by being rationale.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
I think faith have alot to do with religions, particularly christianity....some people that have faith will have their prayers answered....otherwise many people will leave christianity already....God and whatever names you address him/her will be different in different beliefs....
In fact, EVERYONE exercises faith everyday all the time in everything! The issue is then not the existence of faith, but what is the OBJECT of faith and whether the faith we have is rational and based on evidence. Faith is NOT belief in the absence of evidence. Even Jesus asked His hearers to believe the miracles He performed, the miracles being the evidence of His divinity and support of His claims.
-
How do you explain the miracles in other forms of beliefs / religions ? Their objects of faith are different....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
How do you explain the miracles in other forms of beliefs / religions ? Their objects of faith are different....
I have no wish to defend the miracles claimed in other religions. Suffice it to say that the supernatural realms exists, and the source of miracles can be either from God or from evil powers. Jesus warned His followers that in the last days many will comes in His name to deceive many, performing signs and wonders to try to deceive the Elect.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I have no wish to defend the miracles claimed in other religions. Suffice it to say that the supernatural realms exists, and the source of miracles can be either from God or from evil powers. Jesus warned His followers that in the last days many will comes in His name to deceive many, performing signs and wonders to try to deceive the Elect.
So how do we know for sure that the churches are practising and following the correct path ? I mean "even the elect shall be deceived" right ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
So how do we know for sure that the churches are practising and following the correct path ? I mean "even the elect shall be deceived" right ?
That's where the Bible comes in! That's why the Reformation took place, when Christians go back to the Bible as their ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. It's like asking how we know that the citizens of a country are doing the right thing? You appeal to the law of the country. All man's opinions must give way to this law. Of course one can also say that the laws of a country are up for interpretation by the courts and lawyers get their earnings by disputing the finer points of law. But setting this aside for now, the point is that the law of the land is the "Bible" for the country, if you get my point.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That's where the Bible comes in! That's why the Reformation took place, when Christians go back to the Bible as their ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. It's like asking how we know that the citizens of a country are doing the right thing? You appeal to the law of the country. All man's opinions must give way to this law. Of course one can also say that the laws of a country are up for interpretation by the courts and lawyers get their earnings by disputing the finer points of law. But setting this aside for now, the point is that the law of the land is the "Bible" for the country, if you get my point.
Even if the churches interpreted the bible differently....how do we know for sure leh? What if we are wrong....will Jesus Christ forgive us if we joined the wrong church ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Even if the churches interpreted the bible differently....how do we know for sure leh? What if we are wrong....will Jesus Christ forgive us if we joined the wrong church ?
But seriously, is this a genuine issue for you? I mean, you admitted to the diversity of interpretations and beliefs in Buddhism and yet you are still one.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But seriously, is this a genuine issue for you? I mean, you admitted to the diversity of interpretations and beliefs in Buddhism and yet you are still one.
Not really...I'm just curious that's all....some of my christian frens dun even see eye to eye with each other....
-
A religious belief is n never was a statement about Reality, but a mere hinting, a mere clue about something that is a mystery, which is beyond the grasp of the human mind. To put it another way, a religious belief can be likened to a finger pointing to a moon n some religious ones never get beyond studying the finger. Some are engaged in ''sucking'' on it. Others worse still use the finger to gouge their ''eyes'' out. The latter can be likened to be bigots whom (organized) religion has blinded seeing. The rare ones are indeed religionists who sufficiently detach from the finger to see what it is indicating/what is manfesting from the unmanifest— these are those...; having gone beyond belief, who are evolving! Till something becomes a reality (existential) in one's living, one's mere talking about, it amounts to lying. It is merely constipating with concepts and knowledge. Knowing is transformating .... a river flowing, knowledge is a pond - stagnant and turning smelly!
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
A religious belief is n never was a statement about Reality, but a mere hinting, a mere clue about something that is a mystery, which is beyond the grasp of the human mind. To put it another way, a religious belief can be likened to a finger pointing to a moon n some religious ones never get beyond studying the finger. Some are engaged in ’’sucking’’ on it. Others worse still use the finger to gouge their ’’eyes’’ out. The latter can be likened to be bigots whom (organized) religion has blinded seeing. The rare ones are indeed religionists who sufficiently detach from the finger to see what it is indicating/what is manfesting from the unmanifest— these are those…; having gone beyond belief, who are evolving!
Till something becomes a reality (existential) in one’s living, one’s mere talking about, it amounts to lying. It is merely constipating with concepts and knowledge. Knowing is transformating …. a river flowing, knowledge is a pond – stagnant and turning smelly!
You seem to have issues with organised religion in general. Does it mean you prefer a "loosely structured" kind of religion? How does it look like? I think if I request that you explain to us what you are driving at and what is your belief system you would have a hard time telling us.
