Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[dan964]

how did jesus manage to survive in the desert for 40 days without any food or water

cos ur body starts to shut down after about 3 days of not drinking water. according to a quick google, some people have lasted up to 10 days without it but jesus did it for 4x that.

something doesnt seem right [thinking emoji]

I would have to double check, but Jesus fasted from food (eating nothing) not water.

 

[dan964]

trying to comment on posts on by phone is a struggle. where is said laptop?

 

[spaghettii]

idk if this is limited to the christian god or the 2000+ other deities from other human religions, but I don't think any god exists, because if there was one wouldn't they have clarified which religion is the right one? I mean look at all the discourse nowadays between groups trying to push their religion as the "right" one - wouldn't the "one true" god have established their existence by now?

i personally don't believe our existence is the result of a higher being, i just think we (humanity) are here purely by circumstance/luck (whether that be good or poor)

 

[SammyT123]

1. No differences - copied
2. Some differences - ok and in fact good for witness testimony (which is what the Gospel and a lot of 'historical-type' accounts are)
3. Major difference - contradiction (provided we can prove such difference existed in original text, and also argue that it is not a literary device).

I don't think on the key matters such as the identity of the murder, that scale of differences I have in view. Would need to look further into specific cases of course.

1. Agreed
3. Agreed (But there is no objective way to decide, so proceed with caution, as with all other things in the bible)
2.

I guess for this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think the fact that two accounts are slightly different causes "great doubt to the claim" that thet were copied

To refine this, to a degree. How do we determine when a difference is as you would say is contradictory, or simply a textual difficulty in reconciling two completely different texts by two different authors? Context is key and understanding how the writers would have compiled the text is important.

Well, when the hundreds of differences are blatantly contradictory, one may assume that it is probably not "textual difficulty"

As I said before

First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "

As explained that is perfectly consistent.

I cannot locate the explanation. Where did you explain this?

of course not. Generally Christians are more concerned about taking meaning out of a text; rather than forcing it to be literal That means that sometimes we cannot set on a literal or symbolic reading of that text, simply because it is convenient (especially because it fits up with pseudo science or science or our own comfortable standard of living).

Right. So you concede
1. There is no objective standard
2. Christians do not derive literal meaning, but meaning that is convenient because it is comfortable...

A huge issue with all religion. Religious people are able to derive whatever the fk they want/think is comofortable from a text.
This leads to live burning, terrorism and countless other atrocities.
Nobody can say that your meaning from the text is more correct than theirs

Solution: Don't use a religious text and use common sense

That is wonderful thing of the cross. Paul talks of how God put forwards Jesus as a "atonement" payment, or a ransom payment (buy-back slave language), and by dying meets the needs of God's justice.

Why is it terrible? Again this is your perspective.

To want someone to die for the sins you have created is pure evil
I am going to setup a world with humans. I am going to create sin. I am going to then murder everyone who commits sin
Dunno man, seems pree bad to me
Especially when these "sins" include things such as being a homosexual

If God is the source and giver of life, which by definition, if he exists, he has to be; and then you cut yourself off from him somehow, logically, what should result, but death.
That is fair and reasonable.

Idk man I am still alive
But I do not have any ties with god
Who knows, maybe logically this will result in my death??

Also if God says, that if you reject me you die, and we don't listen to the warning, then how can we complain?

Did god tell me that? Nup
Would it have been hard for an all powerfull god to convince me or do a better job at warning me ? Nup

By the way, Dan - Reject me or you die. If I kill you , do not complain because I already warned you!

Kind of irrelevant my quote is hillarious though out of context, except maybe for vegans. We rear animals and kill them for our food, I personally don't see any reason for outcry there.

If I killed a random dog for absolutely no reason, would this be hilarous to you?
Jesus allowed the killing of these pigs for no fucking reason whatsoever.
Also, I am not a vegan, but I do not see how this is of any relevance. My personal position on things does not affect the correctness of my arguments

If animals are innocent, then maybe an outcry. But we have no justification to say or argue that they were; so to complain about many pigs dying because God let them, I would be much more concerned about other things, wouldn't you?

Stop trying to avoid the point in question.
Jesus allowed the needless killing of a living being. This is cruelty.

Side note: Can you prove that humans are innocent?

Technically God allowed, different to ordered.

Technically, Vlad allowed his army to rape and kill children
'Different to ordered'
Lmao still pretty messed up that God allowed the slaughter of animals for no reason.

My questions:
Are pigs sentient beings?
Why is it cruel to kill animals?

You can not objectively prove that animals are sentient
You can not objectivley prove that humans are sentient either
You can inductively assume the above contentions

The same reason it is cruel to kill humans....To cause pain, suffering and death to a human is cruelty. The same applies for animals. If you do not agree, answer the following

Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human.
Please tell me how the needless slaughter of a human being is any different to the needless slaughter of another animals

What if God was demonstrating a point in killing those pigs? (hence a reason)

Is it justified that I murder you to demonstrate a point?

It is because? Why aren't people being sued for killing flies for no apparent reason?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-to-the-Law

A baby does not deserve to be aborted by its mother, but yet it happens. It is an injustice.

Not sure how this adds to the debate

A newborn doesn't have to sin, for their to be suffering, as mentioned Christians reject karma; it is a product of a broken world the infant is born into.

Agreed. God allowed us to break this world. God will not fix it. God can at least help the newborn, but he wont.
Makes me feel disgusted.

But regarding the innocence of babies, where is the justification?

Sigh. I really should not have to tell you that a newborn is innocent....
but here goes:

Newborns are free from moral wrong. They have not commited an immoral act, and there is no evidence to show that a Newborn has the mental capacity to reason and hence cannot from bad intentions. (The definition of innocent)

You appealed to the legal system. How about you actually read up on the basics?
To prove that someone is not innocent , you need to prove intention (mens rea) and action (actus reus).

You understand that if a person has a severe mental illness, and they are unable to distinguish right from wrong, innoccence is presumed?
Much in the same way, a baby is presumed to be innocent.
This is very, very basic stuff, and I suggest you do a few quick google searches before you ask me such questions

In that particular case Jesus says " Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him"

Righteo.

Q: Man is born blind for no reason. No sins were commited at all. Then why did god do this?
A: "the works of god are displayed in him"

Dunno man, seems like something is not adding up

Simple answer: He doesn't. Each pays for their own sins. But what actually is sin?

Ok then.
What sin did the newborn commit?

BTW, you just quoted
“It was not that this man sinned.."
Did the blind man sin? You just said he did not

And then you say "Each pays for their own sins"

Although you never had to teach a toddler how to do wrong. We presume innocence, only because they haven't done anything.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that presuming toddlers are innocent is fine.....

