Evidence for God from Science

You said: Living in and of itself doesn't have any merit.
I say: I think it's just wrong to think like that, how about being happy for yourself? It's selfish so what! Just be happy and try not to make people unhappy by doing it.

That's a nice emotional point. I thought you atheists prided yourself on being rational? I want a RATIONAL argument. Not an emotional one (hint: happiness is an emotion)

Specifically, YOU THINK it's wrong to think like that. Who or what makes you any authority? What if someone does think like that? What right do you have to tell them that they are wrong? Who made you God? On what basis do you say it is wrong?

You said: What makes human life so special?.
I say: Nothing! Life is not that special, we make it special because of the things we do. It doesn't matter to the universe whether you live or die.

Why is what you do special? What makes your good deeds any different from bad deeds, or vice versa?

You said: You tell me why we should fall in love or smile if there is no purpose. Can you show me a difference in spending your life happy or sad if in the end, it all comes to naught? You may say it bothers you about God, but you must admit that if God exists and eternity is real, then what we do here DOES matter and it DOES have purpose.
I say: Just fall in love because it makes you happy and sometimes sad. The difference between spending your life happy or sad only matters to us, nothing more, if you don't care about the difference it's your problem. Again you keep saying that GOD makes everything matter, I don't see how.

There's that happiness again.

What if it makes me happy to murder? Should I do that? What if it makes me happy to torture? Should I do that? What if it makes me happy to be a greedy CEO that makes millions of dollars by starving helpless children through my greed? Should I do that? Apparently, sense the entire purpose of life is to just be happy, right?

Why is life meaningless if GOD doesn't exist? we give meaning to life not GOD.

I like this logic. You have taught me something. I am going to go to the bank tomorrow with this penny I have next to me and demand a million dollars in exchange for it. Clearly, if we are the ones who give our own meaning to things, then I declare my penny worth one million dollars!

You said: What reason could you possibly have for not hurting people? The simplest reason, It doesn't make me happy, I don't gain anything from hurting people.

People gain from practicing slavery. Should they do that, since owning slaves directly contributes to their happiness? After all, life is meaningless. WE give it meaning. I can simply declare that black peoples' lives are meaningless, and that it makes me happy to make money, and therefore, I will own meaningless slaves to gain the money I need to make myself happy! Tell me, what's wrong with that picture?

You said: And why be good at all? When you are gone, that feeling of satisfaction will mean absolutely nothing. All of your good deeds will be of no more or less value than Stalin's Gulag or the Inquisitor's racks. So why strive for that which is meaningless?
I say: Who cares when I'm gone; it will mean something now that I'm alive! It will mean something to me, What do I care what it means when I'm not

Like I said, I'm taking this logic to the bank. I think it is absolutely fascinating that we define meaning for ourselves.

You said: I have a reason, and it is based is something other than myself. It is a non-selfish reason. Can you give me a reason--a RATIONAL argument--as to why you should be "good" that isn't the merely self-centered idea of "Because I want to"?.
I say: Why be good? I could tell you a lot of thing that I know you would not consider since I've been reading all the other posts that relate to the same subject and I've read a lot of your answers. But by the sound of things you are telling me that you are good because you don't want to go to hell and your GOD says it, that's doesn't fly with me. I know this seems like I'm running from the argument but I've seen where that argument leads and I don't wanna go there because enough people have done it. You think only good is possible if GOD exist, I think it exist whether or not GOD does. And I don't think anything I or you say is gonna change that.

You clearly haven't read my other posts, because if you did, you would know that I don't do good to avoid Hell. In fact, I've said just the opposite IN THIS THREAD. Let me quote what I HAVE ALREADY SAID:

• What makes you think doing any of those things and choosing God are unrelated? Further, are you under the impression that everyone in "heaven" (or Hell, for that matter), will get the same treatment?
  
  Once you have chosen God, you then have this verse to consider:
  
  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. ~ 2 Cor. 5:10

Hmmm . . . seems I have very different motives for why I should be good. How about this: I want to please God, just like I wanted to please my parents when I was a child--in fact, like I STILL want to please them. Just like I enjoy pleasing my wife, just like I love making my daughter laugh. How's THAT for a reason to do good?

So let's boil this down: you think we ought to be good because it makes us happy. Fine. What happens when our happiness leads us to do evil (slavery, rape, murder, stealing, etc.)? Should we do THOSE things? Why not?

This is why I have no respect for atheists. You're a coward. At least be man (or woman, whatever) enough to admit the logical conclusion of your position. If you are right and God does not exist, there is NO basis for meaning, value, right, or wrong. It's all completely subjective and you have NO basis on which to judge the most evil of men. Yet you have done that in this very thread. You think it is "wrong" to hold that life is meaningless without God.

