Post Any Evidence For God Here

[AndyDufresne]

He'd probably use the alias 'Carlos Danger'


--Andy

[tzor]

His twitter handle would probably get him in trouble. He would probably have used "IMWM"

I dare you to try to figure that one out.

[Gillipig]

Here's what I think is an interesting debate between William Lane Craig (Christian) and Christopher Hitchens (Atheist), the theme of the debate is "Does god exist?". This is not one of those nutjobs Christians that we sometimes see renowned atheists debate. William Lane Craig is actually a pretty good orator, but then again so was Hitler. Ehem, so without further ado:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Spoiler

I think William Lane Craig won the debate. Especially when considering what he's defending he did a marvelous job.

[Symmetry]

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Hmm, dude sounds like a fanatic.

[Frigidus]

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Hmm, dude sounds like a fanatic.

If your argument can be used to justify the murder of any and every child it isn't the best one.

[john9blue]

anyone else sick of stupid fuckwits who impose their limited human morality on god?

LOL GOD DOESN'T DO WHAT I WANT THEREFORE HE IS EEEVVIILL

hey morons, suppose it was best in the grand scheme of the universe for humans to go extinct? you'd probably whine about that too because you're selfish and don't know anything about the big picture. but you sit here and try to pretend like no just and righteous god would do things that make you uncomfortable! just... so stupid i can't even fathom.

[Timminz]

suppose it was best in the grand scheme of the universe for humans to go extinct?

You certainly make a good argument in support of this.

[john9blue]

suppose it was best in the grand scheme of the universe for humans to go extinct?

You certainly make a good argument in support of this.

but it's definitely possible, no?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[Frigidus]

anyone else sick of stupid fuckwits who impose their limited human morality on god?

Why would you consider god(s) to be above morality?

hey morons, suppose it was best in the grand scheme of the universe for humans to go extinct?

Morality is not contingent on end results, it is contingent on what you do to get there. The end result of defeating Germany does not justify the fire bombing of Dresden. The end result of wealth and prosperity for the United States did not justify the genocide of the Native Americans.

[john9blue]

if he exists, then i consider him above YOUR morality (and my morality, and any human's morality)

and yes, morality is contingent on end results, we just use rules of thumb because most of us realize that we don't know everything and can't make perfect moral decisions. feel free to keep taking the moral high ground over the omniscient creator of the universe though.

[Frigidus]

if he exists, then i consider him above YOUR morality (and my morality, and any human's morality)

It is not my morality, it is any morality. If certain groups or individuals are put above morality then it isn't actually objective. Rather it is just a yoke put around everyone else's neck so that they might be controlled.

and yes, morality is contingent on end results, we just use rules of thumb because most of us realize that we don't know everything and can't make perfect moral decisions.

So because you consider some being to be capable of making perfect moral decisions you would condone any action it takes? You would voice no disapproval over this "perfect" being raping and torturing a four year old to death over the course of a week, for instance?

feel free to keep taking the moral high ground over the omniscient creator of the universe though.

If saying that certain things are inherently immoral is taking the high ground then I guess I'm taking the high ground.

[john9blue]

everything you said there was correct, so i have nothing to add

[Frigidus]

everything you said there was correct, so i have nothing to add

In that case would you consider it unfair of me to describe your position as such:

Assuming that there is a God

1. What we would describe as morality is, quoting the last post,

just a yoke put around everyone else's neck so that they might be controlled.

2. Any act, no matter how inconceivably horrific and barbaric, is inherently acceptable behavior for God.

3. Anyone that disagrees with this position is an arrogant fuckwit.

Edit: Figured I'd add the assuming part since if I remember right you consider yourself an agnostic.

[john9blue]

1. What we would describe as morality is, quoting the last post,

just a yoke put around everyone else's neck so that they might be controlled.

human versions of morality are ways for people/societies to control themselves.

2. Any act, no matter how inconceivably horrific and barbaric, is inherently acceptable behavior for God.

if there is a perfect god, then anything he does would have to be the right thing to do.

3. Anyone that disagrees with this position is an arrogant fuckwit.

you don't have to agree that god exists, but using the reasoning that "if god does exist, then he must do things that conflict my own morality, and therefore is bad/evil" is essentially claiming your own morality and knowledge of the universe to be better than that of a god. it's as if ants disagreed with a politician's desire to build more infrastructure because it would destroy their anthills. no doubt they would call him an evil psychopath just like you love to do to the christian god.