When Paul is talking about sin, in fact the Bible talks about sin, in a greater scope, not as simply whether you have done good or wrong (or so therefore newborns are all clear), even though sometimes it does;

but in an inherit bias:
"born this way" kind of idea. Our bias when we are born is to reject God. The only reason newborns look as if would be all clear, is because they haven't done anything.
That is why it is not so much a specific action, but a status or a condiiton if you like.

So when we are born we reject god. Newborns are not innocent simply because they have not done anything.
It is simply a status or condition.

Does any of this explain why one newborn is born blind and the other is not?
Side note: God created the world so that we are are born rejecting him, and then pay for this sin. Pretty messed up....

Because temporal healing, it would be great for God to heal fully every person's disease, but that doesn't change the inherit bias/condition against God that we have.

1. Ok, it may not change the bias, but to heal my friend of cancer would still be pretty good....
Note: God put this bias in us in the first place, feelsbad

2. If god does not want to fix my friends cancer, just because it does not tackle the root of the problem (Our inherit bias against him), then why not fix the root of the problem? Why not remove our bias?

In summary
God can fix my friends cancer, but he wants to deal with the root of the problem instead
Root of the problem = inherit bias against god when we are born (which god created in the first place)
God still has not fixed my friends cancer or the root of the problem......

Imagine a doctor saying
"I could fix the massive pain you are in right now due to disease X, but I would rather fix the root of the problem!"
Doctor never helps the massive pain I am in
Doctor also never helps me fix disease X

Even one your friend was healed, he would reject the very God who healed him. Unless God fixes that first.

Still would be nice if he healed my friend.
Dunno dude, If I were an all caring, loving god, I would heal someones pain, regardless of wether they accept or reject me
OR I could make it so that they accept me

God has not done any of those ....

You know Christians wonder why Jesus hasn't returned yet as well. Sendiment understood, will be addressed a bit later.

The same reason that the miracles in the bible never happen, or Krishna never returns to Earth (I wonder what this reason is?)

Why is a massive jerk. Do you realise what it will actually take for sin to be removed and evil to be done away fully from this world, and hence all the things that have flowed.

Absolutley nothing, a rhetorical wave of the hand and everyone is healed (Assuming he is all powerfull)

It would involve changing us, I don't think you would like that would you? (rhetorical).

I don't mind it at all. If he does exist and can do great things for me, go ahead and do it.

Imagine a doctor who can cure a persons life threatening illness with 0 effort
But he does not
I would consider him a dick

Now imagine a doctor (God) who can fix every single person with this illness. In fact, he can improve the quality of life for billions of people with 0 effort
But he does not
I would consider him a huge dick

What about you?

As I have said previously, for God to fully deal with the problem, he would have to remove all of us, because we are just as much a part of the problem as that supposedly innocent pig, the whole world is as you have said - terrible.

OR god can just magically convince us to accept him (all powerfull). Does not have to kill us all man....
I never said the whole world is terrible??
??WTF??

He does. But does he have? Why should he? We don't want him. We want him to do all these good things, we boss him around, saying he doesn't exist, unless he acts in a particular way that we want him to. But he doesn't act in that, we complain back to him. And when he does, we still refuse to acknowledge him. If God heals or he doesn't, it won't change the fact that people refuse to believe in him, because inherited all people are hard towards God (even the newborn).

So you are saying
1. God does have the power to fix everything
2. Why should he fix everything? We reject him, complain, boss him around and refuse he exists
3. If he does fix everythign, this will not change the inherit bias we have against him

Right.
God creates a world of little humans.
God creates a world where these humans have a bias against him
God creates a world where we reject him, boss him around, refuse he exists
God is grumpy that we do so and now will not help the terrible things we go through

Sounds more like a 5 year old child.

Side note:
My parents will still do their best to help me, regardless of whether I boss them around and reject them.
So shouldn't and all loving, all caring, all knowing god do this as well? Especially when he himself created a world of humans who reject him?

You are right in some sense. It is not so much the city we are born reality is all are the same, when born, we don't want God, we like Santa, but we don't want God, we are all hardened towards God. It should be surprising that some are even Christian and saved, it is really that dismal.

First of all the city you are born in, statiscially, will have a HUGE impact on whether or not you accept 'god' in the context of our debate (Jesus)

Im glad you admit that christianity in this regard is so unjust, bleak and dismal.
Be lucky enough to be born in the right place, and you are saved. The others literally burn in hell for eternity.

Doesn't follow sorry. Does not a baby crave its mother's milk even though it has not been taught about it? Does not a newborn crave things that it has no understanding of?

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation to why a baby craves its mother milk even though it has not been taught. Not going to go into depth, it is legit a 10 second google search and you can read to your hearts content
(Biological trait as a result of evolution)

But regarding the innocence of babies, where is the justification?

I gave you my reasoning and proof, now it is your turn

Prove that a baby rejects god at birth. Prove that a baby is not innocent

A person's desire for something cannot depend on whether they have been taught or not.

False equivalence.
Biological traits bringing desire is very different. It is not a choice.
We are talking about, as you say, the choice to accept or reject god.

The child may be born with a terrible disease. Are you trying to say this is because the child reject god?

No, there is no answer on that one sorry. It is because humanity rejected God, and that child is part of humanity. So while it is not directly because of their own rejection, it is because of the overall rejection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
A very common tactic used by christians

This is so flawed.
Imagine this in any other context
"Humans in general commit crime. Steve is a human, and a part of humanity. Steve is a criminal"

To use a limited example: the Hutt river province declared its sovereignity from Australia, as a result the WA government withdrew all its council services. People who are born there for instance have very little choice over whether they receive such services because of the actions of others...

1. The WA government was a representative democratic government. People voted for this government to make choices
2. Imagine that the people of WA had ZERO say about this, and were affected by the actions of others. This does not make it unjust.

I am born in AUS, where the taxes are very high. I have no choice or say. But this is not unjust
BUT
If I am punished for simply being born in Australia, it is unjust
Much the same way, If I am punished for simply being born in a broken world, it is unjust

Where is the basis for the second statement? in that example of Pharaoh, despite God restoring healing and all that, he refused God.
and while you may think a newborn cannot refuse God, the inherit bias is already there.

Pharoah = Action commited to show that he rejects god
Newborn = No action commited to show that he does not reject god. No action, and it has not developed the mental capacity to reason and thus have evil intention.

and while you may think a newborn cannot refuse God, the inherit bias is already there.

You have asked me for proof of my statements several times
How about you prove this one for a change?

Depends on what you count and measure as evidence. If you are looking for only scientifiic/mathematical arguments then you may be right to make your conclusions. But surely we can consider more things as evidence.

Well if God is reading this forum.
Hey god, I will beleive you exist if you appear in my dream tonight with a blue pony and 7 mars bars exactly.
I know for sure if this happens, it will convince me.

Cmon god, give me evidence and I will not reject you.

Well he has, think of it as a long work in progress. He is putting off doing the final cleanup, so that people can be saved. That is a big reason.

