Godless_Musician-

It seems we share a common interest, but our beliefs on theology couldn’t be further from each other.

You have posted some very good questions and arguments which deserve to be discussed and answers; at the same time, I think some of your arguments are invalid and lack logical support.

Your initial answer to the question of whether God is fake or real is a very good one. However, there are a couple of flaws in what you said:

There is no evidence of his existence or reason (beyond pragmatism) to believe he exists.

There have been countless books and theses written to counter this argument; I will present evidence from archaeology and psychology for you:

Man has inherently displayed four characteristics throughout history:
1) belief in God/s
2) belief in an afterlife
3) the ability to speak – especially to God
4) prayer to gods

These traits are unique to man; no animal possesses these traits. Only man makes preparation for any afterlife. Only man shows any recognition of God. Only man possesses the faculty of true speech and language. While some birds have been taught to repeat words, they do not exhibit any understanding of what they say, or any ability to adapt their speech to a certain situation beyond repeated stimuli such as saying ‘cracker’ when seeing a cracker. They cannot communicate through speech to convey what they feel or want.

Although the majority of the world believes in a god or gods there are several clear motives for them to believe this whether it is true or not.

I would like to know what clear motives you believe theists, monotheists, polytheists, etc. have for believing in gods. I can come up with some: fear of gods through the control priests held and still hold over people in certain religions; promise of a reward in the afterlife, which is a part of most religions; and fear of nature, believing it to be a god itself.

While there are many other motives, these are three common ones.

Christians, however, or at least true Christians, have far different motives for believing what they do. Call it a farce or coincidence if you will, all true Christians have experienced something working in their lives from the time they believed that cannot be attributed to just dumb luck. As one myself, I know what it is like to have my life changed by Christianity. To go from a friendless, angry little sophomore to a kid who felt at peace in life with more friends than he could ever want was a life-changing experience. Even if God is fake and religion is an opiate, like a famous atheist once said, I’d rather be living like He’s real than to be still stuck in my miserable hole blaming the world for all my problems, instead of seeing that I am a sinner and most of the problems in my life are a result of my sin nature.

Christianity is fundamentally different from all other religions because its motivation for belief is selfless. All other religions have something to gain for self; Christians seek to glorify God, although this can be hard to believe when you see many who claim to be Christians living for themselves. As for your claim that dying for something doesn’t make it true, you’re right. But similarly, the first astronauts to land on the moon risked their lives doing something that the believed would work. For all they knew, the moon could have been made entirely of densely packed dust that could have given way beneath them. The fact that they risked their lives believing that man could walk on the moon did not make it true.

Depending on how you define "God" he may logically contradict the world we see around is. For example if you believe that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, then you run into the problem of evil.

This argument assumes that because God is all-powerful and all-loving, He could not by nature allow evil to exist. However, the Bible never describes God as all-loving. That is limited to His love for all mankind. He does not love the universe, though He maintains it in every aspect. He does not love Satan or his demons, obviously. As far as angels are concerned, I do not recall ever reading anywhere in the Bible that He loves them. They are the servants of man and God, doing God’s will in the spiritual realm.

As far as the question of why God allows bad things to happen, that is quite simple to answer. God does not want any man to perish (think Hell). However, He created us as beings of free will. He created us to love and worship Him, but without free will we could never truly do so. It would be as if I created a robot that told me all day long that it loved me. It could not do so in its own power; rather, I would have programmed it to do that.

It is the same way with God. He had to give mankind free will in order to love Him. Love is an action: it is a choice. We do not always like to be around our family, but we love them because we choose to. We choose to stick it out through the hard times even when we don’t particularly like each other, because of the love we have for those close to us. The same applies to our love for God. We have to choose to love Him. Adam and Eve chose sin over God in Eden, and therefore brought evil into His perfect creation.

That sin infected the entire universe, bringing about entropy, which is the underlying physical cause of death and decay. It affects all things, organic and inorganic, dead and alive. It also affected mankind spiritually. Every man that has ever lived, save Jesus Christ, has had a sin nature. This is what brings into our lives all sins we ever commit.