Your position, logically, justifies every evil under the sun. You claim to be rational, and all the while, you choose to ignore the logical consequences of your own position, appealing instead to an emotion. Atheism rational? Hardly. It's an emotional response. It's the response of a fifteen year old girl with the hots for an older boy. If you had any intellectual respect, you'd acknowledge the black, meaningless, void that is your position. You would embrace the existential nihilism that logically entails your views. Yet you are terrified of that, and justifiably so, so you PRETEND--you lie to yourself.

And you expect me to respect that? Please. If you are willing to have a rational conversation, feel free to continue. But if you insist on asserting that reality is some way because you WANT it to be, then let's not waste our time.

That was quite an answer, I take my hat off and step aside because I don't think that my ideas are coming out the way I'm thinking them. Thanks for all the ideas you've put out, they are not gonna change the fact that I don't care about GOD, but I wasn't here to be converted or whatever I just wanted to see what you people think.

Thanks for the conversation, I'm gonna continue reading this website, and if have any other questions I hope you guys will answer them
PS: Sorry for wasting your time, but I didn't force you to answer me

ManuelF wrote: Thanks for all the ideas you've put out, they are not gonna change the fact that I don't care about GOD, but I wasn't here to be converted or whatever I just wanted to see what you people think.

If you don't care about God then you don't care about love...

Gman wrote:

ManuelF wrote: Thanks for all the ideas you've put out, they are not gonna change the fact that I don't care about GOD, but I wasn't here to be converted or whatever I just wanted to see what you people think.

If you don't care about God then you don't care about love...

What, Like God is Love?

DannyM wrote: What, Like God is Love?

Nahhh... 1 John 4:8

Well since i'm kind of drunk i'm gonna ask this, what would happen to your believes if it turns out that the bible is a fake? I'm not saying that it is just tell me honestly what would happen if it were? BYE!!!!

ManuelF wrote:“The purpose of the universe is to provide a temporary habitation for human beings to choose to love or reject God”
I read this line on your website and was really disturbed, if I'm not misinterpreting this means that the whole universe, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!! Is just a waiting room?

Can you provide the link to where you're pulling this please? I would like to repond better and have some context to it.

In terms of the size and scope of the universe relative to the significance of humanity I have a few thoughts:

1. If you accept the omnipotence of God (which would be an assumed in the context of the quote you're offering) then what point of reference do you have to assert that the size and scope of the universe relative to the mankind is too much or excessive? Too much or excessive relative to what? In the absence of limitations on energy or material, there's no argument in appealing to perceived efficiency. Further, we would lack perspective to make that claim.

2. It's not a given, that we're the only created beings in the universe. There's nothing in general revelation (the universe itself) or revealed scripture that excludes there being other created beings on other worlds. CS Lewis speculates on this quite often and it's a theme in both his Narnia Chronicles and his lesser known (but quite good in my opinion) Space Trilogy.

3. It's quite likely that the context of the quote you have is not offered in a strict scientific sense as you appear to be taking it. One can speak metaphorically from the perspective of mankind as to purpose of God for humanity and exagerate or push the envelope so to speak, of the scope of God's purpose. Jesus quite often in his teaching used hyperbole to startle his listeners and make a point. I'd have to see the quote and put some context around it to better assess if that's the case in the quote you cite here. It's quite possible however that it's not attempting to make an absolute statement about the universe relative to mankind, but rather mankind relative to the love and purpose of God.

ManuelF wrote:Well since i'm kind of drunk i'm gonna ask this, what would happen to your believes if it turns out that the bible is a fake? I'm not saying that it is just tell me honestly what would happen if it were? BYE!!!!

Then I would have still lived a life of hope and love and liberty...

Either way I win...

You're a coward.

Is this a new method in apologetics that I'm unfamiliar with?

Please address issues and avoid personal attacks of this nature.

thanks,

bart

ManuelF wrote:

Byblos wrote:

ManuelF wrote:I'm not cancelling the existence of GOD I just don't find it necessary, from what I've been reading you people make it sound like if you don's believe in GOD there's no way you're gonna be happy and have a full life, you say literally that GOD is the only reason to be alive and that is really scary for me

Well, if God is in fact our creator, then He would be the reason we are alive, wouldn't he? What reason do you have to be alive? Who or what is your primary cause?

This may sound a little poetic but the reason for me to be alive is just to live, to experience life, to make mistakes and go to the beach, raise a family and have a puppy, I don't need an eternal life after dead because then what would have been the point of my real life? Why appreciate every minute of every day when at the end of the line I'm going to have forever to do anything, for me that fact that after death comes life forever just steals the meaning of the life we have now.

