Proof of God

[Fiosh]

AK,

While I appreciate the import of your post, it won't fly with an atheist. An atheist will respond that societal rules are established for the survival of the species and the individual, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything supernatural.

I would venture to guess their definition of love is different from yours and lacks the "sacrificial" component.

Not arguing with what you've said. Just trying to see it from the other side. ( I prefer not to use the term "devil's advocate" )

I would love to have a solid response to the atheistic charge that "you cannot prove God exists".

Peace,

Fiosh

I know they would disagree....if they agreed they would be a Christian

What I'm saying though is that they are having to take a leap of faith, not Christians. Even if they take the "societal rules" standpoint, it doesn't explain why humans were the only ones to develop such rules. Why is it that other smaller, weaker species were able to get along fine without sociatal rules, but man could not? Especially with things like murder and rape....two things that would actually benefit society have almost always been banned.

Inevitably, an athiest must make a leap of faith to explain the human experience.

Just because there is proof does not mean people will accept that proof. Cain, for example, had a verbal discourse with God, yet this did not change the way he acted. Just because people don't accept it as proof does not mean it isn't proof.

AK,

If I could just argue from the other side again....

Societal rules come about by those in power. If those in power are Christians, "I" am forced to live by the rules imposed by them. Case in point: polygamy was a way of life in numerous societies throughout history.

As for animals. that is nothing more than evolution and survival of the fittest. Animals do not have the ability to logically conclude which behaviors are in their best interest, as humans do. Although they do have certain herd and pack behaviors that serve to promote the survival of the species.

"I" reject murder, because I am programmed to protect my progeny; it's built into my genetics.

********************************

Only throwing that out there because it's what I've come up against when witnessing to atheists.

Peace,

Fiosh

[apothanein kerdos]

Fiosh, thank you for presenting the other side.

Societal rules come about by those in power. If those in power are Christians, "I" am forced to live by the rules imposed by them. Case in point: polygamy was a way of life in numerous societies throughout history.

Great, then where did Christians come from? Where did power come from? WHy did the original powers decide to stop what was beneficial? How did the original powers come to the conclusion that laws needed to be made? What transformed an animal into man that made man say, "Wow...we need order?"

Granted, these societies had flaws because, at some point, they rebeled against God. At the same time, they still had moral constructs that cannot be explained.

As for animals. that is nothing more than evolution and survival of the fittest. Animals do not have the ability to logically conclude which behaviors are in their best interest, as humans do. Although they do have certain herd and pack behaviors that serve to promote the survival of the species.

Great, why are humans the only ones that evolved the ability to determine what is in our best interest? Why didn't animals? That's the point....why didn't these other animals do the same thing?

"I" reject murder, because I am programmed to protect my progeny; it's built into my genetics.

At what point was it programmed into our genetics? Why was it programmed into our genetics?

[Guest man]

You still don't get it.

Believers don't need proof. They already know.

What is your proof to those who don't believe?

[Fiosh]

How does murder and rape benefit society?

Let's say that I apply for a job. Another man with greater qualifications applies for the same job. If I don't get the job, I lose money and my family starves. Thus, I kill the man, my sole competition. This is a benefit to me.

If I stay with one woman, then my chances of reprodusing are greatly reduced. If I rape multiple women, my chances increase greatly. If all this (the human experience) was meant on survival, rape would be more beneficial than marriage, or even polygammy.

This is why an athiest cannot explain why rape is bad or murder is bad. They have removed God from the equation. They will always have a response, but it will never be one that constitutes a logical reply. It will always be a leap of faith.

An atheist will not accept absolute moral rules. They may argue that sometimes murder is ok; and there are cases where rape is acceptable.

[apothanein kerdos]

You still don't get it.

Believers don't need proof. They already know.

What is your proof to those who don't believe?

No, you don't get it. It's quite obvious I think to everyone reading this thread.

The proof is, THEY CANNOT JUSTIFY THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TAKEN GOD OUT OF THE EQUATION...THEY ARE TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH (added that way not for shouting, but for emphasis)

It really is that simple man....it's not hard to get what I'm saying. Fiosh understand where I'm comming from, so did Mike2. So stop hitting on the same point so we can get some real discussion in here.