God, in His love for us, chose to have mercy on man and sent Jesus to die for the sins of all who would ever live. (But that’s a long discussion there!) Man has simply to accept or reject Christ to receive eternal life. Going back a little, God doesn’t want any man, woman or child to go to Hell. Therefore, He gives us ample opportunity to seek Him. Often, to compel us to do so, He will allow bad things to happen in our lives so that we may possibly begin to look for Him. Unfortunately, people often become bitter and angry toward God instead.

I’ll leave it here for now; it’s a pretty long post. Consider this one thing, though. If I’m wrong about God and Christianity, then I have nothing to lose. I’ll die and stop existing. No Heaven, no nothing. But if I'm right, and you have to concede the possibility that, according to evolution given enough time anything has a chance of coming to pass, then when I die I go to Heaven. Where does that leave you?

I don't see that belief is evidence that something is true. In fact, I find that the majority is usually wrong, except about obvious facts--and sometimes even those are denied. Also, religion's uniqueness to mankind is not evidence of a God--it's evidence only that we have this unique trait--some scientists even believe that disposition towards religion may be hardwired into our brains.

I would like to know what clear motives you believe theists, monotheists, polytheists, etc. have for believing in gods. I can come up with some: fear of gods through the control priests held and still hold over people in certain religions; promise of a reward in the afterlife, which is a part of most religions; and fear of nature, believing it to be a god itself.

While there are many other motives, these are three common ones.

You basically named the ones I was thinking. But I think the biggest reason is that religion is always taught young, and it is hard to shake off as an adult. Then those adults will teach their children and the cycle will continue. Because we are told over and over in our childhoods that religion is true and it is the only thing that will save us, we believe that and pass it on to our children. Religion has huge inertia.

Christianity is fundamentally different from all other religions because its motivation for belief is selfless. All other religions have something to gain for self; Christians seek to glorify God, although this can be hard to believe when you see many who claim to be Christians living for themselves.

Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, also claim that their motives are selfless. Christianity is NOT fundamentally different from other religions in any clear way that I can see. And Christians are not fundamentally different from other people, except in their beliefs.

This argument assumes that because God is all-powerful and all-loving, He could not by nature allow evil to exist. However, the Bible never describes God as all-loving. That is limited to His love for all mankind. He does not love the universe, though He maintains it in every aspect. He does not love Satan or his demons, obviously. As far as angels are concerned, I do not recall ever reading anywhere in the Bible that He loves them. They are the servants of man and God, doing God’s will in the spiritual realm.

As I said, it depends on your definition of God. Concepts of God vary so widely that that argument is not always applicable.

That sin infected the entire universe, bringing about entropy, which is the underlying physical cause of death and decay. It affects all things, organic and inorganic, dead and alive. It also affected mankind spiritually. Every man that has ever lived, save Jesus Christ, has had a sin nature. This is what brings into our lives all sins we ever commit.

If God gave us free will then why is it impossible for us not to sin? Has God revoked our ability to be good?

God, in His love for us, chose to have mercy on man and sent Jesus to die for the sins of all who would ever live. (But that’s a long discussion there!) Man has simply to accept or reject Christ to receive eternal life. Going back a little, God doesn’t want any man, woman or child to go to Hell. Therefore, He gives us ample opportunity to seek Him. Often, to compel us to do so, He will allow bad things to happen in our lives so that we may possibly begin to look for Him. Unfortunately, people often become bitter and angry toward God instead.

Then why didn't God leave evidence of himself, so that those who wanted to be near to Him didn't have to deny the rational mind He gave us?

I’ll leave it here for now; it’s a pretty long post. Consider this one thing, though. If I’m wrong about God and Christianity, then I have nothing to lose. I’ll die and stop existing. No Heaven, no nothing. But if I'm right, and you have to concede the possibility that, according to evolution given enough time anything has a chance of coming to pass, then when I die I go to Heaven. Where does that leave you?

