What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[Who me]

I find it amusing:-

https://adam4d.com/the-atheist-elephant/

 

Panel two is very relevent, read the books and meet together, isn't that what religous people do?

[Leyla]

https://adam4d.com/the-atheist-elephant/            First I must admit that Richard Dawkins is one of my personal heroes because his work helped me alot to get through difficult times and he brought biology, a subject that I thought I could never even begin to understand, very close to me. I dont know him in person so I can only assume what he would say in this comic, based on the lectures or books i read. This comic, could be something just for humor but I will treat it seriously

 

33 minutes ago, Who me said:

Picture 1

 I never heard that quote from him, but aslong as he doesnt use force during his "fight against religion" im fine with that. Every idea needs to be scrutinied and it can even get vicious, aslong as it stays polite.

 

33 minutes ago, Who me said:

Picture 2

I dont really know what to say and I cant imagine an instance where he would support being zealots to atheism. I remember him saying, that his working methods are based on reason and evidence and not on faith. Thats why I would expect him to go against the idea of becomming a zealot to atheism.

 

33 minutes ago, Who me said:

Picture 3

Picture 3 Richard Dawkins is not a physicist so we cant expect accurate answers about the beginning of the universe. He is an expert in another field. If you have questions about the beginning of the universe please ask a physicist.

 

33 minutes ago, Who me said:

Picture 4 + 5

Its really hard for me to believe, that an evolutionary biologists like Dawkins, a highly estalbished scientist that works on finding the smallest details and changes in life, would not notice a creature that could barely fit in my living room, right next to him.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla

[Leyla]

On 5/9/2019 at 6:08 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Please tone down the name calling Margo, but if you must, then quote scripture:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. PSA 14:1

If thats true, then every human that doesnt believe in God is corrupt, does abominable deeds, and does no good. However, is that really true? How do you explain that countries, that are mostly atheistic are doing so much better? Why is the rape/crime rate in mostly atheistic countries like japan or sweden so much lower than in more religious countries like the USA, or Nigeria? Why is the biggest private charity organisation, the Bill and Melinda foundation, launched by atheists? Why are so many scientists, people that spend their whole lifes trying to progress the knowledge of mankind bad? We have lots of examples of atheists that are not corrupt, that dont do abominable deeds and that do lots of good things.

Judging people based on their faith, or in this case rejection of faith, is something that is very evil. If anyone judged all christians, the way that atheists are judged in PSA 14:1, then they would probably be banned from this website. If I made a poster on the streets, with the exact same verse, but replaced "fool" with "christian" and "no god" with "a god" then people would protest, insult me, probably tear the poster down when noones looking. Why are double standards tolerated?       

[EDIT: Why are  some of the smartest people on earth atheist? Can we really call people that dont think that there is a God fools? Why does faith decline, the more educated a society is?]

Edited May 12, 2019 by Leyla
edit, typos

[FEZZILLA]

I use Isaiah 60:1-10 as best physical evidence for God that the atheist can see.

[Robert.A]

On 1/28/2019 at 8:35 PM, Abdicate said:

What a copout!

Isaiah 1:18-19
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

The word science comes from the Latin meaning knowledge. It's not knowledge when scientists declare vain philosophies instead of actual knowledge. Theory is now the predominant science, yet the word of God is filled with scientific facts. Sinful men dismiss it as allegorical or metaphoric to their ignorant pearl. 

The scripture you quote as it quite clearly shows is not about having debates with other humans, it is about talking to God and by that talking if we believe and be willing and obedient he will makes us white as snow.

 

No arguments with the world to try and convince them

 

[Justin Adams]

To rather blithely answer the OP:

God don't need any proof of existence, or my ten cents worth. He is the I AM and the Creation reflects His Glory and Creative Genius.

If ya cant see that, then go have another glass of koolade...

[Robert.A]

perhaps if Chrisitans had signs and wonders like JEsus did we wouldnt need to argue with anyone.

[Nadjeschda]

On 6/30/2019 at 1:44 PM, Justin Adams said:

To rather blithely answer the OP:

God don't need any proof of existence, or my ten cents worth. He is the I AM and the Creation reflects His Glory and Creative Genius.

If ya cant see that, then go have another glass of koolade...

I think a true non-emotional proof such as atheist want them would already destroy the free will god wanted to give us - would you really disobey an almighty beeing that you for know for absolute sure is there? Would you ever know your own soul if making faults is made virtually impossible by such knowledge?

For me the emotional proof is the consistency between beeing able to love your enemy as Jesus commands it and beeing able to love your god: if you are not able to stretch your imagination enough to find the good in both of them (have "faith" in them), even though you do not know all about them and hence are not in a position to judge like Jesus already taught us, this is a sort of character flaw - and it is this kind of character flaw god is angry on when we don't believe, not a kind of vanity problem atheists assume when attacking god. You do not only devalue god as unbelievers but as well your fellow humans if you do not think that they have a holy soul but are some kind of evolutionary algorythm to solve problems of finding food and mating instead.

To emotionaly understand the importance of beeing able to believe in good I use the two knights analogy: Imagine your are an armed knight and you meet a second armed knight that you don't know and who speaks a foreign language. You start to talk exitedly and this situation can escalate any moment into a fight because you do not know each others intentions. Whoever misinterpretes the information first (has less faith) and lays the hand to his sword  is definitly the worse person!

But if you believe that evolution created souls than you already do not believe in the true good of a soul anymore. Evolution has no moral, and can ultimatively not create a true moral hence. IF as an atheist you think evolution through than you have to believe people have ultimatively no moral and if they agree on a common moral like the golden rule than only for the selfish reason of protecting themselves and forming larger fighting groups (packs) by creating law and moral rule as a form of social contract. This is intelectually the equivalent of "laying the hand to the sword" against humanity in itself.

[Justin Adams]

On 6/30/2019 at 7:49 PM, Robert.A said:

perhaps if Chrisitans had signs and wonders like JEsus did we wouldnt need to argue with anyone.

So few believe anymore. Personal merit has nothing to do with it but we are afraid to look stupid and therefore do not test our faith by acts of spiritual power. Since we have mostly got all the wrong doctrine and dogmas we are hamstrung by denominations and 'acceptable' actions. But I have seen and been a part of 'signs and wonders'. It is generally QUIET, POWERFUL and AWE INSPIRING. 

[Nadjeschda]

On 5/7/2019 at 1:54 AM, Leyla said:

Why is it designed? It seems to be more reasonable to assume that our eyes evolved to adapt to the enviroment

Evolution does not need a consciousness so it would develope an eye perhaps and some kind of biological processing unit to work on the visual input from said eye but not a consciousness that notices that it is in train of mentally working on said visual input. It is hence more reasonable that consciousness is here to marvel at the creation and the creation is here to be marveled at.