The God of Abrahamic religions is not real. (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)
Debate Rounds (3)
Sure, you believe that sheep herders writing a book is ludicrous, but you haven't given an example, or proven this statement in any way, this is still up for debate. The existence of God is very possible; the paradoxes do not invalidate the concept, similar Quantum Mechanics being vary paradoxical, yet perfectly reasonable, and actually very true... although I have never heard that he is "spaceless and timeless".
God can be loving, and there can still be a Hell. Let us say there is a man, and his son. This man wants his son to grow, and live a happy life. So because of this, the father puts his son through school, and teaches him how to live life, and tells the son that if he does what the man says, then he will be happy and will be able to live life to the fullest. But if the son does not learn, and he becomes a stupid child, then he is destined to live in the slums. The man loves his son, and is willing to forgive him if he procrastinates, or fights against his father. If the son continues to do this until he has to leave, then the son WILL live in the slums, there will be no choice, not even for the father. It is impossible for the man to 'beam' his son to the high-life, because he will only fail, and go directly to the slums. The analogy is nearly perfect. The man is God, we are His son, the happy and healthy high-life is Heaven, and the slums are Hell. He loves his child, and wants him to grow, but he can't change that his child is in the slums. One more thing, "a realm full of hell fire", and such, are only analogies; you can't take the Bible literally.
As for homosexuality, perhaps there is a reason God chose to impart this on us. Honestly, whether he does this or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Even if he does hate homosexuals, that doesn't make it impossible that he should exist.
As for your belief in science, that is where you are wholly wrong. Science has nothing to do with belief. It is about evidence, hypothesis, and explanations. You can take your belief in science, and stick it in the mud. Science has never been, nor ever will be a belief system. Believing in science will only make a person who is biased to the opinions of the whole. Such would make a non-skeptical scientist, but we know that skepticism is one of the main pillars of it. You like to say that the holy books provide faith instead of facts, of which science provides. But if you believe in science, you are putting your faith in science, and that is illogical, and hypocritical.
Honestly, most of your arguments have nothing to do with the existence of God. They either concern your misconceptions about the Bible, your own inability to understand a religion, or your blind belief in science, and those things are irrelevant to the existence of God. I chose to counter some of your arguments anyway, since I didn't want to alienate you (actually I wanted to help you understand), and your whole post.
What does that mean? This book is supposed to be God's word, the outline for an entire religion. But it's okay to only believe some of it? That's not how it works, either you believe it all or none. If you can believe that hell isn't a literal place what else isn't true? Was Adam not made of dirt? Was the Earth not created in 6 days? Did the Earth not flood for 40 days and 40 nights? Did the Hebrews not cross the desert? Did Jesus not die and then rise from the dead? If you classify one part of the bible being less true than the others you invalidate the accuracy of the book as a whole. The bible is an infallible text, to take away that infallibility makes it no more true than Harry Potter.
As for your God can be loving but hell can exist argument. A father letting his son be poor, and subjecting someone to eternal torture and fire. Are two completely different things. Especially when the son caused his own troubles, what about the 5 billion people who don't believe in the Christian God. Are they all going to hell because by no fault of their own they were raised to follow a different God? The analogy is not perfect. If you believe God is all powerful than yes he can just beam them to the high life. When you forgive someone you don't cast them out so they spend the rest of time existing in Agony, for some mistakes they made in the short time that was their life.
The existence of God is no more possible than the existence of flying unicorns, I saw that argument yesterday. Even if the existence of such a creature is less than 1-100,000,000,000,000,000 no matter how many zero's you put after that it could still exist. That is not a good argument. There is nothing reasonable about it. Quantum Mechanics required the theory of relativity which involves math and other theories. The only proof we have for the existence of God is an ancient book written by men who thought the earth was flat, the heart controlled emotion, and that the weather cycle was dependent on animal sacrifice. How could these men possibly have any knowledge of the supernatural or the origin of our existence?
There is plenty evidence against the existence of God. Firstly the bible says the Earth and the rest of existence was created in 6 days roughly 7000 years ago. Obviously that is not true, we find rocks that are hundreds of millions years old. We find human bones that are over 100,000 thousand years old. This is the core concept of Christianity, that the Earth was created by God at this time in that time period. Without this the chances of him existing start to fall apart.
Homosexuality, I'm a straight married man. I have nothing against gays. It doesn't make it impossible, but again it lowers the chances of his existence. If God did hate homosexuals, then there is another problem with the logic of God. If you hate something why create it? If it's not natural why does it exist in all parts of nature. Surely if homosexuality was against His will he would never allow such indiscretion to occur in His natural kingdom.
There is no faith in Science. Faith requires belief in the lack of evidence. There is absolutely no faith involved in Science.
If there was it would no longer be science, because it would be devoid of evidence. Your argument makes no sense. By believing something that provides me with evidence, instead of something that does not I am a hypocrite?
I am not blindly believing in Science, I require facts, evidence, statistics to form my opinions. I understand religion just as well if not better than you do. There are no misconceptions about the bible, it says what it says. And the Church agrees that the bible is infallible.
