We want REASONS for God!!!!!

a reply to: seentoomuch

lol too long ago now ! we digress, back to people thinking they can define a god.

a reply to: p3ac3

I don't mean to cheapen it any so don't take this wrong. After all, I'm only able to go off what you tell me about it. But to me it sounds like you're relationship is with a deeper aspect of yourself. Your struggles and rewards being a reflection of a more hidden you. Perhaps a subconscious you that's been lost or simply pushed away to allow the current you to get by for now.

When people use the "Relationship with God" line they always use it the same way you'd say that about your wife or kids or mentor or something. But then when they provide details about it, it always lacks a major difference between all those others. There isn't a truly identifiable independent other that is really present. It's always just them exploring themselves deeper. Deeper ideas and emotions and aspects of themselves. I don't know why it's not acceptable for it to be that. I mean isn't that still a good thing. A positive thing. Why does everyone insist upon it being some Infinite God. Or maybe concluding that they could be one in the same and maybe God is what's been thought of incorrectly all this time.

a reply to: seentoomuch

I see. Well, damn, now I wish I was the one who filmed it!!

Sounds like one hell of a night!!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

OP, here you go. It's late and I need to go to bed. Early day tomorrow. This will answer all your questions. www.reasonablefaith.org...

a reply to: mOjOm

I understand that concern and every believer should have it themselves. If you don't doubt then you inevitably start to fall somewhere between the guy who swears that God told him to "take that job in Dallas" or a dangerous self-deluded charlatan who takes others down with him. It's not as if I've never had an inner struggle or self realization that I didn't automatically point at and scream "God!!!!!" There have been very 'religious' times in my life full of bible reading, church going, apologetics, etc, that regrettably lacked this aspect of relationship and there have been very agnostic, practically atheist, times where I've experienced great self growth. It's the lived experience of surrender that is different than those other thigns that leads us to use the term 'relationship.'

a reply to: Jim Scott

Oh boy its Dr. Craig.

Life is not meaningless without god. Our life has as much meaning as we want it to be. IN THE HERE AND NOW. The present is all we have.

Then he goes on to say without God there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Yes there is! We are the hope. Mankind has come a long way and we have the ability to go further. We are the ones who can rid the world of evil. Because if there is a God he sure hasn't done anything about the evil in the world.

a reply to: Jim Scott

From the start of that in his first argument he's already incorrect.

Life isn't meaningless because it will all end. In fact that is why it is special. If it were eternal it would then have no importance to it.

Why do you think the "Gods and Devils" are always so interested in people anyway??? Because nothing they do matters because they are eternal. While everything we do matters because we only have time or the ability to do so many things before it's over. Every second counts. Every missed romance could be gone forever. Every adventure passed by may be the last chance for an adventure. Our lives have major importance because they are finite. Where is the importance of an eternal life where anything you've missed can be done just as easily tomorrow or the next day or the next century??

There's a story that's told by different cultures throughout history. About a person being chased by some dangerous creatures who chase him to the edge of a cliff. He looks down and at the bottom are even more dangerous creatures waiting for him. With nowhere to turn he climbs out on a limb at the cliffs edge to avoid being eaten. Then he notices some tiny creatures chewing on the limb causing it to weaken. He then looks toward the end of the limb and sees some berries there. He picks one and puts it in his mouth and chews it. As the flavor fills his mouth he thinks to himself, "How Delicious."

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Vector99

Exactly. To me it is interesting to hear the why. I don't ever seek to mock the believers of religion. Sometimes I may wisecrack, but if you ever tell me you feel disrespected, I'll never say it again. I don't believe in belittlement.

Well, I'm not religious. Not at all. But I do find them interesting and some of them quite liberating and enlightening to ones own personal growth.

Some more than others even though usually you can find the same message in them all being told differently. Some are also surrounded by much more BS than others to suit a certain agenda.

I most certainly have a problem with the idea of Anthropomorphic God Beings, out there somewhere, watching and plotting and doing things. That seems very silly and very much something of a human creation.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was Religious. Sorry to disappoint you. But I'd still be happy to discuss Religious ideas if you'd like.

We would probably cheers eachother alot saying "They believe that? Really? Phew, cheers to that"

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Alright to often this questions is asked and restated over and over. So I am going to list the order in arguments need to be understood in order to see what type of God exists.