Been putting it off for a few thousand years.
Yet he can finish it now (cause he is apparently powerfull enough to do anything). Why doesn't he?

Also
He sometimes does, we just genuinely assume it is something else. maybe he wants to demonstrte that you cannot find life outside of him, you cannot find good things.

Sometimes is the key word. He can always greatly improve peoples lives (think people dying in poverty), but will only do it sometimes (when he feels like it lol). Pretty bad considering he could do it with a click of his fingers

I mean , most sane people would click their fingers and eradicate poverty if they could. God does not tho.

Yeah his standards are much tighter than ours. We often think that for instance speeding is ok, but murder is not. God is fairly consistent.
He seems terrible to us, because we don't want to be cleaned up.

Lol i think that is quite reasonable to not want a massive massacre

We want a God who will accept us as we are, not bother us, and while you are at it, why don't you bless and improve my life?

Fair thing to ask, considering he can improve my life with 0 effort
Forget about me tho, think about the billions of people starving to death, many having to end up in prostitution or slavery.
Fair thing to ask god to improve my life a bit if he is all powerfull.....

Yet all the more, we don't acknowledge him as God, we don't want him as God, and most of all we don't let him speak for himself.

I will acknoweldge him, want him and let him speak.
Just give me the evidence I need. (Tmr at 7.30pm drop a banana from the sky onto my head)
If this happens, without a doubt I will accept god.

The thing is
1. I reject god because he put an inherit bias in me, which I cannot control
2. He will not give me the evidence, even though he can do so very easily for me and the biillions of other people with a click of his fingers

Why? Does not a king have a right to execute those who commit treason? That is how serious God sees it. It seems terrible, but that is only because of how terrible it is.
Imagine if you said seriously to your father who gave you birth, "I wish you had never been born", that is serious. Imagine if you said that to Queen of England for instance.

1. My dad would still love me. He would not like the comment I made and be sad about it. But he wont go ahead and massacre me/let me burn in hell for eternity or some crazy shit like that. My dad is an average bloke. Not some all loving all caring ever powerful god. So I expect this god to also forgive me, and not want to murder me....

2. My dad has done things for me, which I see clearly. God, if you may, tmr do something great for me (gimme $1k in my bank ) and I will also love you

3. The queen of england does not love me. If she loved me as much as you say this god does, I dont think she will kill me. Heck, even if the current queen hates my guts, I still do not think she will want to murder me
God however....

4. The reason I reject god in the first place is because he created a world with sin, and put a bias in me. And then he punishes me for it.
By the way, If I am gay, is that something god put in me ? Why is that considered a sin, just as murder is considered a sin?

Again where are you looking for your evidence. If you are looking only in science (or for that matter pseudo-science), then you won't get very far.

I know. It is why I asked
No scientific evidence exists

God wants us and we should, of obligation, kind of like how we should submit to our leaders and our parents, and obey them.

My parents are right infront of my eyes and I beleive they exist. I beleive they are good people and I obey them.
God will not give me the proof (scientific proof OR the banana/blue pony I asked for in my dream) to show he exists
God puts a bias in me to reject him
God creates sin.
God allows for sin.
God expects people to submit to him despite no proof of his existance (Again, scientific or personal proof, I do not mind)
God then punishes people for rejecting him

And God does want the best for him, but at the same time, God is a God of justice. Even your parent's discipline you for your own good.

My parents discipline is often for my good
God however, is not really disciplining us. He is threatening to murder us if we do not obey. He is punishing us in very cruel ways (poverty and much worse..) , and for this to go away we have to obey him, but he is refusing to show himself so we do not know if he exists....

Yes and we say to God, I want everything you have but not you; and that comes out in everything we do.

No. We want a better quality of life, for sure. If god can give us that, most of us will like him
he has the power to convince us that he exists. Sadly he does not. He punishes us for rejecting him isntead

We basically commit treason against God in our attitude towards him.

I am asking him to improve my quality of life. I'll even accept him if he gives me that banana
How is this treason?

We want to live our own lives as king without God.

Some people just want enough food to live, with or without god.
God will not reveal himself to these peoples, nor will he give them food.

Maybe we are guilty of calling God violent, simply because we don't like the fact that he says things that make us feel uncomfortable and have to change;

Not me. I call him violent because
1. He creates a world with sin
2. He creates people who have an inherit bias to reject him (a sin)
3. He does not show himself to me (but he has the power to convince me of his existence/nature)
4. He punishes me for this. He has created a world with poverty, murder, violence, and rape, when he could have created a much better world.

and we want to live our own lives?

nothing wrong with that

We don't want his input.

We do not want input from a being who may not even exist. If god does exist, he has the power to convince us of his existence .He could legit just convince me with a simple dream tonight and I will take all input lol

BTW, why do we not want his input in the first place?

We don't like his laws.

Especially the discrinimantion against homosexuals

We call him unjust because he doesn't let us off the hook; and so on.

No. We call him unjust for creating a world where we are born sinners, and are punished for it. A world with atrocities.
We call him unjust for punishing us because we reject him (but he does not reveal himself to let us accept him in the first place)
We call him unjust for wanting to massacre us for the above reasons.

God allows it for a time, and allows suffering to remind us of this reality. But he will come.

At this rate, I hope god is never employed as a pizza delivery guy, or else I wont ever get my pizza
God could come right now, 11.21pm. But he will not. Why?

Death is what usually happens next

Ouch....

I said: There is a very good reason Person A can't just take on crimes commited by person B and be punished instead

What is that reason?

Not sure if srs..

Person A commits crime. Person A is guilty
Person B is innocent. Person B says "I know A commited the crime, but punish me instead!"
Cmon Dan. Work those brain cells and tell my why it is wrong to allow B to be punished instead of A

Before Jesus came, God' justice was not satifisfied. In the same way, God would do the same again. He could do it today or tommorrow. Why doesn't here, just wipe us all out now? (slightly rhetorical).

You did not answer my question. Why are we waiting for that time "One day he will come..."
Why can he not just fix everything right now, 11.26PM AEST. (My clock is a bit off tho)

A much better question:
Instead of a mass murder, why doesn't he just help us all out now?

I agree for the most part with this, rather than type out things
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/eight-reasons-why-i-believe-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead

I am going to use every single one of your arguments to prove that Krishna also exists.
I may also comment on why the supposed 'evidence' is rubbish
My challenge: Give me a piece of evidence (or a series of evidences) that you have that will not support the claim that in fact Allah or Buddha exist.

1. "Our first evidence of the resurrection, therefore, is that Jesus himself spoke of it"
- Same way that my mate himself reckons he can fly
- Jesus said : "I died and came back from the dead" is not good proof
- Krishna, himself , said that he was god and could bring the dead back to life

2. "The tomb was empty on Easter according to Luke 24:3 and Matthew 28:13
- The 'evidence' here is derived from the bible it self
- In the bhavad Gita, "The dead body of the sage was gone"

3. The disciples who were hopeless, transformed into bold men after seeing the ressurection
- In the Mahabharata, the king transformed from being hopeless to powerful after seeing the miracles of Krishna

4. "Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim."