[apothanein kerdos]

How does murder and rape benefit society?

Let's say that I apply for a job. Another man with greater qualifications applies for the same job. If I don't get the job, I lose money and my family starves. Thus, I kill the man, my sole competition. This is a benefit to me.

If I stay with one woman, then my chances of reprodusing are greatly reduced. If I rape multiple women, my chances increase greatly. If all this (the human experience) was meant on survival, rape would be more beneficial than marriage, or even polygammy.

This is why an athiest cannot explain why rape is bad or murder is bad. They have removed God from the equation. They will always have a response, but it will never be one that constitutes a logical reply. It will always be a leap of faith.

An atheist will not accept absolute moral rules. They may argue that sometimes murder is ok; and there are cases where rape is acceptable.

Great, I hope they do.

Then you point to the experience. If they were raped, or their mother, or wife, or daughter, etc....would they press charges?

I had a good friend that tried to argue violence and murder was okay because it was beneficial. I then proceeded to hit him in the arm as hard as I could...his instant reaction was to pull back and yell at me, asking why in the world I would do such a thing......he then got quiet realizing that he had denied his own position.

The point is, they may say there are no moral absolutes, but look at the way they live their lives. Their lives are highly inconsistent with their beliefs. I would bet $1,000 that if they were raped, or they witnessed their mother murdered....they would press charges and thus rely on a moral absolute.

[Fiosh]

Fiosh, thank you for presenting the other side.

Societal rules come about by those in power. If those in power are Christians, "I" am forced to live by the rules imposed by them. Case in point: polygamy was a way of life in numerous societies throughout history.

Great, then where did Christians come from? Where did power come from? WHy did the original powers decide to stop what was beneficial? How did the original powers come to the conclusion that laws needed to be made? What transformed an animal into man that made man say, "Wow...we need order?"

Granted, these societies had flaws because, at some point, they rebeled against God. At the same time, they still had moral constructs that cannot be explained.

As for animals. that is nothing more than evolution and survival of the fittest. Animals do not have the ability to logically conclude which behaviors are in their best interest, as humans do. Although they do have certain herd and pack behaviors that serve to promote the survival of the species.

Great, why are humans the only ones that evolved the ability to determine what is in our best interest? Why didn't animals? That's the point....why didn't these other animals do the same thing?

"I" reject murder, because I am programmed to protect my progeny; it's built into my genetics.

At what point was it programmed into our genetics? Why was it programmed into our genetics?

AK,

Let me first say that playing this side is distasteful to me. I'm only doing it to learn and prepare for my next encounter. I'm picking your brain, so to speak.

Christians are those who are weak. They are unable to compete with those who are superior in reason and logic. They depend upon illusions and mythical constructs to control others who are just as weak. In this way they gain power against those who would otherwise have control over them.

Man evolved from an animal that operated on pure instinct to one who could reason. However, even now, most behavior is genetically programmed and based on survival.

[Fiosh]

How does murder and rape benefit society?

Let's say that I apply for a job. Another man with greater qualifications applies for the same job. If I don't get the job, I lose money and my family starves. Thus, I kill the man, my sole competition. This is a benefit to me.

If I stay with one woman, then my chances of reprodusing are greatly reduced. If I rape multiple women, my chances increase greatly. If all this (the human experience) was meant on survival, rape would be more beneficial than marriage, or even polygammy.

This is why an athiest cannot explain why rape is bad or murder is bad. They have removed God from the equation. They will always have a response, but it will never be one that constitutes a logical reply. It will always be a leap of faith.

An atheist will not accept absolute moral rules. They may argue that sometimes murder is ok; and there are cases where rape is acceptable.

Great, I hope they do.

Then you point to the experience. If they were raped, or their mother, or wife, or daughter, etc....would they press charges?

I had a good friend that tried to argue violence and murder was okay because it was beneficial. I then proceeded to hit him in the arm as hard as I could...his instant reaction was to pull back and yell at me, asking why in the world I would do such a thing......he then got quiet realizing that he had denied his own position.

