Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

More proof of God


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

This article probably answers most of the questions you raised better than I could:

What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?

https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/what-is-the-best-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

Wow that article is a laugh a minute.

If anyone wants to read an article where someone without an ounce of critical thinking ability tries to critically think through a premise, while also being very condescending, have at it. 

 

 

Literally starts with a conversation between an imaginary Christian and Atheist where the Christian is trying to prove God is real.

Afterwards everything the Christian just said is described as a fact, though literally no facts were given 

While everything the Atheist said is called a "rescuing device"

 

 

 

Like I've said before OBF, your brain is genetically different, plus environmental factors, allowing it to believe such nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Wow that article is a laugh a minute.

If anyone wants to read an article where someone without an ounce of critical thinking ability tries to critically think through a premise, while also being very condescending, have at it. 

 

 

Literally starts with a conversation between an imaginary Christian and Atheist where the Christian is trying to prove God is real.

Afterwards everything the Christian just said is described as a fact, though literally no facts were given 

While everything the Atheist said is called a "rescuing device"

 

 

 

Like I've said before OBF, your brain is genetically different, plus environmental factors, allowing it to believe such nonsense.

The hypothetical arguments in the article were right on target with the debates seen on the forum on the issue.:

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: 
The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx
(and a certain poster on the Browns Board known as Woody)  asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” 

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: 

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: 

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly). 
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). 
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). 
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. 
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. 
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). 
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. 

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. 

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).


Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek
 

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

The hypothetical arguments in the article were right on target with the debates seen on the forum on the issue.:

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: 
The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” 

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: 

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: 

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly). 
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). 
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). 
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. 
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. 
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). 
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. 

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. 

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).


Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek
 

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html

What a fat load of horseshit. 

Accusing everyone of parroting neitschze, and Freud when, in fact, the entire Christian argument relies on parroting the word of the likes of "John" and "Matthew" who, if they ever even existed, were dead before humanity even had a basic understanding of science and still needed Ra to explain why there was a sun. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Cysko Kid said:

What a fat load of horseshit. 

Accusing everyone of parroting neitschze, and Freud when, in fact, the entire Christian argument relies on parroting the word of the likes of "John" and "Matthew" who, if they ever even existed, were dead before humanity even had a basic understanding of science and still needed Ra to explain why there was a sun. 

 

Why the hate? nobody is telling you you have to bake Christians a cake.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

Are you capable of responding without pasting the words of someone else?

are  you capable of not bitching at other people about their opinions, when you have none of your own?

You never have a stance on an issue - you just smart to other people who do, when you don't like their opinions.

all you ever do is argue with other's opinions, you yellow bellied sapsucker. (that's a kind of a woodpecker, fyi)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Are you capable of responding without pasting the words of someone else?

OK I will waste a little time and explain something spiritual to you that you are not going to accept. First of all I have been married almost 37 years and my wife and I have had many shared experiences. So much in fact many times we are thinking the same things because something triggered that shared experience. That is not a supernatural experience that many times we find ourselves thinking the exact same thing.

But explain this: One night I woke up from a dream (and remember the bible speaks many times of God speaking to people in dreams) and when I started telling my wife about the dream she gasped and said she was having the same dream at the same time. I won't go into detail about the dream except I was to find out the meaning of the dream later that year. It was not any type of a shared experience or something we had together recently witnessed that would have triggered her having the exact same dream at the same time as me. When I questioned her about the dream she told me details such as colors of clothing and where it was taking place. The dream made no sense to either of us at the time except I did realize the meaning later. What would you chalk that up to ESP? Amazing coincidence? 

BTW - the dream kept me from making a huge mistake

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Are you capable of responding without pasting the words of someone else?

Sometimes it takes humility to quote someone who can explain things better than you can. 

Short of believing what was portrayed in "The Matrix" is the reality, there really are only two alternatives Woody. Either the universe is eternal (and we know from the Big Bang echo it's not) or there's a Being that preexisted outside of space and time who created it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hoorta said:

Sometimes it takes humility to quote someone who can explain things better than you can. 

