Amazon.com Widgets
  • Obviously

    Look around you. Can science explain why the moon is there? Or why the tide goes in and out? No.

    Do atheists think life can come from nonlife? Thats absurd. Surely there is a nonmaterial mind that created matter from nothing.

    Also, William Lane Craig can form grammatically correct sentences and speaks with confidence.

  • Do you have faith or not?

    Is there a good reason to believe in man? Because as far as I know those are the only two options. Anything not from God is man made. Believing in God involves FAITH, which by definition can not be heard or felt or seen. It doesn't make sense to us. Our minds can not comprehend it. Has man been able to replicate the way our minds work? No. This debate really breaks down to weather you have faith or not. If you don't, you can argue until the end of the earth why there is no God. I have faith that there is a God. If you are simply looking for a 'good reason' that there is a God so that you don't feel like an idiot when people make fun of you for having faith when they don't, then no. There is no good reason. If however, you want to honor someone that has created, died for, and loved you, then there are limitless good reasons.

  • There are Positive Reasons Why One Should Believe in God

    We have a history book that has been around longer than any other history book. It is named the "Bible." One only needs to read it and then look around at all the earth to know that there is a God. Evidence is right before one's eyes. You can feel the breeze but you cannot see it, yet you know it is there. The same is for God. Though one cannot see Him, He is there.

  • The Causal Argument

    The Causal Argument states basically that all that we see in life and nature through observation has some cause. Therefore, there must be a first cause or an uncaused-cause that put everything in motion. This argument is often used in conjunction with the law of entropy in which everything is winding down. There must have therefore been a beginning. This beginning is proposed to be God.

  • Why not?

    Just look at the complexity of the universe. All the stars, planets, galaxies out there. Here in are very own planet, we can see an amazing sky, trees, plants, animals all kinds of life. You have to wonder is there a mind behind all that creation? Or it is what is.

  • Yes.

    The leibnizian cosmological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from consciousness, the argument from reason, the moral argument the argument from religious experience, the ontological argument, the argument from miracles, etc. To see the arguments in depth, check out the BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology - I'll be waiting for your burden of refutation.

  • Of course

    There are numerous of reasons to believe in God. Not only in a positive and humble spiritual way but also as guidance to life. For instance looking at the bible you could relate even in today's world of a book written by the inspiration of God from thousands of years ago.

  • "'Why are things as they are and not otherwise?"

    In my opinion, Johannes Kepler asked this most wonderful of all questions ever conjured by man. Why is the moon not 20 degrees to the right of where it is now? What gave the universe the amazing fine-tuning we now know it to have? The atheist invokes theories of a greater multiverse, in which this world has won the grandest of all cosmic lotteries, with all variables in perfect harmony to support the existence of matter (let alone life).

    I do not discount the multiverse theory entirely, but I do hold it to be at least as ridiculous as that of a divine creator. So, one could chose Occam's razor as their guide, putting faith in the slightly less improbable of these two incredible possibilities. There is as little proof of a multiverse as their is irrefutable proof of God (aka, none). That said, the heart still reaches for something beyond his place, doesn't it? Something must also be said for this thirst, the longing to know what or whom came before this experience.

  • Life so far is unexplainable

    Although I am still trying to figure out what could have created us. Science in all it's detail still cannot explain life coming from non-life. And though they may try it's impossible to try to do, therefore perhaps there is something to this "we were created" stuff. What created us? I don't know. But having a strict code of ethics and morals is a positive thing for the most part.

  • The golden Ratio

    Throughout nature and even the universe we see the same golden ratio. It is in flowers, the Andromeda galaxy, the milky way, our faces and the list goes on. So why does this ratio matter? The fact that this ratio exists suggests design to the universe. The very essence of what our brains are hard wired to find beautiful is in this ratio. It means that everything cannot just be random as the hot big bang theory suggests. Furthermore if there is a design and everything is not just random then their must by logic be a designer. I.E. God.

  • None at all

    Know why religion was invented by humans? To CONTROL PEOPLE, use spooky language, say some big scary dude in the sky is watching you and will punish you OH BETTER NOT ANGER HIM, it seems to me like the only valid reason why religion is a thing since it goes without logic.

  • F f f

    Bnm m, nm n n n n n n n n r r r r r r r r r r rg rg g rg r g ege grr j n n jj jj j j jj j j j j j j j j j j j jj j j j

  • F f f

    Bnm m, nm n n n n n n n n r r r r r r r r r r rg rg g rg r g ege grr j n n jj jj j j jj j j j j j j j j j j j jj j j j

  • All causes I see are lacking

    Every argument for God's existence I've thus far encountered have been unsatisfactory for two reasons. They've either been completely subjective (personal experiences of supposed revelation, perceived miracles,etc.) or they are just perpetuating the god of the gaps fallcay. Yes,there are many things in the universe science cannot yet explain,but that does not mean god is the cause for it. A thousand years ago, nobody understood fire. Six hundred years ago, nobody understood gravity. Just two centuries ago,nobody understood the vast biodiversity our planet exhibits. All these places that god once dwelled in are being illuminated by science. Yes,I don't know for a fact that science will explain everything one day,but if I have to pick between a violent, two thousand year old book that has hindered human civilization immeasurably,and the discipline that gave us penicillin and put a man on the moon,I don't even see how it's a contest.