The point is, they may say there are no moral absolutes, but look at the way they live their lives. Their lives are highly inconsistent with their beliefs. I would bet $1,000 that if they were raped, or they witnessed their mother murdered....they would press charges and thus rely on a moral absolute.

What is "normal" varies from society to society thru history. Rape is only seen as negative because that is what we've been conditioned to believe by our culture. If I lived in a culture where rape is acceptable I would not have the same reaction if it happened to my family member.

Jsut as in ancient Greece, young boys were willingly given by their parents to be "used" by senators. It's simply a result of cultural conditioning.

(yeah, ick!, I know...but this was the response I got)

[Guest man]

Show me your physical proof.

To an unbeliever God does not exist so He can't be be taken out of the equation. You can't take something out that isn't there.

And why must the human experience be explained? Just because we have laws for this or that doesn't explain the existance of God.

Fiosh and Mike2 know where you're coming from...so do I. But what you're giving us is not proof.

[apothanein kerdos]

Fiosh, thank you for presenting the other side.

Societal rules come about by those in power. If those in power are Christians, "I" am forced to live by the rules imposed by them. Case in point: polygamy was a way of life in numerous societies throughout history.

Great, then where did Christians come from? Where did power come from? WHy did the original powers decide to stop what was beneficial? How did the original powers come to the conclusion that laws needed to be made? What transformed an animal into man that made man say, "Wow...we need order?"

Granted, these societies had flaws because, at some point, they rebeled against God. At the same time, they still had moral constructs that cannot be explained.

As for animals. that is nothing more than evolution and survival of the fittest. Animals do not have the ability to logically conclude which behaviors are in their best interest, as humans do. Although they do have certain herd and pack behaviors that serve to promote the survival of the species.

Great, why are humans the only ones that evolved the ability to determine what is in our best interest? Why didn't animals? That's the point....why didn't these other animals do the same thing?

"I" reject murder, because I am programmed to protect my progeny; it's built into my genetics.

At what point was it programmed into our genetics? Why was it programmed into our genetics?

AK,

Let me first say that playing this side is distasteful to me. I'm only doing it to learn and prepare for my next encounter. I'm picking your brain, so to speak.

Christians are those who are weak. They are unable to compete with those who are superior in reason and logic. They depend upon illusions and mythical constructs to control others who are just as weak. In this way they gain power against those who would otherwise have control over them.

Man evolved from an animal that operated on pure instinct to one who could reason. However, even now, most behavior is genetically programmed and based on survival.

No problem. Having to argue from the other side is quite hard to do. But it also gives you an understanding into the way they think

You presented two common, but weak, arguments. To the first one:

This is weak in that it assumes Christianity is something that it is not. The way it defeats Christianity is by saying, "Well it has no reason or logic." How do you prove that? "Because it relies on God." What is your logic behind this? "God is nothing more than a fairy tale, it's been proven." In the entire discourse, there is no logical analysis made by the other side. There is no justification presented.

More importantly, it defeats itself. It says Christians lacked reason and logic, therefore they created illusions and myths in order to gain power over those that are logical and reasonable. If that is the case...then Christians used logic and reason and those that lost power did not....thus defeating and proving the presupposition false.

To the second one:

Man evolved into an animal that could reason...where is the proof of this and more importantly why are we the only ones that have? At what point did our genes program themselves? Furthermore, do we necessarily have to stay this way? In addition, if it is purely genetic, then why do some men still kill? Is that genes too? Do we hold mutually exclusive genes that contradict each other? If it is purely genetic (murder), why do we punish people for it? That is, after all, who they are. If murder is not genetic, then how did this gene slip the person who committed murder? What if they feel remorse and guilt later on...does this mean they acquired the gene?

I could go on.

I'm also going to encourage you to read "The God Who is There" by Francis Schaeffer (read all of his works, but specifically that one to begin with). Then Escape from Reason. THen He is there and He is not Silent. All three deal with breaking down the modern secular viewpoints and addressing them and how they simply do not work. Great read.......VERY difficult read, but a great one.