Short of believing what was portrayed in "The Matrix" is the reality, there really are only two alternatives Woody. Either the universe is eternal (and we know from the Big Bang echo it's not) or there's a Being that preexisted outside of space and time who created it. 

Not really.... But alright...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

OK I will waste a little time and explain something spiritual to you that you are not going to accept. First of all I have been married almost 37 years and my wife and I have had many shared experiences. So much in fact many times we are thinking the same things because something triggered that shared experience. That is not a supernatural experience that many times we find ourselves thinking the exact same thing.

But explain this: One night I woke up from a dream (and remember the bible speaks many times of God speaking to people in dreams) and when I started telling my wife about the dream she gasped and said she was having the same dream at the same time. I won't go into detail about the dream except I was to find out the meaning of the dream later that year. It was not any type of a shared experience or something we had together recently witnessed that would have triggered her having the exact same dream at the same time as me. When I questioned her about the dream she told me details such as colors of clothing and where it was taking place. The dream made no sense to either of us at the time except I did realize the meaning later. What would you chalk that up to ESP? Amazing coincidence? 

BTW - the dream kept me from making a huge mistake

My sister and her friend were talking about having the same dream a few weeks ago. I promise you neither are Christian.

Better than a magic donkey though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

My sister and her friend were talking about having the same dream a few weeks ago. I promise you neither are Christian.

Better than a magic donkey though

The questions I have was their dream the same one or similar? Did they both dream the same dream the same night? Was there any reason they would have the same or similar type dream due to some type of shared experience? For example a certain subject they had been talking about? Most of the time we dream about things we have been thinking about. Was there a purpose to the dream? 

You are right that two people having the same or similar type dream in itself could very well be a natural coincidence.

In my case though my wife and I had the same dream (in detail, not just similar) at the same time, for no reason we could think of such as a shared experience or something we had talked about and the dream became reality about 8 months later. Because of the dream I  was able to make the right decision and not make a huge mistake. I was warned in that dream of what was coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

Sometimes it takes humility to quote someone who can explain things better than you can. 

Short of believing what was portrayed in "The Matrix" is the reality, there really are only two alternatives Woody. Either the universe is eternal (and we know from the Big Bang echo it's not) or there's a Being that preexisted outside of space and time who created it. 

I study the bible, not books about the bible, church history, other religions, apologetics, etc...so when these questions come up I would rather defer many times to Christian scholars who have studied these types of issues, (some times for many years). I consider myself a general practitioner in my faith but we have specialists too so it makes sense for me to yield at times to the specialists in trying to give the best answer possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Human beings cannot conceive of infinity any more than they can imagine a 4th primary color.

That really makes Faith impossible to prove or disprove. But it's funny how upset, even angry some people become at people who do believe.

WSS

Yep Steve- at least when it comes to religion, faith is trusting in something that can't absolutely be proven. Now on a practical level, faith is your wife telling you the kids need to be picked up at 6 PM after soccer practice, and you having faith she's going to be mighty pissed off if you forget to do so. 

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

All these so called scientists etc. know squat about the universe.  They have barely touched the surface of it.

For sure. I've always wondered why in the (probably) millions of galaxies, and uncounted trillions of stars, we wound up on an insignificant planet circling a very insignificant star. The non believers can chalk that up to a cosmic accident. It's not too hard to rationalize away the presence of something that caused all of what see in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hoorta said:

Yep Steve- at least when it comes to religion, faith is trusting in something that can't absolutely be proven. Now on a practical level, faith is your wife telling you the kids need to be picked up at 6 PM after soccer practice, and you having faith she's going to be mighty pissed off if you forget to do so. 

 Faith would be your wife trusting that you'll pick up the kids and not forget.  She has faith in you...or maybe not.

But having faith in someone getting pissed at you?  Never quite heard the word "faith" put that way. Faith is always used in the positive sense..."I have faith in Baker Mayfield" for example.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words we think are the same but they are not are faith and belief. We think believing is faith and faith is believing but faith and belief are two sides to the same coin. Faith is acting on what you believe. I can believe all day long that if I take my car keys out to my car and put them in the ignition my car will start but believing that alone will never start my car. I have to act on the belief and that is the faith part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I study the bible, not books about the bible, church history, other religions, apologetics, etc...so when these questions come up I would rather defer many times to Christian scholars who have studied these types of issues, (some times for many years). I consider myself a general practitioner in my faith but we have specialists too so it makes sense for me to yield at times to the specialists in trying to give the best answer possible.