- Vyasa wrote that the entire kingdom saw Krishnas magic, and many of these people were still alive when he made this public claim

5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.
- The sheer existance of an untouchable, ever powerful kingdom Majapahit, supports the truth of Krishnas miracles

6. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection
- The vedas are littered with such examples

7. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.
- Similarly, the sage was a kind, reasonable, caring and honorable man. He did not bear the stamp of dupes

8. There is a self-authenticating glory narrated by the witnesses.
- As there is in all the major religions

BTW
Do you beleive that the Earth is only ~6000 years old?
According to these biblical calculations (https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/)
This is simply incorrect.... Hinduism dated from about 1900 BCE to 1400 BCE
An amazing amount of scientific reports PROVE that the Earth is billions of years old

Do no try avoid the question and say "oh but the bible is not a scientific text". The fact that the bible is more a literary work does not excuse it from the stark innacuracies inside it. Things such as dates espeially, should not be excused. For the Earth to be billions of years old , the dates in the bible will have to vary by a factor

But there are more arguments for God's existence, the common ones along with their common objections are littered through their thread such as the
- first cause argument
- ontological argument

First cause argument:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause#Problems

Ontological argument
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Problems

Lets start with the first cause argument
Can you address the above issues?

As a personal question to you, can you provide me evidence/evidences for the christian view of god, that cannot be applied to the muslim or hindu view of god?

PLS FIX UR QUOTING TOO IT;S SO HARD TO FOLLOW

 

[SammyT123]

idk if this is limited to the christian god or the 2000+ other deities from other human religions, but I don't think any god exists, because if there was one wouldn't they have clarified which religion is the right one? I mean look at all the discourse nowadays between groups trying to push their religion as the "right" one - wouldn't the "one true" god have established their existence by now?

i personally don't believe our existence is the result of a higher being, i just think we (humanity) are here purely by circumstance/luck (whether that be good or poor)

Well said
I personally call this the "bag of letters" (not sure where I heard it from)

Throw open a bag of 100 letter and they will land in one specific order
The chances of them landing in that specific order is very very low

But nevertheless, the chances of them landing in any given order is the same as this specific one

Our universe is like this due to randomness alone. It does not make sense intuitively, because it is so awesome and all, but the chances of any other possible universe existing is the same

 

[dan964]

1. Agreed
3. Agreed (But there is no objective way to decide, so proceed with caution, as with all other things in the bible)
2.

I guess for this we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think the fact that two accounts are slightly different causes "great doubt to the claim" that thet were copied


Well, when the hundreds of differences are blatantly contradictory, one may assume that it is probably not "textual difficulty"

As I said before

First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "


I cannot locate the explanation. Where did you explain this?


Right. So you concede
1. There is no objective standard
2. Christians do not derive literal meaning, but meaning that is convenient because it is comfortable...

A huge issue with all religion. Religious people are able to derive whatever the fk they want/think is comofortable from a text.
This leads to live burning, terrorism and countless other atrocities.
Nobody can say that your meaning from the text is more correct than theirs

Solution: Don't use a religious text and use common sense








To want someone to die for the sins you have created is pure evil
I am going to setup a world with humans. I am going to create sin. I am going to then murder everyone who commits sin
Dunno man, seems pree bad to me
Especially when these "sins" include things such as being a homosexual


Idk man I am still alive
But I do not have any ties with god
Who knows, maybe logically this will result in my death??


Did god tell me that? Nup
Would it have been hard for an all powerfull god to convince me or do a better job at warning me ? Nup

By the way, Dan - Reject me or you die. If I kill you , do not complain because I already warned you!


If I killed a random dog for absolutely no reason, would this be hilarous to you?
Jesus allowed the killing of these pigs for no fucking reason whatsoever.
Also, I am not a vegan, but I do not see how this is of any relevance. My personal position on things does not affect the correctness of my arguments


Stop trying to avoid the point in question.
Jesus allowed the needless killing of a living being. This is cruelty.

Side note: Can you prove that humans are innocent?




Technically, Vlad allowed his army to rape and kill children
'Different to ordered'
Lmao still pretty messed up that God allowed the slaughter of animals for no reason.


You can not objectively prove that animals are sentient
You can not objectivley prove that humans are sentient either
You can inductively assume the above contentions

The same reason it is cruel to kill humans....To cause pain, suffering and death to a human is cruelty. The same applies for animals. If you do not agree, answer the following

Name a trait present in animals, which if present in humans, would justify the treatment proposed by omnivores if applied to a human.
Please tell me how the needless slaughter of a human being is any different to the needless slaughter of another animals



Is it justified that I murder you to demonstrate a point?


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/73/Appeal-to-the-Law



Not sure how this adds to the debate



Agreed. God allowed us to break this world. God will not fix it. God can at least help the newborn, but he wont.
Makes me feel disgusted.




Sigh. I really should not have to tell you that a newborn is innocent....
but here goes:

Newborns are free from moral wrong. They have not commited an immoral act, and there is no evidence to show that a Newborn has the mental capacity to reason and hence cannot from bad intentions. (The definition of innocent)

You appealed to the legal system. How about you actually read up on the basics?
To prove that someone is not innocent , you need to prove intention (mens rea) and action (actus reus).

You understand that if a person has a severe mental illness, and they are unable to distinguish right from wrong, innoccence is presumed?
Much in the same way, a baby is presumed to be innocent.
This is very, very basic stuff, and I suggest you do a few quick google searches before you ask me such questions


Righteo.

Q: Man is born blind for no reason. No sins were commited at all. Then why did god do this?
A: "the works of god are displayed in him"

Dunno man, seems like something is not adding up


Ok then.
What sin did the newborn commit?

BTW, you just quoted
“It was not that this man sinned.."
Did the blind man sin? You just said he did not

And then you say "Each pays for their own sins"


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that presuming toddlers are innocent is fine.....




So when we are born we reject god. Newborns are not innocent simply because they have not done anything.
It is simply a status or condition.

Does any of this explain why one newborn is born blind and the other is not?
Side note: God created the world so that we are are born rejecting him, and then pay for this sin. Pretty messed up....



1. Ok, it may not change the bias, but to heal my friend of cancer would still be pretty good....
Note: God put this bias in us in the first place, feelsbad

2. If god does not want to fix my friends cancer, just because it does not tackle the root of the problem (Our inherit bias against him), then why not fix the root of the problem? Why not remove our bias?

In summary
God can fix my friends cancer, but he wants to deal with the root of the problem instead
Root of the problem = inherit bias against god when we are born (which god created in the first place)
God still has not fixed my friends cancer or the root of the problem......