The first question why does their need to be a God and how do you know what God is like?
Note: All of the following are deductive arguments. This is not arguing for God as some type of scientific explanation.
1. The Moral Argument
2. Kalam Cosmological Argument/leibnizian cosmological argument(I put both because these argue from different perspectives on time Kalam is on A theory and Leibnizian is on B theory)
3. Ontological Argument


If we cannot agree on these we will never make it to the second question of, why the Christian God?

4. Historical Evidence for Christ and his Resurrection.
5. All Attributes of above arguments are attributed to the Christian God.

So I ask that when you reply only chose 1 of the first 3 points to start on and we will go from their. If we haven't talked about the first question I will ignore anything on the second question as one must come before the other.

Question !. Christianity developed the notion of original sin.

So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.

Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.

Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.

originally posted by: Joecanada11


Do you actually believe that someone spent 3 days in the belly of a whale? That kind of the thinking is dangerous.

Its not as hard as believing that man evolved from a virus or whatever those in white coats are saying at the moment

You stated a whale, I have seen no evidence of a whale
www.icr.org...
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." (I Corinthians 15:39).

Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.

You dont believe, thats fine, I do

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Joecanada11


Do you actually believe that someone spent 3 days in the belly of a whale? That kind of the thinking is dangerous.

Its not as hard as believing that man evolved from a virus or whatever those in white coats are saying at the moment

You stated a whale, I have seen no evidence of a whale
www.icr.org...
What kind of animal swallowed Jonah? In the passage above, the Greek word translated "whale" actually means a huge fish or sea monster. In the passage in Jonah (1:17; 2:1,10), the Hebrew word was the normal word for "fish," but here the word is modified by the word great. Our modern taxonomic system places whales among the mammals, sharks, among the fish and plesiosaurs among the reptiles, but, the Bible uses a different system. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." (I Corinthians 15:39).

Evidently any living thing other than the creeping things (Psalm 104:25) in the seas is placed in the category of "fishes". In addition, there are several species of whale and of sharks alive today with gullets large enough to swallow a man whole. Among extinct animals like the plesiosaurs, the same could be said, and perhaps this was a heretofore unknown fish of large size. The point is, the story is not impossible. However, most importantly, the Bible says that "the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah" (Jonah 1:17). Clearly this event was miraculous and not a naturalistic phenomenon. Thus we don’t have to give it an explanation limited by modern experience or knowledge.

You dont believe, thats fine, I do

The Assyrians are spared, and Jonah is furious, the very idea of a prophet being sent to Nineveh-Nineveh the capital of the hated Assyrian empire, the home of the people who had destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the ten tribes of Israel in 722BC, dispersing those ten tribes forever, the nation that had then laid siege to Jerusalem and exacted tribute from Judah for many years-Nineveh appears as another Sodom, Yahweh is going to punish them for immorality, but not necessarily for idolatry. But the stronger problem for Jonah seems to be the lack of punishment for the wicked. 


Jonah is indignant that the Assyrians didn’t get what they so richly deserved: didn’t Jonah say this would happen, that Yahweh always forgives, he’s this slow to anger, compassionate guy; he always repent, the wicked are never punished! It seems Jonah is fed up with the way Yahweh is doing things, his mercy perverts his justice, and some things ought not to be forgiven; people must be held to account for their evil actions, how can Yahweh not do justice! As Jonah is leaving the city to sulk, seems his complaint is twofold. If your going to punish the wicked then just push them; they deserve it. And if you’re planning to spare them, then just spare them and don’t waste my time with messages and oracles. 


As Jonah sits in a little booth that he has constructed, Yahweh causes a leafy plant to grow over him, providing shade and saving him from a good deal of discomfort; and the plant is to be the source of a final lesson for Jonah. How could Yahweh not be compassionate? For even the most evil of peoples are no less his creation that he has cared for than precious Israel. And if they will only turn to Yahweh in humility, he’ll wipe the slate clean, he’ll show compassion and forgive. 