Suuuure, and those "scholars" you link always use fault logic. They defend the Bible and Christianity by... referencing the Bible. 

 

The hypothetical back and forth in the link you posted doesn't include any facts given by the Christian. None. And yet the author of that piece starts by stating everything above is obviously a fact, because God, and then goes from there. That's not how you prove something is true.

Later the author authoritatively and condescendingly says all atheists really do believe God exists, they're just lost (or whatever). 

 

It's real easy to sound like you're right in a debate if you just make a bunch of shit up. Ask Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The hypothetical back and forth in the link you posted doesn't include any facts given by the Christian. None. And yet the author of that piece starts by stating everything above is obviously a fact, because God, and then goes from there. That's not how you prove something is true."

*****************************

That is not how I read it so I am posting what the author said. It seems obvious he is saying in the beginning that most arguments used by Christians are not as effective or conclusive as they may think:

There are a number of common arguments for the existence of God. But most of these arguments are not as effective as many Christians would like to think. Let’s consider a hypothetical conversation between a Christian and an atheist.

Christian: “Everything with a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.”

Atheist: “Even if it were true that everything with a beginning requires a cause, how do you know that the cause of the universe is God? Why not a big bang? Maybe this universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists now believe.”

Christian: “The living creatures of this world clearly exhibit design. Therefore, they must have a designer. And that designer is God.”

Atheist: “The living creatures only appear to be designed. Natural selection can account for this apparent design. Poorly adapted organisms tend to die off, and do not pass on their genes.”

Christian: “But living creatures have irreducible complexity. All their essential parts must be in place at the same time, or the organism dies. So God must have created these parts all at the same time. A gradual evolutionary path simply will not work.”

Atheist: “Just because you cannot imagine a gradual stepwise way of constructing an organism does not mean there isn’t one.”

Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”

Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it. And even if DNA did come from intelligence, why would you think that intelligence is God? Maybe aliens seeded life on earth.”

Christian: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God. Only God can raise the dead.”

Atheist: “You don’t really have any proof that Jesus rose from the dead. This section of the Bible is simply an embellished story. And even if it were true, it proves nothing. Perhaps under certain rare chemical conditions, a dead organism can come back to life. It certainly doesn’t mean that there is a God.”

Christian: “The Bible claims that God exists, and that it is His Word to us. Furthermore, what the Bible says must be true, since God cannot lie.”

Atheist: “That is a circular argument. Only if we knew in advance that God existed would it be reasonable to even consider the possibility that the Bible is His Word. If God does not exist—as I contend—then there is no reason to trust the Bible.”

Christian: “Predictive prophecy shows that the Bible really must be inspired by God. All of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ, for example, were fulfilled. The odds of that happening by chance are very low.”

Atheist: “A low probability isn’t the same as zero. People do win the lottery. Besides, maybe the Gospels have embellished what Jesus did, so that it would agree with the Old Testament prophecies. Perhaps some so-called prophetic books were actually written after the events they ‘predict.’ Maybe certain gifted individuals have abilities not yet understood by science and can occasionally predict the future. It certainly doesn’t prove the Bible is inspired by God.”

Christian: “I have personally experienced God, and so have many other Christians. He has saved us and transformed our lives. We know that He exists from experience.”

Atheist: “Unfortunately, your personal experiences are not open to investigation; I have only your word for it. And second, how do you know that such subjective feelings are really the result of God? The right drug might produce similar feelings.”

Not Conclusive

It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life, the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians. Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above arguments really prove that God exists.

NONE OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS REALLY PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS.

Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God. Some of the arguments seem stronger; I happen to think that irreducible complexity and information in DNA are strong confirmations of biblical creation. And predictive prophecy does confirm the inspiration of Scripture. Nonetheless, for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible with his belief that God does not exist.