  • There used to be before science made a lot of breakthroughs and discoveries.

    The belief in god(s) is often used as a way to explain the unexplained or unknown in life, so god(s) had more relevance and importance in the past than god(s) do now. We used to believe that earthquakes and lightning were caused by the actions of god(s), but now scientific breakthroughs and discoveries have made attributing them to god(s) as silly and superstitious. I do not have any issues with people believing in god(s) myself, but god(s) importance in the modern world has been diminished.

  • Boring boring boring boring

    I am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist i am an atheist

  • Proof is too Illusive

    These type of debates get stuck in the mud when one side or the other claims proof, or conclusive assertions. That debate always ends in stale mate. Frame the debate along the lines of which is more likely to be true, and the conclusion is much more attainable. Anybody that is comfortable believing in God has to check their rationality at the door; but many do make this deal in exchange for comfort and peace of mind.

  • How do you define "believe"?

    Belief, to my understanding, is the confidence that something is true.
    Which would mean believing would be HAVING that confidence that something is true.

    By that definition it's not a matter of choice.

    However, the English language (and how it's managed) is flawed, and in some dictionaries, there's a second definition of "accepting that something is true", which could arguably be considered a choice..

    But could you really blame someone for not accepting something as true without sufficient evidence to support it?

    Example: If I said that I literally am 6 feet tall, literally as skinny as a toothpick, literally weigh 2 tons, and literally have functional, feathered wings (2 feet in length, each) that enable me to fly, people would (understandably) not believe me. They would not have the confidence that it is true based on the evidence that 1. They've never seen such a thing, and 2. The very concept of it defies what we know about the natural laws of physics.

    But even if you use the definition that makes "belief" a matter of choice, could you really blame them for disbelieving? (even if they, somehow, end up being wrong)

    If "God" exists and set the rules to where if you don't believe in him without proof that he exists, that you're to be punished (ESPECIALLY a punishment of ETERNAL TORMENT), then he is no more a good, fair, just, loving, and merciful god, than a father who tells his 3 year old child to lift the family car over his head, or the child will be punished.

    It makes more sense to me that the concept of "God" (pick a religion) was invented by man in order to 1. Explain things that we don't yet understand, 2. Get people to adhere to a desired set of rules (for whatever reason) by offering abundant "rewards" for obedience, and an "extreme" punishment for disobedience. It makes more sense to me that at a certain point, people started losing belief in and/or fear of their made-up deity, they altered the rules to try to get people to act according to new ones, and use a (more extreme) fear/reward system to keep people believing and obeying, and even "bully" other people into believing, using the natural fear of the unknown against them.

    If there actually IS a creator, and he/she/it is TRULY just, merciful, loving, fair, and good... Then he/she/it would not punish us for such an understandable thing as disbelief in him/her/it without proof... And thus there should be nothing for us to fear in disbelief.

    In fact, someone being good (trying to be the best they can be) WITHOUT the reward of heaven or threat of hell, is FAR greater a thing than someone needing it to do good.

    So no... I absolutely see NO good reason to believe in the existence of ANY "god" without proof... Even if I, somehow, end up being wrong.

  • No There Are Not

    God claims generally boil down to two things:
    1) Evidence that can be more easily explained naturalistically, and
    2) Arguments from ignorance.

    Other than that we have emotional arguments and often simply teaching people not to question.

    Now I have to waste thirteen words because the question was too simple.

  • No, God is no longer necessary.

    1-You will be tortured FOREVER, if you do not believe. Does Hitler even deserve to be tortured forever? You ask a simple question, or seek knowledge, and boom forever torture. However I can kill millions, then simply believe, and confess to Christ, and I am “saved?” Nonsense!

    2-God is not necessary to be good. People were kind and charitable to each other before the Bible was written. Animals who cannot know god, are often kind to their own. People of other religions are kind as any religious person.

    3-We are no longer hunter gatherers hiding in caves. We know why lightning strikes, why there are droughts. We find the answers from nature, not god.

    4-God is a horrid example of morality. He acts more like a bad parent or a dysfunctional lover. A Jealous creator of the universe?

    5- The problem of evil has NOT been answered. Meaning the Epicurean Paradox. An all good all powerful god could not permit evil.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.