[/QUOTE]

Pascal's Wager. You claimed that the motives for true Christian beliefs were selfless. Yet I should accept God so as not to be sent to Hell? Also, how do I know that He is the God of the bible? If he isn't, then I am in big trouble indeed. Isn't the safest bet, knowing His creation, to use the tools I was given--a rational mind and the capacity for doubt?

Godless_musician:

I don't see that belief is evidence that something is true.

Good point. However, a universal belief is evidence, similar to a scientific experiment in which the same result is reached consistently, leading to a theory.

In fact, I find that the majority is usually wrong, except about obvious facts.

Could you clarify what you mean?

Also, religion's uniqueness to mankind is not evidence of a God.

Ah, then the question becomes, why are our brains ‘hardwired’ in this manner? If it is by random chance, then why is it a universal tendency for man to pursue religion, rather than for it to be a sporadic tendency, similar to the predisposition that certain people have for music?

Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, also claim that their motives are selfless.

You have contradicted yourself. These people all believe that what they claim is true. However, you have said that belief is not evidence that something is true. In situations where subjectivity is involved, we must look at what someone really practices, rather than what they claim.

You are right when you say that Christians are only different from others in their beliefs. All people are sinners, and Christians are still sinners just like anyone else. All we believe that distinguishes us from Hindus, Muslims or other religious people is that we have accepted the offer of true salvation only available through Jesus Christ.

As I said, it depends on your definition of God. Concepts of God vary so widely that that argument is not always applicable.

God cannot simply be defined. He can be described by His nature, his actions, etc., but not tied down into a worded definition. The idea of God precludes limiting Him to human definition. It’s generally accepted that the idea of the Christian God is a being infinitely greater than mankind, limited in no way except by His nature, which limits Him from doing something that would make Him imperfect; think the classic example ‘Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?’

If God gave us free will then why is it impossible for us not to sin? Has God revoked our ability to be good?

God gave mankind free will in every aspect of life. If we choose not to sin, then that is our decision. However, it is not merely a case of thinking something and making it come true because we will it to do so. Sin is a constant temptation in our lives. Think about all the temptations that you encounter every day, in terms of what the law says is right and wrong. I’m assuming you’re in school, so better yet, think of temptation in terms of what your school says you can and cannot do. Every time you are faced with a choice to obey or break the rules, you are tempted to sin. It is not necessarily a satanic or demonic influence; our own sin nature desires sin. You have the free will to either combat that temptation or give in to it. If you are conscious of every choice you make every day and make a concerted effort to not sin, then theoretically you could go a whole day without sinning. But our sin nature is often more powerful, or our will weaker, and we tend to give in because it’s easier than saying no and turning away. God did not revoke out ability to be good, but we are not inherently good, having been corrupted by sin.

Then why didn't God leave evidence of himself, so that those who wanted to be near to Him didn't have to deny the rational mind He gave us?

I’m not sure what you meant here. Could you explain?

As for Pascal’s wager - All who accept Christ at first have personal motivation for doing so. Many do it out of fear, believing that what the Bible says is true and not wanting to go to hell. In fact, I’d say this is the underlying reason every person comes to salvation. The word itself implies the motivation – salvation from sin and eternal death in hell. However, as a true Christian begins to mature, his motivations for believing and living out the faith become selfless. This is not to say that many can and do become selfish in their motivations; Christianity has often been exploited for its popularity for monetary gain and social acceptance throughout history.

As for the God of the Bible, would that not be the one you’d be accepting? Most people come to an understanding of this God through His word.

I'm fully onboard with SoundsLikeMusic here. About the argument of religon being ingrained from a young age. Consider the work of award-winning journalist Lee Strobel. Mr. Strobel had not been to church much at a young age, and resented it. In fact, he decided to wrote a book on why exactly the bible was untrue. In the days and months of digging afterwords, he found that there was indeed much proof leading to validate Jesus Christ. I'll spare the details, the evidence he gives takes 115 pages in my shortend student edition. Consider this: a man who lives to fullfill no less than 13 almost completely contradictory philosophiles written hundreds of years before his birth. The chances of anyone fullfilling just 8 of several dozen of theese prophecies are one in a hundred million billion. The study doing this involved a highly accredited proffessor and 600 students. By the way, thats:

You assume that all that has been recorded is true. I would not be so quick to base an entire argument on what appears to be shaky foundations.