Now here's something. God is supposed to be Pure and Good. Free will, God gives everyone free will right? Say a woman and her son are walking down the street and a rapist and a murderer attack them. Since God is everywhere he sees this. Someone's free will is going to have to be violated, and there is a choice between violating the murderers and rapists free will or the will of the mother and child. But instead of stopping rapes or murderers God lets them happen. No Good being would allow rape or murder to happen when there are other alternatives.
If that was too complicated here is some simple logic. God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will." So that's one pillar of Christianity. God is omnipotent, and can do anything. If God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, God is a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery. There goes the pure and good. However, if the God is not omniscient or omnipotent... well, in that case God is not a "god" and doesn't exist.
I look forward to your refutation, and I think you're being pretty civil with this whole debate thing, and I appreciate that.
Again, you misunderstand the analogy, and the text itself. Eternal torture and fire does not necessarily mean that there will be exactly as it describes. It is a analogy used for us to understand how we will feel about it, and what it may be similar to. If God is a just God, then he obviously will not hold people accountable for the things they have done if they do not know He exists. Again, you seem not to understand the analogy. Did you forget my point about how the son will go back to the slums by himself because the son cannot understand how to live in the high-life? God could beam us up to Heaven, but he would continually have to do so after we continue to do things which lead us to Hell. Isn't it much more elegant to have us learn so we need not depend on God in Heaven? And where does it say that when He forgives someone he still makes them suffer agony? The whole point of repentance is so you do not need to suffer agony, even after you make mistakes... As I said, it does not seem that you understand my analogy.
First, what is unreasonable about it? All you did was give another example of it, but you did not prove that the argument is illogical. This is just basic statistics, but you would have a case if there was proof against the existence of God. but there is none, as there is no proof for the existence of God... My main point is that we cannot objectively say whether he exists or not. Next, where did you learn that Quantum Mechanics required the theory of relativity? The Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are two incompatible theories -- they contradict each other. Finally, you gave no proof to your allegations about the Bible, so what you are purporting is still invalid
The Bible does not say that the Earth was created in 7000 years ago, please cite your source. This is not the core concept of Christianity, it is only a huge misconception spread by James Ussher. But this still has nothing to do with the existence of God. And what do you mean for the "chances of him existing"? There is absolutely no chance that he can exist, statistically, just as there is no chance that he can't exist. The existence of God has no place in statistics or science since there is absolutely no evidence for any hypothesis.
I am a straight man, and I have nothing against gays either... but these things are really irrelevant to the debate. Please cite your source, where does it say that God hates homosexuals?
Yes, I just said that faith and belief are irrelevant to science, please reread my post, you seem to misunderstand my point.
You just said in your previous post "I chose to believe in Science" But belief is nonexistent in true science. Opinions also are irrelevant to science, as science isn't about the subjective thinking of opinions. You have plenty of misconceptions about the Bible:
You believe that it says God is space-less and timeless. This is false, it only ever says he is timeless.
You believe that it says that you go to hell even after you repent. This is patently false, since there are numerous scriptures which tell us otherwise.
You believe that God can just beam people to Heaven. You perhaps do not know of the Laws of Justice and Mercy.
You believe that it says that the Earth is only 7000 years old. There is nothing which indicates this anywhere in the Bible
You believe it says that God hates homosexuals. Again, there is no where in the Bible which says this.
In this case, the Church is irrelevant. What does the Church's beliefs do with the existence of God? What church are you even talking about?
About your first example, it still has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. This can happen, and God still may fully be within the possibilities of reality.
As for your second example, I really do not see any logic in it whatsoever. This is what you said: God knows everything > He knows all your thoughts > therefore you cannot have free will. This makes no sense.
You third example only rides on your own misunderstanding of God. He would allow this all to happen because he is testing us, because he wants us to learn and grow, and have an understanding of good and evil. It is perfectly reasonable for a evil world to be ruled by a good God, this only shows that he allows us to have free will.
But none of these points disprove the existence of God. Any attack towards Christianity, or any other religion as a matter of fact, is futile, since the ideas of organized religion and God are not intimately connected. I.E. one does not require the other. We see this fact in theists who choose not to participate in any kind of organized religion.
My central point, is that we cannot say that God does exist, nor can we say he does not exist. God is outside an sort of proof or evidence. Either you accept Him, or you do not. Any argument against a religious sect, or against His actions do nothing to provide evidence against his existence.
2. Isaiah 57:15
3. Revelation 2:22
4. James 2:13
It's seems you misunderstand the bible. God doesn't care if you don't know him, John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That is pretty bluntly saying Jesus is the only way into Heaven. And most Theists believe that god is Trinitarian (trinity, three parts) God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Even if the description of hell is an analogy, why would that make a difference if that's how it would feel to us? If it is so bad that it reminds us of torture and fire, it might as well be full of torture and fire. If God could just beam them up, then he wouldn't have sent them to hell in the first place. No it is not elegant to learn, if it involves us suffering in agony just to learn a lesson.
How does repentance make sense if God let Jesus be tortured and then killed, for all our sins. We've already been forgiven apparently.