Imagine a doctor saying
"I could fix the massive pain you are in right now due to disease X, but I would rather fix the root of the problem!"
Doctor never helps the massive pain I am in
Doctor also never helps me fix disease X


Still would be nice if he healed my friend.
Dunno dude, If I were an all caring, loving god, I would heal someones pain, regardless of wether they accept or reject me
OR I could make it so that they accept me

God has not done any of those ....




The same reason that the miracles in the bible never happen, or Krishna never returns to Earth (I wonder what this reason is?)


Absolutley nothing, a rhetorical wave of the hand and everyone is healed (Assuming he is all powerfull)


I don't mind it at all. If he does exist and can do great things for me, go ahead and do it.

Imagine a doctor who can cure a persons life threatening illness with 0 effort
But he does not
I would consider him a dick

Now imagine a doctor (God) who can fix every single person with this illness. In fact, he can improve the quality of life for billions of people with 0 effort
But he does not
I would consider him a huge dick

What about you?


OR god can just magically convince us to accept him (all powerfull). Does not have to kill us all man....
I never said the whole world is terrible??
??WTF??





So you are saying
1. God does have the power to fix everything
2. Why should he fix everything? We reject him, complain, boss him around and refuse he exists
3. If he does fix everythign, this will not change the inherit bias we have against him

Right.
God creates a world of little humans.
God creates a world where these humans have a bias against him
God creates a world where we reject him, boss him around, refuse he exists
God is grumpy that we do so and now will not help the terrible things we go through

Sounds more like a 5 year old child.

Side note:
My parents will still do their best to help me, regardless of whether I boss them around and reject them.
So shouldn't and all loving, all caring, all knowing god do this as well? Especially when he himself created a world of humans who reject him?



First of all the city you are born in, statiscially, will have a HUGE impact on whether or not you accept 'god' in the context of our debate (Jesus)

Im glad you admit that christianity in this regard is so unjust, bleak and dismal.
Be lucky enough to be born in the right place, and you are saved. The others literally burn in hell for eternity.



There is a perfectly reasonable explanation to why a baby craves its mother milk even though it has not been taught. Not going to go into depth, it is legit a 10 second google search and you can read to your hearts content
(Biological trait as a result of evolution)


I gave you my reasoning and proof, now it is your turn

Prove that a baby rejects god at birth. Prove that a baby is not innocent


False equivalence.
Biological traits bringing desire is very different. It is not a choice.
We are talking about, as you say, the choice to accept or reject god.

The child may be born with a terrible disease. Are you trying to say this is because the child reject god?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
A very common tactic used by christians

This is so flawed.
Imagine this in any other context
"Humans in general commit crime. Steve is a human, and a part of humanity. Steve is a criminal"


1. The WA government was a representative democratic government. People voted for this government to make choices
2. Imagine that the people of WA had ZERO say about this, and were affected by the actions of others. This does not make it unjust.

I am born in AUS, where the taxes are very high. I have no choice or say. But this is not unjust
BUT
If I am punished for simply being born in Australia, it is unjust
Much the same way, If I am punished for simply being born in a broken world, it is unjust



Pharoah = Action commited to show that he rejects god
Newborn = No action commited to show that he does not reject god. No action, and it has not developed the mental capacity to reason and thus have evil intention.


You have asked me for proof of my statements several times
How about you prove this one for a change?




Well if God is reading this forum.
Hey god, I will beleive you exist if you appear in my dream tonight with a blue pony and 7 mars bars exactly.
I know for sure if this happens, it will convince me.

Cmon god, give me evidence and I will not reject you.


Been putting it off for a few thousand years.
Yet he can finish it now (cause he is apparently powerfull enough to do anything). Why doesn't he?


Sometimes is the key word. He can always greatly improve peoples lives (think people dying in poverty), but will only do it sometimes (when he feels like it lol). Pretty bad considering he could do it with a click of his fingers

I mean , most sane people would click their fingers and eradicate poverty if they could. God does not tho.



Lol i think that is quite reasonable to not want a massive massacre


Fair thing to ask, considering he can improve my life with 0 effort
Forget about me tho, think about the billions of people starving to death, many having to end up in prostitution or slavery.
Fair thing to ask god to improve my life a bit if he is all powerfull.....


I will acknoweldge him, want him and let him speak.
Just give me the evidence I need. (Tmr at 7.30pm drop a banana from the sky onto my head)
If this happens, without a doubt I will accept god.

The thing is
1. I reject god because he put an inherit bias in me, which I cannot control
2. He will not give me the evidence, even though he can do so very easily for me and the biillions of other people with a click of his fingers



1. My dad would still love me. He would not like the comment I made and be sad about it. But he wont go ahead and massacre me/let me burn in hell for eternity or some crazy shit like that. My dad is an average bloke. Not some all loving all caring ever powerful god. So I expect this god to also forgive me, and not want to murder me....

2. My dad has done things for me, which I see clearly. God, if you may, tmr do something great for me (gimme $1k in my bank ) and I will also love you

3. The queen of england does not love me. If she loved me as much as you say this god does, I dont think she will kill me. Heck, even if the current queen hates my guts, I still do not think she will want to murder me
God however....

4. The reason I reject god in the first place is because he created a world with sin, and put a bias in me. And then he punishes me for it.
By the way, If I am gay, is that something god put in me ? Why is that considered a sin, just as murder is considered a sin?


I know. It is why I asked
No scientific evidence exists


My parents are right infront of my eyes and I beleive they exist. I beleive they are good people and I obey them.
God will not give me the proof (scientific proof OR the banana/blue pony I asked for in my dream) to show he exists
God puts a bias in me to reject him
God creates sin.
God allows for sin.
God expects people to submit to him despite no proof of his existance (Again, scientific or personal proof, I do not mind)
God then punishes people for rejecting him



My parents discipline is often for my good
God however, is not really disciplining us. He is threatening to murder us if we do not obey. He is punishing us in very cruel ways (poverty and much worse..) , and for this to go away we have to obey him, but he is refusing to show himself so we do not know if he exists....


No. We want a better quality of life, for sure. If god can give us that, most of us will like him
he has the power to convince us that he exists. Sadly he does not. He punishes us for rejecting him isntead


I am asking him to improve my quality of life. I'll even accept him if he gives me that banana
How is this treason?


Some people just want enough food to live, with or without god.
God will not reveal himself to these peoples, nor will he give them food.


Not me. I call him violent because
1. He creates a world with sin
2. He creates people who have an inherit bias to reject him (a sin)
3. He does not show himself to me (but he has the power to convince me of his existence/nature)
4. He punishes me for this. He has created a world with poverty, murder, violence, and rape, when he could have created a much better world.


nothing wrong with that


We do not want input from a being who may not even exist. If god does exist, he has the power to convince us of his existence .He could legit just convince me with a simple dream tonight and I will take all input lol

BTW, why do we not want his input in the first place?