[BigBallinStalin]

2. Any act, no matter how inconceivably horrific and barbaric, is inherently acceptable behavior for God.

if there is a perfect god, then anything he does would have to be the right thing to do.

Sure, if morality is dependent upon God, then that's a logical conclusion. For all we know, god could be raping young boys, and then wiping his dick on the tablecloth, (which is rude). This would be fine--by god's standard--because, hey he's a perfect god with his perfectly, dependent morality.

If morality isn't dependent on God, then that would undermine the authority of all sorts of religious laws.

[Frigidus]

1. What we would describe as morality is, quoting the last post,

just a yoke put around everyone else's neck so that they might be controlled.

human versions of morality are ways for people/societies to control themselves.

Laws control people and societies. A system of morality exists for the purpose of determining the difference between right and wrong. While the law might at times align itself with a moral code it serves an entirely separate purpose.

2. Any act, no matter how inconceivably horrific and barbaric, is inherently acceptable behavior for God.

if there is a perfect god, then anything he does would have to be the right thing to do.

But that's the point, if there is no action that God could take that is wrong then there is no right thing to do. Either there is an overarching system of morality that a perfectly good God would always be working within or the word 'good' (or whatever term you would choose to use in this situation) would be impossible to define. It would be pointless to describe God with it.

3. Anyone that disagrees with this position is an arrogant fuckwit.

you don't have to agree that god exists, but using the reasoning that "if god does exist, then he must do things that conflict my own morality, and therefore is bad/evil" is essentially claiming your own morality and knowledge of the universe to be better than that of a god. it's as if ants disagreed with a politician's desire to build more infrastructure because it would destroy their anthills. no doubt they would call him an evil psychopath just like you love to do to the christian god.

First, we don't hold ants accountable for their actions against other ants. If we did we would be hypocrites. Second, if we have to choose between A) Raping and torturing toddlers is OK if God does it or B) If God rapes and tortures toddlers he is not good, I would say that the latter is a far more reasonable conclusion.

[Phatscotty]

[chang50]

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

Hmm, dude sounds like a fanatic.

Heinrich Himmler said something very similar to Craig when describing the effect of committing atrocities on helpless civilians on the Germans who carried them out in ww2.Craig may be a skilled orator and debater in his chosen format but I find the monstrous views espoused above beneath contempt and morally reprehensible.No one should be fooled by his folksy Ned Flandersesque charm,he really believes the genocides of the OT were morally justified.To me his ideas are as much a menace to civilised life as radical Islam.

[Gillipig]

What I think Johnny is trying to get at is that it doesn't matter if we think God is good or evil, what matters is that we're his little pet project and he can do whatever he wants with us. I'm honestly fine with that. I don't go about doing wishful thinking like a lot of other people here (see "Free will"), so I have no problem with an evil god toying with us as he wills. But what I would like to know, is why he thinks god exists at all.
As adamant as William Lane Craig was in stating that he had reasons to to assume there is a god, most of them was based on misconceptions on his behalf and the others just didn't make any sense. So I would like to hear Johhny tell us why he's convinced there is a god.

[crispybits]

He's not - at least he keeps calling himself agnostic and then gets REALLLLLLY upset whenever anyone questions God's morality.... seems a bit fishy to me but then I stopped listening when he stopped debating and started going over the same old tired ground without answering simple objections to his viewpoint

The most eloquent of which, imo, was restated most recently by Frigidus when he said: "But that's the point, if there is no action that God could take that is wrong then there is no right thing to do. Either there is an overarching system of morality that a perfectly good God would always be working within or the word 'good' (or whatever term you would choose to use in this situation) would be impossible to define. It would be pointless to describe God with it."

[john9blue]

whether something's right because god does it, or whether god does it because it's right... doesn't even matter. either way, when you say that god is evil, you're forced to explain why your morality is above the morality of an omniscient being.

But that's the point, if there is no action that God could take that is wrong then there is no right thing to do. Either there is an overarching system of morality that a perfectly good God would always be working within or the word 'good' (or whatever term you would choose to use in this situation) would be impossible to define. It would be pointless to describe God with it.

not impossible to define: "good" just means doing whatever a being with perfect knowledge would do.