-
This is the crux of my stance - i m for knowing, finding out what is true or ... as opposed to simply falling back on borrowed knowledge (scriptures, books or ) or simply listen to what another say and make it a belief and prop my position on ....? Does one have to believe in the sun? Do one have to believe in the stars? Does one have to believe that one has legs? Does one have to know that one breathes? One simply knows, there is no question of belief. It is simply an existential reality - it is a knowing .... I can go on for aeons talking about a particular kind of drink ( it is merely pscyhological, not reality) and only when I have really tasted it or when I am actually partaking of this .... can it be a real thing. I can stand outside of an eatery and simply read the menu - it means nothing until I taste the actual food. Hence I say this - till something becomes a reality (existential) in one’s living (note: not life), one’s mere talking about it amounts to lying. It is merely constipating with concepts and knowledge. Knowing is transforming …. a river flowing, knowledge is a pond – stagnant and turning smelly.
-
This is the crux of my stance - i m for knowing, finding out what is true or ... as opposed to simply falling back on borrowed knowledge (scriptures, books or ) or simply listen to what another say and make it a belief and prop my position on ....? Does one have to believe in the sun? Do one have to believe in the stars? Does one have to believe that one has legs? Does one have to know that one breathes? One simply knows, there is no question of belief. It is simply an existential reality - it is a knowing .... I can go on for aeons talking about a particular kind of drink ( it is merely pscyhological, not reality) and only when I have really tasted it or when I am actually partaking of this .... can it be a real thing. I can stand outside of an eatery and simply read the menu - it means nothing until I taste the actual food. Hence I say this - till something becomes a reality (existential) in one’s living (note: not life), one’s mere talking about it amounts to lying. It is merely constipating with concepts and knowledge. Knowing is transforming …. a river flowing, knowledge is a pond – stagnant and turning smelly.
-
*copied & pasted from a similar post about Jesus being some Hindu and what not
Why are you guys even arguing...
Science is based on logic and reasoning.... i.e. atheists
Religion is based on miracles hence it cannot be looked at logically.
how to explain to people about a religion if he doesn't believe in God?....Hahaha!
- sgdiehardThis statement is correct. The nett result is that Science cannot explain Religion and Religion goes against the laws of Science.
A favourite amongst Atheists : The words Why & How.
e.g. Why/How did Moses part the dunno what sea/ocean.
A favourite amongst Religion : The word Believe. He did I don't know how I guess you just have to believe it.
Do yourself a favor and remember this....Science and Religion do not mix and never will.
-
I cant seem to quote or reply while using a proxy server. So this is to Fugazzi and Genie99a. Not saying you guys are right or wrong, just perhaps misunderstandings, or different interpretations. Unfortunately I dont blame those that only believes in 'Knowing'. We live in a materialistic world. Many can only believe when they see it. However, I think you misunderstand about the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism – What It Is and Isn’t Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying concepts: -Human free will -Human nature is chosen through life choices -A person is best when struggling against their individual nature, fighting for life -Decisions are not without stress and consequences -There are things that are not rational -Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial -Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and secular rules are arbitrary -Worldly desire is futile Existentialism is broadly defined in a variety of concepts and there can be no one answer as to what it is, yet it does not support any of the following: - wealth, pleasure, or honor make the good life - social values and structure control the individual -accept what is and that is enough in life -science can and will make everything better - people are basically good but ruined by society or external forces - “I want my way, now!� or “It is not my fault!� mentality An existentialist could either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an amoral atheist. Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and Camus an atheist, are credited for their works and writings about existentialism. Sartre is noted for bringing the most international attention to existentialism in the 20th century. Each basically agrees that human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying because of suffering and losses that occur when considering the lack of perfection, power, and control one has over their life. Even though they do agree that life is not optimally satisfying, it nonetheless has meaning. Existentialism is the search and journey for true self and true personal meaning in life. Existentialism then stresses that a person's judgment is the determining factor for what is to be believed rather than by arbitrary religious or secular world values. That is why, a Christian can also be an existentialist in trying to understand the word of the Bible, using thier own judgements(discovery, practice...etc) and not just blind faith. And regarding science and religion not mixing. The question on 'Why and How' is not limited to Atheists. Like you all know, the Truth is there. The natural phenomenom. We are just trying to find out the 'Why and How'. That is the domain of Science. Not Atheists alone. Just because someone has religion, belief or faith, does not mean that he cannot be a scientific person at the same time. If that is so, the worlds greatest scientific minds would all be atheists. Lets not forget even the realm of science can only come up with Theories. I personally believe Science can enlighten us about religion. And vice versa. Or else people like Ludwig and Richard Swinburne would not have been the great thinkers they are. Is Logic empirical ? You can have YES. and No. The laws of logic are conceptual realities.They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing. If someone appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything. Question: Is Truth Absolute ? Now there are many interpretations of what 'Truth' is or what standard of 'Truth' one holds. So I am not going to go down that road. Is Truth independent of Reality ? Can you reject a logical truth ? According to Nietzsche, logic or 'truth' to him is " a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short ... metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins" But his ideas are also subject to criticsm and claims that his philosophy of knowledge is flawed and that his ideas are self-refuting. That does not mean he is totally wrong. Until you guys have really gone through the minds of both sides of scale, making such universal assertion is albeit...... premature. I am also in the process of learning and understanding. I think I am still too young and intellectually limited to make a universal assertion on certain matters.