Especially the discrinimantion against homosexuals


No. We call him unjust for creating a world where we are born sinners, and are punished for it. A world with atrocities.
We call him unjust for punishing us because we reject him (but he does not reveal himself to let us accept him in the first place)
We call him unjust for wanting to massacre us for the above reasons.


At this rate, I hope god is never employed as a pizza delivery guy, or else I wont ever get my pizza
God could come right now, 11.21pm. But he will not. Why?


Ouch....

I said: There is a very good reason Person A can't just take on crimes commited by person B and be punished instead


Not sure if srs..

Person A commits crime. Person A is guilty
Person B is innocent. Person B says "I know A commited the crime, but punish me instead!"
Cmon Dan. Work those brain cells and tell my why it is wrong to allow B to be punished instead of A


You did not answer my question. Why are we waiting for that time "One day he will come..."
Why can he not just fix everything right now, 11.26PM AEST. (My clock is a bit off tho)

A much better question:
Instead of a mass murder, why doesn't he just help us all out now?




I am going to use every single one of your arguments to prove that Krishna also exists.
I may also comment on why the supposed 'evidence' is rubbish
My challenge: Give me a piece of evidence (or a series of evidences) that you have that will not support the claim that in fact Allah or Buddha exist.

1. "Our first evidence of the resurrection, therefore, is that Jesus himself spoke of it"
- Same way that my mate himself reckons he can fly
- Jesus said : "I died and came back from the dead" is not good proof
- Krishna, himself , said that he was god and could bring the dead back to life

2. "The tomb was empty on Easter according to Luke 24:3 and Matthew 28:13
- The 'evidence' here is derived from the bible it self
- In the bhavad Gita, "The dead body of the sage was gone"

3. The disciples who were hopeless, transformed into bold men after seeing the ressurection
- In the Mahabharata, the king transformed from being hopeless to powerful after seeing the miracles of Krishna

4. "Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim."

- Vyasa wrote that the entire kingdom saw Krishnas magic, and many of these people were still alive when he made this public claim

5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.
- The sheer existance of an untouchable, ever powerful kingdom Majapahit, supports the truth of Krishnas miracles

6. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection
- The vedas are littered with such examples

7. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.
- Similarly, the sage was a kind, reasonable, caring and honorable man. He did not bear the stamp of dupes

8. There is a self-authenticating glory narrated by the witnesses.
- As there is in all the major religions

BTW
Do you beleive that the Earth is only ~6000 years old?
According to these biblical calculations (https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/)
This is simply incorrect.... Hinduism dated from about 1900 BCE to 1400 BCE
An amazing amount of scientific reports PROVE that the Earth is billions of years old

Do no try avoid the question and say "oh but the bible is not a scientific text". The fact that the bible is more a literary work does not excuse it from the stark innacuracies inside it. Things such as dates espeially, should not be excused. For the Earth to be billions of years old , the dates in the bible will have to vary by a factor



First cause argument:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause#Problems

Ontological argument
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Problems

Lets start with the first cause argument
Can you address the above issues?

As a personal question to you, can you provide me evidence/evidences for the christian view of god, that cannot be applied to the muslim or hindu view of god?

PLS FIX UR QUOTING TOO IT;S SO HARD TO FOLLOW

A Hindu doesn't necessary believe in "God" persay.

I have addressed the stuff on the OP which simply copied from that site.
this kind of place is difficult to actually have a proper conversation.

I personally don't have the effort to address everything. And I will forget things I said at the time.
Actually, when I say the Bible is not scientific, I should amend that to say. That Genesis isn't a commentary on evolution or Big Bang Theory, I personally dislike the antics of creation.com.

Please avoid sites like AIG, they are not helpful. I personally couldn't care less how the Earth/universe is.


I will reply to what you have raised but some of them are just semantics with my word choice. I cannot actually reply to some of them without seeing the actual quote in the context of this thread which is difficult to do on a phone.

 

[dan964]

The two things you think that I concede about Christians and bible reading in that long quote is plainly a strawman.

1. You claim that Christians have no objective standard - misleading. Christians are on of the few groups to make objective truth claims in today's society. And with regards to how we read Biblical text. We do have a fairly standard way of interpreting the Bible, and that is called biblical theology and it involves understanding the Bible through the. lens of the Christ event. If reading the Bible leads us to reject Christian teaching of the cross then it is problematic. Typically we try to read the text in context, both historical, politician and religious as we would any text. No person would get it right. This is how literature is studied. This means the face reading and copy-paste method of verses strips verses of the authors purpose, contextual factors and even differences in materials/witnesses recalled.

2. Hypocritical to claim that Christians derive meaning in a way that is comfortable to them. Many Christians find difficult some of the Bibles teaching including that on controversial topics. I look at the way that a lot of internet sites and blogs that use the Bible twist it for their own comfort/ends such as the skeptic site you linked earlier. Christians have a genuine love for the Bible as to us, it is God's word and so in studying it means we do tackle with the bits they are uncomfortable. (Now I am referring to evangelical but not the American sense of the word)

Also the main way we reject God as human is not listen. God does not reveal himself in subjective ways such as if I have a blue cow in my dream tonight, God exists. You if all people, wouldn't believe it anyways.

If God was to shout at you, would you be paying attention?

I just finished on Monday, an essay on the book of Revelation. An interesting book it is.

Also for Jesus existence, here is an atheist's article on the matter.
https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

 

[Queenroot]

dw hell can't be that bad considering how the world is going rn

we probably are in hell rn

 

[red152]

Although we have no evidence of God, it is plausible that God exists. Yes, we have no clear evidence of God, but otherwise how would everything have come into existence?

 

[Queenroot]

Because it just did? Does there have to be some higher power creating things?

 

[cosmo 2]

yeah there does

 

[dan964]

I will address by topic rather than specific objection. I may miss things but due to time limitations. I also prefer not to copy and paste stuff from Christian apologetical websites either, as some may not be helpful.

1. "Our first evidence of the resurrection, therefore, is that Jesus himself spoke of it"
- Same way that my mate himself reckons he can fly
- Jesus said : "I died and came back from the dead" is not good proof
- Krishna, himself , said that he was god and could bring the dead back to life

2. "The tomb was empty on Easter according to Luke 24:3 and Matthew 28:13
- The 'evidence' here is derived from the bible it self
- In the bhavad Gita, "The dead body of the sage was gone"

3. The disciples who were hopeless, transformed into bold men after seeing the ressurection
- In the Mahabharata, the king transformed from being hopeless to powerful after seeing the miracles of Krishna

4. "Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim."
- Vyasa wrote that the entire kingdom saw Krishnas magic, and many of these people were still alive when he made this public claim

5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.
- The sheer existance of an untouchable, ever powerful kingdom Majapahit, supports the truth of Krishnas miracles

6. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection
- The vedas are littered with such examples

7. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.
- Similarly, the sage was a kind, reasonable, caring and honorable man. He did not bear the stamp of dupes

8. There is a self-authenticating glory narrated by the witnesses.
- As there is in all the major religions

Good copy/paste right there. The fallacy "of putting words in my mouth" - not good.