Sorry if sometimes I don't make alot of sense but english is not my language

All of these things give us pleasure....according to evolutionary model we choose them simply because our brains send out a deluge of the neurotransmitter dopamine that rewards us. This is turn meant for some of us a higher survival.

However, taken in that view, the womanizer, cheater, liar, greedy person derives just as must pleasure from the sex, money, fame, etc....and if he or she is successful at it (avoiding disease, jail)...then they will certainly live a long life.

Or even the murderer or rapist....they derive pleasure from their activites.....*you* may think that despicable, but if all of out actions are the result of mere pleasure that then result in survival, then you have to admit, their lifestyle is just as moral and just as fun and equal to yours...they appreciate their life, their family....

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You're a coward.

Is this a new method in apologetics that I'm unfamiliar with?

Please address issues and avoid personal attacks of this nature.

thanks,

bart

I would say rather they are blind, which is exactly what we would expect, right? Pray for discernment....but don't attack

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You're a coward.

Is this a new method in apologetics that I'm unfamiliar with?

Please address issues and avoid personal attacks of this nature.

thanks,

bart

In context, it's not a personal attack. It's a conclusion. Let me quote myself:

I wrote:So let's boil this down: you think we ought to be good because it makes us happy. Fine. What happens when our happiness leads us to do evil (slavery, rape, murder, stealing, etc.)? Should we do THOSE things? Why not?

This is why I have no respect for atheists. You're a coward. At least be man (or woman, whatever) enough to admit the logical conclusion of your position. If you are right and God does not exist, there is NO basis for meaning, value, right, or wrong. It's all completely subjective and you have NO basis on which to judge the most evil of men. Yet you have done that in this very thread. You think it is "wrong" to hold that life is meaningless without God.

Tell me, Bart, is it not cowardice to refuse to admit the logical requirements of your position? I have full respect, even as I strongly disagree, with those atheists who are man enough to face squarely the full ramifications of their worldview.

Is it any less of a "personal attack" to say that those who don't are merely "dishonest"? They are. Should we reduce that to "intellectually dishonest"? They are that, too. Are we to embrace the long, asphyxiated language of the politically correct? It would be one thing if my first post out of the barrel was to comment on his cowardice, but it wasn't. That conclusion came after a series of replies back and forth in which he refused to face the logically necessary conclusion of his position, and against that, insisted--on mere emotions mind you--that it just couldn't be that way.

I fully believe we should avoid personal attacks. Calling someone on the cowardice is no more of a personal attack than telling Richard Dawkins that he is arrogant, or telling a polite non-believer that they are in danger of Hell (politely, of course). A personal attack is when you put down the person in place of argument, i.e., "You are a coward, and therefore, I don't have to listen to what you say." I said nothing of the sort. I made a logically valid argument that is essential to my position:

Atheism must embrace its nihilistic conclusions; anything less is dishonest and cowardice. Perhaps atheism is true. If so, let's be mature enough to admit the reality that flows from it, just as the Christian should be mature enough to admit to the fact that there will be people in Hell for eternity. To say any less is likewise cowardice.

That's nice Jac. Direct it to the concepts and ideas and not the person.

Refer to the discussion guidelines if you need to be reminded. We don't appreciate it when others direct statements toward Christians on this board. We would appreciate you doing the same with those you disagree with.

Thanks,

bart

pm

Jac3510 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You're a coward.

Is this a new method in apologetics that I'm unfamiliar with?

Please address issues and avoid personal attacks of this nature.

thanks,

bart

In context, it's not a personal attack. It's a conclusion.

Tell me, Bart, is it not cowardice to refuse to admit the logical requirements of your position? I have full respect, even as I strongly disagree, with those atheists who are man enough to face squarely the full ramifications of their worldview.

Is it any less of a "personal attack" to say that those who don't are merely "dishonest"? They are. Should we reduce that to "intellectually dishonest"? They are that, too. Are we to embrace the long, asphyxiated language of the politically correct? It would be one thing if my first post out of the barrel was to comment on his cowardice, but it wasn't. That conclusion came after a series of replies back and forth in which he refused to face the logically necessary conclusion of his position, and against that, insisted--on mere emotions mind you--that it just couldn't be that way.

I fully believe we should avoid personal attacks. Calling someone on the cowardice is no more of a personal attack than telling Richard Dawkins that he is arrogant, or telling a polite non-believer that they are in danger of Hell (politely, of course). A personal attack is when you put down the person in place of argument, i.e., "You are a coward, and therefore, I don't have to listen to what you say." I said nothing of the sort.

If I were at a debate and one of the debaters called the other one a coward, I would be offended. I would have a hard time taking that person's arguments seriously since they felt the need to use such tactics. I would find it pretty unbelievable that a Biola professor would say something like that in a debate.