It is only human to long for the punishment of the wicked; but Yahweh longs for their re-formation, their turning. Their is the moral law of the Noahide covenant, and it’s for this that Yahweh has decreed punishment, and Jonah is a champion of divine justice. Jonah believes that sin should be punished, he’s outraged at Yahweh’s forgiveness. But Jonah learns that a change of heart is enough to obtain mercy, and that the true role of the prophet is perhaps to move people to reformation and turning.

a reply to: Akragon

'll play just for fun... 1. The moral arguement: IF the "Christian" God is the same as the one in the OT... Said entity doesn't have the slightest clue what morality is...

Sure but the Moral Argument doesn't seek to show the Christians God. If you are conceding that a supreme personal being exists then we can discuss this but you jumped straight to the second question.

a reply to: Klassified

Actually, before you can get to the first question you must define "God/god".

Those arguments argue for a very specific type of God. The arguments themselves are what define God and his properties. If that is where you want to start I would suggest Alvin Plantinga's version of the ontological argument.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'll bite on "how do you know what God is like?" It's my favorite ontological issue of all time. Now, I usually ask Christians three questions, as the following questions are typically held to be true: 1) Do you believe that God is omniscient? 2) Do you believe that God is omnipotent? 3) Do you believe that God is omnipresent?

I too would answer yes to all three as these are all attributes that can be determined from the Ontological Argument as well as the Cosmological Argument.

So if God wanted to lie to you, you'd have no way of knowing that you were being lied to?

The Moral Argument and The Ontological Argument renders this moot as the type of God it argues for is one who has goodness as an essential property to its existence. It argues for a God who would have the power to lie, but never would on the basis of their character.

a reply to: In4ormant

I'm not gonna say what side of the argument I'm on but I will state this. Why do people strive to attribute human morality to God? Why is bone cancer in a child wrong? Because we as humans feel empathy. Does that mean its wrong to God?

I don't think you quite understand the Moral Argument. It is attributing human morality to God but rather saying God is the foundation of the belief that Moral Truths exists, and that without God you have no foundation for justifying the belief in Moral Truths without that foundation you couldn't logically call anything evil but would rather need to adhere to moral nihilism.

Why do humans apply a human moral code to a being that is supposedly omnipotent and then judge said God by that morality?

Again this shows a lack of understanding of what the argument seeks to show. God is not subject to morality but rather his character is the standard that all moral decisions are measured against. When we call something evil, it is because that act is not in line with the nature or essence(philosophy term).

a reply to: Akragon

Wouldn't having a need for this "god's" supposed "creation" to do his dirty work for him point to a lack of omnipotence?

Such an intellectually unsatisfying answer. This shows that you do not understand the type of God put forth in the given arguments. The Cosmological Arguments, regardless of the position you took on time, would argue for a timeless spaceless immaterial personal, powerful being. Asking when something timeless was created is not logical at all, and philosophically is a very unsophisticated thought.

a reply to: Rex282

Precisely .....defining terms is the most significant term of a true argument and the fact is the op(nor anyone else) cannot provide a definition of the creator God because they know nothing of a creator God therefore their argument is futile(once again).

Ontology is the study of the nature of being. So if that is where you wan to start you need to understand the ontological argument so that you can understand the type of being that needs to exists. The ontological argument argues for the existence of a greatest possible being and defines it's essential properties as those and only those properties that are great. In the context of the argument great is simply the word chosen to mean those properties that it would be better to have to the highest extent than not to have at the highest extent. So it argues for the possibility of a being that has as essential properties those and only those properties that it would be better to have than not to have. Plantinga's version in based in modal logic, meaning that if the first premise is true then the other premises logically follow.

a reply to: Moresby

Looks like we have an agnostic on our hands, but if thats all you have to say it would appear your being dismissive.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Its interesting how people claim morality and immorality from their own perspective, sort of like they think their opinion invalidates Gods Maybe they are the ones without a clue

The moral argument and it's conclusion have nothing to do with my particular flavor of morality. It has nothing to do with moral epistemology. It again is an argument on the subject of ontology, the study of the nature of being.

Why the need for humanity? Why create them Why educate them Why give them sovereignty over their own lives Why punish them Why save them

Those are all theological questions and as such would have nothing to do with the first question.

a reply to: Vector99

Why is your god the right one? There are several, what makes YOUR personal one correct?

This is the second question. Are you conceding the existence of a being with the attributes given in the first three arguments?