Moreover, most of the atheist’s explanations are actually pretty reasonable, given his view of the world. He’s not being illogical. He is being consistent with his position. Christians and atheists have different worldviews—different philosophies of life. And we must learn to argue on the level of worldviews if we are to argue in a cogent and effective fashion.

The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own. This approach is never conclusive, because the critic can always invoke a rescuing device to protect his worldview.1 Thus, if we are to be effective, we must use an argument that deals with worldviews, and not simply isolated facts. The best argument for the existence of God will be a “big-picture” kind of argument.

************************

In this part below scripture is used by the author but it is to show inconsistencies of the atheist view and then he gives examples of the inconsistency:

God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ATHEISTS ARE NOT REALLY ATHEISTS.

The Bible teaches that atheists are not reallyatheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?

The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.3

Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists, but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed knowledge of God.4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.

Exposing the Inconsistency

BECAUSE AN ATHEIST DOES BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT HE BELIEVES IN GOD, HE IS SIMPLY A WALKING BUNDLE OF INCONSISTENCIES.

Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.

Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.

Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people. When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.

Logical Inconsistency

Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponensworks just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.

LAWS OF LOGIC STEM FROM GOD’S SOVEREIGN NATURE; THEY ARE A REFLECTION OF THE WAY HE THINKS.

Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

Laws of Logic

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.

How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully).5

Proof Versus Persuasion

Transcendental Argument

Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound, not all atheists will be convinced upon hearing it. It may take time for them to even understand the argument in the first place. As I write this chapter, I am in the midst of an electronic exchange with an atheist who has not yet fully grasped the argument. Real-life discussions on this issue take time. But even if the atheist fully understands the argument, he may not be convinced. We must remember that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is objective, but persuasion is subjective. The transcendental argument does indeed objectively prove that God exists. However, that does not mean that the atheists will necessarily cry “uncle.” Atheists are strongly motivated to not believe in the biblical God—a God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.

THE ATHEIST’S DENIAL OF GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL REACTION, NOT A LOGICAL ONE.

But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. We might imagine a disobedient child who is about to be punished by his father. He might cover his eyes with his hands and say of his father, “You don’t exist!” but that would hardly be rational. Atheists deny (with their lips) the biblical God, not for logical reasons, but for psychological reasons. We must also keep in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but a deep spiritual problem (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit that must give him the ability to repent (1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25).

So we must keep in mind that it is not our job to convert people—nor can we. Our job is to give a defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures (1 Peter 3:15). It is the Holy Spirit that brings conversion. But God can use our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to Himself.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Really.... You just pasted the entire thing in here?

I get it fits your character as you already in your life just blindly look at the Bible for everything... But damn... At least try to type something of your own

the-downy-woodpecker-though-most-birds-are-motivated-by-food-11796472.png

Answer: that the woodpecker is so stupid, and bitches like a drunk Joy Behar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2019 at 8:49 AM, calfoxwc said:

I love to see mountain peaks ...from a distance...

LOL! I don't climb the peaks, just the trails under them pretty much. Then I drive to the other side to those trails to get another perspective. Last fall I took the trail up the source of the Colorado River for example; Two weeks ago I took one in the SE side of RMNP and found my path blocked by a female moose. The unexpected things you see on the journey is what makes it worth it. I suppose that is also what you could call "Life".😁 Of course I feel closer to God then that in any church. But maybe that is just hypoxia above 10,000 ft.😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

seriously, im dead serious, did the original obf pass away, age out or decide to quit the browns board? cause these mountains of cut/paste are giving deja vu. It feels like someone else, and i think we can guess who, has commandeered the og's login. 

Come on Cleve you have to look at the subject being debated (the existence of God). That is not something I want to attempt to explain by limiting myself to 50 words or less. It is a deep argument on both sides. I don't have any problem with anyone cutting and pasting on any issue. If someone disagrees with a cut and paste article they can challenge it line by line or paragraph by paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Human beings cannot conceive of infinity any more than they can imagine a 4th primary color.

That really makes Faith impossible to prove or disprove. But it's funny how upset, even angry some people become at people who do believe.

WSS

Yes I become upset at people who believe the earth is flat as well. And also people who believe vaccines cause autism. 

They're not always the same people who believe in god but there's a lot of overlap there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...