You want where I got my verses for my claims? Here you go.
God is pure, Proverbs 30:5
God is Good, Psalm 100:5
God gives Free will,Hebrews 10:26
God is omniscient, Job 37:16
God is omnipotent, Ephesians 4:6
The Earth's age, seriously? Just add the ages of the Adam and his descendants together then after Jesus plus 2000 years.
God hates gays, Leviticus 20:13. (I know what it says, and he says kill homosexuals)
Time is one of the 2 main components of our universe, nothing can be beyond time.
I thought God was all powerful? If he wanted to couldn't he do anything? Including beaming people to heaven?
I refer to the Catholic church, The Baptists, The Evangelicals, The Methodists, The LDS, and The Presbyterians.
If God already know what you will do before you do it, than you have no free will because your fate is pre-determined.
So he is testing the 400 million starving children? Or those 15,000 thousand kids with Cancer? Or all those people who died in the holocaust? Or all those women who have been raped? That is no test. What are 400 million kids going to learn from slowly starving to death?
What are you talking about? God and organized religion are directly connected. Organized religions only exist because they believe they know what God is and what he wants.
We can not say that he does or does not exist. But we can Absolutely say which is more likely. I can not say that a flying unicorn does not exist, but we can for certain say that it is extremely improbable for such a creature to exist.
You are taking that scripture way out of context and reducing your argument to absurdity. The scripture itself means that we need Christ for us to be forgiven of our sins, how does this translate into God not caring about us knowing him? Again, you take the scripture for the face-value, and allow your own bias to infect your view on it. This can be illustrated by looking at the text objectively, rather than critically, as you seem to do. If you are trying to argue that there is a contradiction between this scripture, and the Trinity, then I would agree with you. It makes more sense to say that the "trinity" is not one entity, but all three are distinct and separate individuals.
Concerning your point about Hell, let me remind you that you previously said that torture and hellfire was definitely not the same as living in the slums. Since I proved that hell does not have to be torture and hellfire, that allows my analogy to hold. Your point here doesn't really refute much of anything, really all it does is say the opposite of what I just said. Hence, it is invalid. You are very incoherent in your next point (about beaming people up), I don't think we are on the same page here. Again, your following point is also incoherent, I do not understand your context. There are two parts to forgiveness. One is justice, the other is a remission of your sins. Christ took the Justice part onto himself, and now we need ask Christ for the other; if we meet his requirements, which are a broken heart, and a contrite spirit.
As for your citations, I was asking for you to show biblical evidence for:
"it was written by men who thought the earth was flat"
"those people thought the heart controlled emotion"
"the weather cycle was dependent on animal sacrifice"
"God hates homosexuals"
"Earth is only 7000 years old"
As for your other citations which aren't covered here, I was not disputing them. Sorry, I probably should have been specific.
As for the Earth's age, assuming you refer to Genesis 5, that only adds up to 1743 years to Noah, and there was a huge gap between Noah and Christ.
Leviticus 20:13 does not say anywhere that God hates those who are homosexuals. Only that homosexuality is an abomination and therefore, those who attempt it should die.
Again, even if you were correct in these statements, none of these arguments prove that God exists.
Time and space are axioms which may or may not exist in reality. You make an assumption when you say that nothing can be beyond time, but what is stopping anything from being beyond time? Since time is only relative to a preferred reference frame, if there is no reference frame for a body to measure time, it could be said that the body is timeless.
You again, do not understand how sin and repentance operate in relation to God's power, nor how his plan is set up.
The LDS do not hold that the Bible is infallible. In fact, one of their articles of faith state that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." As I said, any church is irrelevant to the existence of God. Even if you prove that none of these churches are logical in any form, that does nothing towards your main thesis in this argument.
Saying that, if God knows everything you will do, then we have no free will, is akin to saying that scientists control the orbits of the planets because they can predict the orbits. This is nonsensical.
Again, you do not know how God's plan operates. We came to Earth so that we may learn the difference between Good and Evil. For some people, starving, being raped, etc, is what it takes to learn this. But do not assume that God must therefore be the cause of this. That is incorrect, since He is not responsible for the actions of people...
Look at my evidence for those against organized religion, in favor of their own personal theism. I do not see what is wrong with accepting this, since you can plainly see that people practice it.
What makes God's existence more likely is not part of your thesis, and is therefore, irrelevant. Besides, even if it was, there is nothing that shows there is a chance towards one or the other. And probability is irrelevant to this discussion. Your thesis was that God, as Christians/Islam/Judaism know him, is not real. Probability is not within the realm of you argument, and it does nothing to support it. We are discussing possibility.
As with most of your arguments here, they say nothing about the existence of God at all. It is irrelevant whether or not God is incorrect in his commandments, or the Church illogical, or anything relating to the doctrine of God, since these things do not prove your thesis. What matters is certain issues related to the philosophical and logical validity of the existence of God himself. This is outside the realm of any sort of error in the doctrine.
Philosophically, God is well within reality, and there is nothing to dispute that; logically, or otherwise.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.