Firstly, Hinduism itself isn't as well-defined a religion as Christianity. I haven't studied it in too much detail, probably because Hinduism is a incredibly more diverse religion than Christianity. Hinduism only really defines the end goal, and whatever means is felt to be appropriate for the individual to reach this ultimate reality, it has underpinnings of modified relativism.

Also unlike Christians, some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, all say strongly "don't argue about different religions/doctrines, there is only one." Christianity rejects such a position strongly.

SO be careful with equivocating systems of belief/though which are radically different.

Some other points, be careful also as many internet blogs lack in depth research/evidence to support the comparisons made. If they are taking texts like the bible in the manner I have seen others use, then that is deeply problematic. It is one thing to say the Bible is true or not, granted. It is another, to misquote Jesus/the Bible, or strip sentences of their context/purpose and the other things that every piece of literature, regardless of whether it is true or not.


Secondly in your argument against (2), you argue it is the Bible therefore it cannot be considered evidence. Well I think the Bible has to be considered properly, since it does make such claims.

Thirdly, I don't think I would personally use majority of those arguments. I will outline ones which I would use, I personally won't bother launching into a full in-depth discussion, considering you are not even convinced from the sound of it that Jesus existed.

> Preservation of New Testament --> other texts including those of historical figures whom not one disputes the facts of, are not nearly as well-documented in terms of preservation
> Closeness of New Testament to events mentioned --> disproves idea that Jesus theology was developed later
> Assessment of the claims of Jesus ---> only relevant for those such as Muslims who deny Christ
> Independent eyewitness accounts of the account, including 500 individuals --> this disproves the halluncination theory, as it doesn't fit the data
> Empty tomb not accounted for. --> why couldn't the Jews produce a body?
> The disciples state changes positively --> causes doubt for the claim the disciples stole the body, and disproves the swoon theory, to a major degree.
> The radical conversion of Paul

Somehow we have to synthesis different things. The resurrection is a plausible explanation and best explanation that fits the data. Now of course, you may argue that other claims from other religions do the same. However, I wouldn't know the details of such claims. I personally am not too aware of the Vedas, in terms of when they were written.

First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "
I have addressed this several times, so I will just summarise what I have said:

You are inferring that God can treat sinners in the same way all the time.
This is a false projection onto what God is like.

God does exercise the right to wipe out all of humanity in an instance. The reason he doesn't in particular reasons, is to give people a chance to repent for instance.
Noah is supposed to point us to Christ. God always intend to save the righteous remnant. It just happens at the time of Noah, the only righteous ones are Noah and his family. They are not righteousness because of their works, but by faith they trusted God. The same goes for those saved by Jesus. While Jesus dies for those who are sinners, he takes upon himself the punishment.

To want someone to die for the sins you have created is pure evil. I am going to setup a world with humans. I am going to create sin. I am going to then murder everyone who commits sin

Some things to address:
- God does not create sin. You assume he does. But that is not the case - sin is not a physical object. God did not create us separated from him.
- Secondly, God as creator is the one who gives and takes life.

Concerning whether God will fix it, it doesn't make sense for someone to ask that question, if they already believe God cannot possibly exist. But I digress,
Most of these, come down to what God is like, and can we trust him? Why does Jesus return come sooner, if his return will bring about the final fix.
The reassurance for Christians who see the work of the cross, is they know the end date is fixed and coming. Think of D-Day in WW2, a decisive victory that means the end of the war is guaranteed to happen. For Christians, that event is the cross. For the atheist who denies Jesus existed, or that Jesus died, or that Jesus rose again; there are logically no hope. And so an answer to that question would only make sense if those things were true.

That is why Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus is important. It grounds our assurance and hope, that this world will be renewed into a new creation.

This is the end of the conversation for me, as that is where the buck sticks for me.

 

[dan964]

Also asking God to reveal himself, in a way like show 7 mars bar and a sheep in your dream, somehow verifies God's existence, is a subjective way of doing it.
There needs to be a more proper way, that is much clearer than that.

And God choose to reveal through Jesus Christ, whom you deny existed.

Hence there is your answer.

 

[Squar3root]

Because it just did? Does there have to be some higher power creating things?

i believe in science and the big bang theory but even before that, what made that single atom there? was it a god? was it from another universe? if so how was that universe created?

 

[Squar3root]

someone mentions before here that no proof of god does not mean that god doesnt exist

think of a hypothesis test

let H0= god does exist
and H1 = god doesn't exist

so there is no evidence to prove that god exists so we reject H0 and accept H1, but what is the alternative? half a god? multiple gods?

 

[SammyT123]

A Hindu doesn't necessary believe in "God" persay.

Yes, a hindu does beleive in God. Many gods...
Do your research

I have addressed the stuff on the OP which simply copied from that site.

Nothing wrong with that. The argumenation is perfectly coherent, consistent and logical

this kind of place is difficult to actually have a proper conversation.

Would you prefer a live debate (or easy discussion?)
I am down

I personally don't have the effort to address everything. And I will forget things I said at the time.

No problem.

Actually, when I say the Bible is not scientific, I should amend that to say. That Genesis isn't a commentary on evolution or Big Bang Theory, I personally dislike the antics of creation.com.

And who is to say that you are any more correct than creation.com's interpretation of the bible?

Please avoid sites like AIG, they are not helpful. I personally couldn't care less how the Earth/universe is.

You may not personally care, but I do. The many christians who follow these teachings are going against concrete scientific evidence. Bill Nye makes a very nice point of this, Children are being taught simply to accept what is written in a book, rather than go ahead and research. Children should be taught to make their own discoveries (the reason we have invented medicine etc)

I will reply to what you have raised but some of them are just semantics with my word choice. I cannot actually reply to some of them without seeing the actual quote in the context of this thread which is difficult to do on a phone.

Np. Reading stuff on a phone is hard

As for the fasting for 40 days, I'm pretty sure that is very possible, so I agree with you there

 

[dan964]

someone mentions before here that no proof of god does not mean that god doesnt exist

think of a hypothesis test

let H0= god does exist
and H1 = god doesn't exist

so there is no evidence to prove that god exists so we reject H0 and accept H1, but what is the alternative? half a god? multiple gods?

I would comment that such a methodology is flawed and the basis for accepting H1 is because we cannot prove the opposite, when H1 itself is an unverified claim.
A little bit problematic. But otherwise I like the approach.

 

[dan964]

A Hindu doesn't necessary believe in "God" persay.

Yes, a hindu does beleive in God. Many gods...
Do your research

If you are referring to classic hinduism, that you would have experienced, then yes.
Hinduism isn't one concrete set of beliefs, in practice. Try again. They believe in a concept called the Braham, or the One. It is a completely different worldview.

