We want REASONS for God!!!!!

a reply to: Klassified

Because the bible itself places "human morality" and emotions/feelings on god in many places.

This is your problem you want to leap to talking about a specific God before understanding what God must be.

a reply to: Astyanax

The moral argument, as many posters have already pointed out, is untenable.

I have read every post up until this point and this is bogus. No one has given any reason that argument fails. The only logical alternative is moral nihilism.

The two philosophical arguments can and have been debunked so many times that it is absurd to bring them up again.

No one has debunked those arguments. Simply calling something debunked why don't you say something of substance if you don't like the arguments state the premise from them that is wrong and show it to be....

Sorry, but if you want grounds for your belief in God you'll have to rely on faith. Which is what Christians are supposed to do anyway.

Why don't you let me decide what my beliefs require me to do?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Maybe to you now, back then it would have sounded very unusual.

Unusual? Like 'As it was in the days of Noah", or like Sodom and Gomorrah?

Nope. Your biblical prophecies are no more than self fulfilling prophecies and observation of the human condition cleverly predicting that history tends to repeat itself.

a reply to: mOjOm

What's interesting is how people claim morality and immorality come from outside their own perspective, as if anyone of us knows what another perspective is even like in the first place. Our entire existence is through our own perspective. If it wasn't we'd be someone else. But we're not. I am me and you are you and everyone is themselves. So any other perspective other than your own is off limits to you. So if your morality isn't your own then basically what you're saying is you simply don't have any morals nor any ability to comprehend them. This is the reason you must follow the morals as defined in a book. Because without someone writing them down for you to follow you'd have no clue how to act. Morality, either good or bad would just not exist for you.

Your problem is you don't understand the difference between ontology and epistemology. The Moral Argument has nothing to do with the Bible and the ten Commandments....it has nothing to do with the Christian God...it argues for a very particular type of being. It seeks to demonstrate that if there is such a thing as moral truths in this world then their is logically a personal being who grounds these values in reality. Someone may disagree on moral epistemology, but one thing they would both agree on is that there is a moral truth in the situation at hand.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Someone may disagree on moral epistemology, but one thing they would both agree on is that there is a moral truth in the situation at hand.

No, both would not agree that there is a moral "truth" anywhere in the universe. There is no evidence that god is good in the universe. The laws of the universe we know all lead to entropy. The world we know is filled with misery and requires that we take the life of other living beings in order to survive. Eat or be eaten.

How, from any human moral compass can that be considered a "good" model for existence?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: Akragon

So God not stopping people from killing each other is condoning it? Where's that human morality judgement you so easily place at God's feet? Isn't it man's fault for killing man?

Why would he stop them when he supposedly told them to go on this killing spree?

I mean this god does tend to contradict himself... but thats just silly

again, you make this about what it isnt, you
your argument is invalid, you condemn what you dont understand and from your tiny little perspective.

God doesnt contradict, sin equals death, sin always equals death, there is no escape from death.
A time is coming when the world we be judged again and even more death is coming, Revelations makes that clear
Of course you deny everything that doesnt agree with your belief.

It ends the same way it started, sin equals death
sinless man Adam, sins brings death, death of the perfect man Christ, causes death to sin and death

Just waiting for the final trumpet to herald the new kingdom

Cor, your the beacon of light ain't you? I hate to say this, but the Bible seems to have you stressed out.

I see lots of scripture getting quoted here which is quite funny, how does this prove anything? IT seems everyone is blind to the obvious, the fact that we are on planet which is inhabited by billions of different lifeforms and somehow it all works together to support everything, is proof that there is intelligent design at work. We didn't create this, our existence, look around people are just vessels for experience. I believe we all understand on an intrinsic level that there is something that is us behind the eyes. I think this our Spirit and this is the part that is the same as God, the source of our conciousness.

I'm unsure if this existence is even Gods creation, I do know though that it seems a little bit childish to blame our source of higher conciousness for the acts that we have carried out in its name because we don't understand the nature of our reality. Taking responsibility for oneself is a powerful tool that enables growth but yet people of all religions and all beliefs seem to look to someone to either lead them or assign blame to, anything but really stand and take responsibility for themselves. The funny thing is how many accept that it is the human nature to be this passive and yet, fail to see the irony that is within the whole "Does God Exist" question. Your whole existence within this life, the ability to learn, to remember and to feel..... All this just so you can worship God? Seems a bit far fetched don't you think?

Can I prove God does exist, is to miss the point. If you are unable to grasp a concept of higher-self, Spirit or essence you will simply fail to see what I see. You feel God every time your conscience is felt. Love too. The more you engage in acts of these the more synchronises you will experience in life. I don't need to look to the heavens for signs that God exists, the fact that I can see them above me is proof enough. The world needs a new Bible and it only needs one sentence.....

Don't be a Cnut.

If people can't even get past that one, then what hope is there that we could ever raise our conciousness enough to even understand these mysteries? People are too busy bahhhing like the sheep they will remain to be until they understand these concepts. Until we reject what we think we know and start to actually feel with open hearts its all a mute point. To look for answers from another is take you from what we can all feel and further from the truth that is all around us.

Delusion? Mental illness? Maybe, but considering peoples knowledge and understanding keeps on seemingly getting turned upon its head, I think I'll go with what I feel.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

2. Kalam Cosmological Argument (something that had a beginning must have had a causeless cause) Energy is beginningless and endless and the universe is nothing but energy set to different vibrations. String theory is in the process of proving (or disproving) that the universe is made up of "strings" of energy that vibrate in order for the universe to exist. If energy cannot be created or destroyed and the universe is purely energy vibrating at different frequencies then the universe would not need a creator in order for it to exist because it has always existed.