First, we don't hold ants accountable for their actions against other ants. If we did we would be hypocrites. Second, if we have to choose between A) Raping and torturing toddlers is OK if God does it or B) If God rapes and tortures toddlers he is not good, I would say that the latter is a far more reasonable conclusion.

reasonable to you, because you largely use imperfect societal standards of morality ("rules of thumb"). you really think it's out of the question that, say, 1% of all babies deserve to be killed, and the reason we humans don't kill them is because we are imperfect and don't know how to determine who belongs to the 1%?

What I think Johnny is trying to get at is that it doesn't matter if we think God is good or evil, what matters is that we're his little pet project and he can do whatever he wants with us. I'm honestly fine with that. I don't go about doing wishful thinking like a lot of other people here (see "Free will"), so I have no problem with an evil god toying with us as he wills. But what I would like to know, is why he thinks god exists at all.
As adamant as William Lane Craig was in stating that he had reasons to to assume there is a god, most of them was based on misconceptions on his behalf and the others just didn't make any sense. So I would like to hear Johhny tell us why he's convinced there is a god.

i said earlier that you don't have to believe in god, but using flawed reasoning to determine that "god is evil" and then using that as a reason why god doesn't exist is a poor excuse for logic. why don't you read what i wrote before posting again?

[PLAYER57832]

anyone else sick of stupid fuckwits who impose their limited human morality on god?

Why would you consider god(s) to be above morality?

hey morons, suppose it was best in the grand scheme of the universe for humans to go extinct?

Morality is not contingent on end results, it is contingent on what you do to get there. The end result of defeating Germany does not justify the fire bombing of Dresden. The end result of wealth and prosperity for the United States did not justify the genocide of the Native Americans.

Both the means and the ends are important, but your argument is actually false in the extreme.

To pick a nicer example, it is not "moral" in most cultures to kill oneself. However, if you do something, say run into a burning building to get a child out a window too small for you to exit or whatever, then it is generally justified, even if you know you will die.

I don't justify genocide of the Native Americans, but it was done in ignorance and is in the past. Some would argue that we should turn over our houses, etc to the tribes. IN some respects, that might be morally justified. However, to erase America is to erase not just the wrongs, but also the good.

Rarely in real life are things absolute. When it comes to God, folks here often want to go to absolutes.. but that is not the world as it exists, as Christians believe God made the world. Essentially, you are saying that you don't like the way the world is.

Saying that you don't like the world and that that is proof that there is no God is just not a sound argument any more than saying "I see good, that is proof of God". They are false because whether God exists or not is not a matter of whether good or bad exists. Good exists, bad exists and God exists. A Christian will argue that God gave us the definition of good and bad, but we also say that this is tinged with human imperfect understanding. The reality is otherwise, not clearly what we think of as "good" and not clearly what we think of as "bad"

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Genesis 17, God commands Abraham to circumcise his son on the 8th day. Why the 8th day, why not the 1st day or the 1 year? What is so special about the 8th day?

Fast forward 4,000 years, scientist have finally discerned that on the 8th day, there is a one time peek of coagulating proteins & Vitamin K, to decrease bleeding duration to the lowest point in a human's life.

"At birth a baby's intestines contain no bacteria, Between the fifth to seventh day of life, these bacteria begin to proliferate and produce the important vitamin K. This vitamin goes to the liver where it plays an important part in forming four different clotting proteins. If any one of these proteins are missing, serious bleeding may result . . . . One of the proteins dependent on vitamin K is called pro-thrombin . . . An average eight-day-old baby has more available prothrombin than on any other day of his life (McMillen, page 92)

This is not a coincidence. It is proof of the validity of the Gods laws. Even the manner of circumcision prescribed by God, flint knives (Joshua 5:2, margin), demonstrates the physical concern of our loving Creator for cleanliness. Such newly sharpened knives are practically sterile.

What does an evolutionist say, "Thank Almighty Chance that circumcision was performed on the 8th day to accidently coincide with this 8th day wonder. Otherwise, male babies would bleed to much and endanger their lives. And thank Holy randomness that they used flint rocks that after sharpening are virtually sterile.

Believers in God say, "Thank Almighty God for your sovereignty. You see all, hear all and know all...
Even the dice on Conquer Club are thrown and tossed, but it's every decision is of the Lord's. Proverbs 16:33