-
People need religions to explain the big questions in their lives....something that's beyond logic and science....
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
*copied & pasted from a similar post about Jesus being some Hindu and what not
Why are you guys even arguing...
Science is based on logic and reasoning.... i.e. atheists
Religion is based on miracles hence it cannot be looked at logically.
This statement is correct. The nett result is that Science cannot explain Religion and Religion goes against the laws of Science.
A favourite amongst Atheists : The words Why & How.
e.g. Why/How did Moses part the dunno what sea/ocean.
A favourite amongst Religion : The word Believe. He did I don't know how I guess you just have to believe it.
Do yourself a favor and remember this....Science and Religion do not mix and never will.
Why are you posting the same thing in this thread? See, asking "why" is not the sole prerogative of atheists.
-
What I know is that science and buddhism both support each other....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why are you posting the same thing in this thread? See, asking "why" is not the sole prerogative of atheists.
Because it answers both threads in my opinion.Look imo they don't mix... and I have learned to accept it.
I'll give you an example. You said God created Gravity. Yet Moses parted some ocean to escape some soldiers. That defies Gravity. Which if continued results in endless bickering over 2 schools of thought.
Basically one side is saying.... prove it/replicate it in this modern day and I'll believe...
And then we have your side saying.... mmm... have faith/believe its in the bible....
Unfortunately... not everyone takes the bible as gospel for history.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
.....
An existentialist could either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an amoral atheist. Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and Camus an atheist, are credited for their works and writings about existentialism. Sartre is noted for bringing the most international attention to existentialism in the 20th century.
Each basically agrees that human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying because of suffering and losses that occur when considering the lack of perfection, power, and control one has over their life. Even though they do agree that life is not optimally satisfying, it nonetheless has meaning. Existentialism is the search and journey for true self and true personal meaning in life.
Existentialism then stresses that a person’s judgment is the determining factor for what is to be believed rather than by arbitrary religious or secular world values. That is why, a Christian can also be an existentialist in trying to understand the word of the Bible, using thier own judgements(discovery, practice…etc) and not just blind faith.
And regarding science and religion not mixing. The question on ‘Why and How’ is not limited to Atheists. Like you all know, the Truth is there. The natural phenomenom. We are just trying to find out the ‘Why and How’. That is the domain of Science. Not Atheists alone.
Just because someone has religion, belief or faith, does not mean that he cannot be a scientific person at the same time. If that is so, the worlds greatest scientific minds would all be atheists. Lets not forget even the realm of science can only come up with Theories. I personally believe Science can enlighten us about religion. And vice versa.
Or else people like Ludwig and Richard Swinburne would not have been the great thinkers they are.Is Logic empirical ?
You can have YES. and No.
The laws of logic are conceptual realities.They only exist in the mind, and they do not describe the physical behavior of things because behavior is action, and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things, since they reside completely in the mind.
We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don’t watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn’t exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
If someone appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with.
If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.Question: Is Truth Absolute ? Now there are many interpretations of what ‘Truth’ is or what standard of ‘Truth’ one holds. So I am not going to go down that road. Is Truth independent of Reality ?
Can you reject a logical truth ? According to Nietzsche, logic or ‘truth’ to him is ” a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short … metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins”
But his ideas are also subject to criticsm and claims that his philosophy of knowledge is flawed and that his ideas are self-refuting.
That does not mean he is totally wrong. Until you guys have really gone through the minds of both sides of scale, making such universal assertion is albeit…... premature. I am also in the process of learning and understanding. I think I am still too young and intellectually limited to make a universal assertion on certain matters.
Hi Buddy,
That was insightful and the first I've heard of this existentialist.
However from what I've read if that is your school of thought then nothing can really be proven and/or believed since the laws of logic are concepts as well in your school of thought.
Which comes to the dilemna that any school of thought cannot be proven and/or disproved.
I'm pretty simple really, I respect others schools of thought...if they believe batman can fly so be it. Hence my initial post that it is a waste of time for both parties since both believe their school of thought as absolute.
For me its Science.... becos its the limit for this human bean's brain to understand. If there is a God he will understand my mistake....afterall he made this human bean's brain if that school of thought would be right.
-
So according to "science", how does the universe starts? Which theory are u most comfy with ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
So according to "science", how does the universe starts? Which theory are u most comfy with ?
Big Bang seems to be the most popular thus far....but I believe that Science is not advanced enough to answer that question yet. -
Originally posted by Genie99a:
Big Bang seems to be the most popular thus far....but I believe that Science is not advanced enough to answer that question yet.So u don't have any religious beliefs even though science can't explain everything yet?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
So u don't have any religious beliefs even though science can't explain everything yet?
Not really...I'll believe it when I see it.But I support religion. As it aims to make human beans a better person.