You are making an alternative truth claim here mainly that the universe is eternal, but I would argue the Science of today disagree with you. String theory argues for the existence of ten dimensions. You are arguing against the Kalam Cosmological argument on the wrong time theory though. You are really attempting to refute leibnizian Comsological argument in my opinion. That said your alternative claim is a rejection to the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument. I would argue that Big Bang Cosmology is evidence for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument. What model of the universe are you basing your position on ?

a reply to: windword

No, both would not agree that there is a moral "truth" anywhere in the universe.

Then your argument is that there are no morals, but I would say that position is not something you can consistently live out on a daily basis. So your saying the statement, "it is evil to rape babies", is not true?

a reply to: Shiloh7

because looking at the state the world and humanity is in today there clearly is no God in charge of anything.

Yet I have given three arguments that argue that based on the state of the world there is clearly a God in charge of everything.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm saying that your "moral argument" that "god is good" and that "morality comes from god" isn't backed up by any evidence. As a matter of fact, the evidence goes against your argument of a good god, from a human standpoint.

Morality is subjective. Good and evil are subjective. There is no such thing as objective moral truth.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Not stopping people? How about God sent two bears two maul forty two children in 2 Kings. Why? Because they were making fun of one of God's servants.

Where are you from just out of curiosity? I know some one with your name, and second the two bears mauling forty two children is you not studying that verse at all. The word translated children does not have to be translated children. The phrase quoted from the men wasn't just them calling him bald. It was phrase of the day that suggested harmful intent.

a reply to: windword

I'm saying that your "moral argument" that "god is good" and that "morality comes from god" isn't backed up by any evidence.

Your problem is you don't understand that the argument is not about moral epistemology. Moral relativism doesn't give an ontological basis for the existence of moral values which means your stuck with moral nihilism on an ontological basis..

I really want the answer to my question. Is it true that it is evil to rape babies?

a reply to: Jim Scott

Do you think im atheist lol? Did you even read the OP?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

What difference does it make, humans trying to define a god is presumptuous and impossible . A being that created all aspects of the muliutiverses does not need to be bothered by the noisy creations trying to understand it. Not that it exists as a god. But if it did, I suspect it took one look at the moronic childish -Lord of the Flies-Like things written in the Old Testament and abandoned this outpost in disgust.

This seems to be a position of incredulity. You cannot think of a way humans could understand God therefore you dismiss the ideas without any actual reason. That is not intelligence that is being dismissive and close minded.

a reply to: Joecanada11

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.

Did you even read what Craig said lol?


"Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential."

He affirms that you may have relative significance but he is talking about actual significance not something you imagine into existence.

a reply to: newnature1

The Moral Argument has nothing to do with the Bible, but I would agree that in the presence of free creature evil becomes possible.

Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good.

This is not the positon I would take. Yahweh knows Good and Bad, but he doesn't chose to be Good. He is essentially good. This is why we say God is Sovereign because he is subject to act within his essential nature. This is why we read things like God cannot lie. His nature will not allow him to do such a thing. This is oddly enough true for the being derived from the first three arguments.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your problem is you don't understand that the argument is not about moral epistemology. Moral relativism doesn't give an ontological basis for the existence of moral values which means your stuck with moral nihilism on an ontological basis.

What? There is no such thing as a moral truth. Period! All morality is subjective.

I really want the answer to my question. Is it true that it is evil to rape babies?

Define rape.

Is cancer evil? Is cancer eating away at an innocent newborn baby's body any less evil that rape? Is a scenario where that baby gets stolen and eaten by Dingo a reflection of an evil creator?

How can you say that "god is good" when encompassed in the world that you credit him for creating, are all the things that you find evil? The world is a cruel place that will take the life of every living thing it encounters. How is that morally good, from mankind's perspective?

a reply to: windword

Define rape.

Forced sex....

Is cancer evil? Is cancer eating away at an innocent newborn baby's body any less evil that rape? Is a scenario where that baby gets stolen and eaten by Dingo a reflection of an evil creator?

Cancer is not an agent. Dingo's and humans are not the same that is a faulty comparison. Why are you dodging the question. Is it true that raping babies is evil?

How can you say that "god is good" when encompassed in the world that you credit him for creating, are all the things that you find evil? The world is a cruel place that will take the life of every living thing it encounters. How is that morally good, from mankind's perspective?

Again this epistemology. Your talking about how we classify a good and evil, and the moral argument ask is there such a thing as good and evil. Its about ontology with is the study of the nature of being.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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?

As long as he/she can pass the omnipotence test, then yes i do!

Now for the test,



if god is really omnipotent, it can do anything.

it can even make a rock so heavy, it cannot itself lift it.

a reply to: Vector99

if god is really omnipotent, it can do anything. it can even make a rock so heavy, it cannot itself lift it.

This is just a popular idea on the internet, and by no means is a good argument. No, God cannot do logically impossible things. So no God cannot create a square with three sides. A rock to heavy for an all powerful being is a logical impossibility. If you do want to define Omnipotence as the ability to do the logically impossible, then God can create a rock to heavy for him to lift and then he can lift it, and then you'll say but thats logically imposisble, so what you've defined omnipotence as the ability to do that which is logically absurd.