I have addressed the stuff on the OP which simply copied from that site.

Nothing wrong with that. The argumenation is perfectly coherent, consistent and logical

I addressed some pages ago. That is what I meant sorry.

this kind of place is difficult to actually have a proper conversation.

Would you prefer a live debate (or easy discussion?)
I am down

I don't think arguments even convinced a person, maybe cups of coffee.

Actually, when I say the Bible is not scientific, I should amend that to say. That Genesis isn't a commentary on evolution or Big Bang Theory, I personally dislike the antics of creation.com.

And who is to say that you are any more correct than creation.com's interpretation of the bible?

for the same reason you would have issues with their intepretations, I would to some degree. I think their metholody of pseudo-science is highly problematic, and does a disservice for Christianity.

Please avoid sites like AIG, they are not helpful. I personally couldn't care less how the Earth/universe is.

*old the

You may not personally care, but I do. The many christians who follow these teachings are going against concrete scientific evidence. Bill Nye makes a very nice point of this, Children are being taught simply to accept what is written in a book, rather than go ahead and research. Children should be taught to make their own discoveries (the reason we have invented medicine etc)

Slightly false equivolence. Many Christians, but not all. Most of the Christians that are of the same denomination would hold to a reading that doesn't try to deliberately overule the more concrete scientific evidence.

I will reply to what you have raised but some of them are just semantics with my word choice. I cannot actually reply to some of them without seeing the actual quote in the context of this thread which is difficult to do on a phone.

Np. Reading stuff on a phone is hard. As for the fasting for 40 days, I'm pretty sure that is very possible, so I agree with you there.

Yeah. My recommendation is find a Christian, and have a coffee, read a bit of the Bible, read a bit of other stuff. It would be good.
While there are bucket loads of stuff on the internet of people trying to figure out this question. I think the best discussions are conversations.

 

[SammyT123]

The two things you think that I concede about Christians and bible reading in that long quote is plainly a strawman.
1. You claim that Christians have no objective standard - misleading.

My original question: Is there an objective test you use to tell if it is symbolic, or is everything up to subjective interpretation?

Was the great flood symbolic or literal?
You do not know. Christians disagree on that one, just like hundreds of other accounts.
Tell me, how do you Objectivley decide?

Christians are on of the few groups to make objective truth claims in today's society.

A very, very bold statement.
Please provide some sort of evidence for this claim.

And with regards to how we read Biblical text. We do have a fairly standard way of interpreting the Bible, and that is called biblical theology and it involves understanding the Bible through the. lens of the Christ event. If reading the Bible leads us to reject Christian teaching of the cross then it is problematic. Typically we try to read the text in context, both historical, politician and religious as we would any text. No person would get it right. This is how literature is studied. This means the face reading and copy-paste method of verses strips verses of the authors purpose, contextual factors and even differences in materials/witnesses recalled.

Sure. This is exactly how literature is studied. Sadly, there is no way to objectivley decide whether event X is metaphorical or literal in the bible.
The bible, when studied in this way, may be a beautiful thing to many.
My point is, Do not make objective claims from subjective interpretations

2. Hypocritical to claim that Christians derive meaning in a way that is comfortable to them.

How else do you derive meaning from the bible? By looking at it objectively? Subjectively?

Christians are more concerned about taking meaning out of a text; rather than forcing it to be literal That means that sometimes we cannot set on a literal or symbolic reading of that text, simply because it is convenient (especially because it fits up with pseudo science or science or our own comfortable standard of living).

Sure.
Chrisitian A: I think the text means XYZ !
Christian B: I think the text means ABC !
Who is to say that A is correct? Who is to say B is incorrect?
Whilst it is great that peoples subjective opinions differ, it is important not to make objective statements from them

Many Christians find difficult some of the Bibles teaching including that on controversial topics.

And?
(P.S, trust me, I know this one very well -> Homosexuality)

I look at the way that a lot of internet sites and blogs that use the Bible twist it for their own comfort/ends such as the skeptic site you linked earlier.

May be the case, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.

Christians have a genuine love for the Bible as to us, it is God's word and so in studying it means we do tackle with the bits they are uncomfortable. (Now I am referring to evangelical but not the American sense of the word)

Good to know

Also the main way we reject God as human is not listen. God does not reveal himself in subjective ways such as if I have a blue cow in my dream tonight, God exists. You if all people, wouldn't believe it anyways.

lmao
Just saying, I will be happy to listen and beleive he exists if he gave me that evidence.
Apparently god doesn't do subjective dreams. What other cool tricks does/does he not he do?

And what gives, I am asking god to come in my dream so I will accept and love him
But he won't do that for some reason? What is that reason?

If God was to shout at you, would you be paying attention?

If it were obvious that he were god, Yes
Sadly, I will not see a guy with a beard float down from the sky and shout at me
Instead, I will .

Also for Jesus existence, here is an atheist's article on the matter.
https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

You claimed that it is widely accepted by the majority of scholars and historians he exists
I asked for proof
You link me an article about someones personal views....
lmao

 

[dan964]

My original question: Is there an objective test you use to tell if it is symbolic, or is everything up to subjective interpretation?

Was the great flood symbolic or literal?
You do not know. Christians disagree on that one, just like hundreds of other accounts.
Tell me, how do you Objectivley decide?

A very, very bold statement.
Please provide some sort of evidence for this claim.

Sure. This is exactly how literature is studied. Sadly, there is no way to objectivley decide whether event X is metaphorical or literal in the bible.
The bible, when studied in this way, may be a beautiful thing to many.
My point is, Do not make objective claims from subjective interpretations

How else do you derive meaning from the bible? By looking at it objectively? Subjectively?


Sure.
Chrisitian A: I think the text means XYZ !
Christian B: I think the text means ABC !
Who is to say that A is correct? Who is to say B is incorrect?
Whilst it is great that peoples subjective opinions differ, it is important not to make objective statements from them




And?
(P.S, trust me, I know this one very well -> Homosexuality)


May be the case, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.




Good to know


lmao
Just saying, I will be happy to listen and beleive he exists if he gave me that evidence.
Apparently god doesn't do subjective dreams. What other cool tricks does/does he not he do?

And what gives, I am asking god to come in my dream so I will accept and love him
But he won't do that for some reason? What is that reason?



If it were obvious that he were god, Yes
Sadly, I will not see a guy with a beard float down from the sky and shout at me
Instead, I will .



You claimed that it is widely accepted by the majority of scholars and historians he exists
I asked for proof
You link me an article about someones personal views....
lmao

Don't really have the patience to engage with semi-trolling at 11:15pm at night.
When you are trying to make several points at once I think both of us are losing track of what has been addressed and what hasn't. I certainly have.

But here is the first...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

aaaand this was the first link I got when I searched the same thing...
it makes me wonder whether I should bother replying

It is a fairly concrete historical fact that Jesus lived and he died.