An almost completely fictional story can fulfill any number of prophecies.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are accounts of Jesus in Roman records and by (Roman) historians. Unless you think Rome is just a fairy tale?

I am saying that one cannot base an entire argument on sources that are not only old, but also charged with political, social and cultural biases. You have no idea how many times the church has edited these sources, what people have done to them. I very much doubt that you fully understand the implications of what you argue.
And while the probability of there being a man who can do all these things is improbable, it is not impossible. Perhaps we just beat the odds.

So the church completely modified the very rules of mathematics, while at the same time manipulating the Jewish Torah to fit Christian needs? You're suggesting one or the other. Sorry, but neither is entirely logical. Or logical at all. I've provided you with a simple figure of mathmatics. Its neither hard nor capable of being manipulated. And neither of you have been able to explain why a multi-award winning and highly credited journalist would be able to find an entire books worth of proof to the point. They also broke into several thousand years of Roman records and modified them all to be exactly alike, while at the same time haveing no real communication whatsoever?

Ancient texts must always be put under scrutiny when information is extracted, religious texts most of all. It does not matter how benevolent the church has been, at one point or another it was a means by which to gain power over the people. Changes to the texts to benefit the one in power have been implemented, but no one knows to what extent.

I'm not talking about religous texts here. I'm refering to texts from the Roman empire. Would you like some evidence of how some material from the bible, once thought to be historically inaccurate by many, have been proven by various works by the Roman goverment?

While I concede that the texts of the Roman Empire may provide more proof, it is very much the case of people to make some assumptions regarding what they want to prove.

There is no evidence that energy and matter formed from nothing to trigger the big bang either. What about free will? With free will comes evil, no? If God messes with free will, it's not longer free will, no? So energy and matter can just "boom" into existence, but not God? Also, assuming God is/came from another dimension, whos to say he cannot just "boom" into existence? Where does it say God is omnipotent? You're assuming this. Needless to say, if God created free will, it would be contradicting itself if he made you do something for the greater good.

1. You're right, it wasn't triggered "from nothing."
2. Even if I agreed with you, the argument stands. There is no evidence for God.

What about free will? With free will comes evil, no? If God messes with free will, it's not longer free will, no?

So there's a rule even God must follow: we cannot be both free and sinless.

So energy and matter can just "boom" into existence, but not God? Also, assuming God is/came from another dimension, whos to say he cannot just "boom" into existence?

Oh, I stand corrected. I forgot that anything is possible if you come from another dimension.

Where does it say God is omnipotent? You're assuming this. Needless to say, if God created free will, it would be contradicting itself if he made you do something for the greater good.

I said it depended on your conception of God. And see above about free will.

I'm going to get out of this debate. Frankly, I care less and less the more I talk about it, and the fallacies seem so obvious I barely care to counter them.

Then why are you atheist if there is no evidence that energy/matter formed from nothing? What's your point? If we have the option of free will, you cannot mess with it or it's not free will. I would like to add, that debating good/evil has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You're merely trying to contradict current events with the storys that follow the Abrahamic God. Whether or not there is good or evil in this world, is totally irrelevant to the topic of whether or not a God/god exists.

I see more and more of this. Instead of debating the core topics, every skeptic seems to take a sideway in and act as though it's relevant to the topic at hand.

Quantum Mechanics has describes scenarios wherein in a complete vaccume, the innate uncertainty of the situation, uncertainty that forms the basis for Quantum Mechanics, results in the sponteneous creation of matter and energy. While scientists do not completely understand how this phenomenon affects the rest of the universe this is a valid example of "booming things into existance". No God required.

I'm aware of this. I was simply pointing out that a God/god has just as much chance forming from nothing, as matter/energy does. You see, many people constantly ask the question "who formed God" or "how was God formed" so they accept the theory that everything was formed by pure chance. I was wondering why matter and energy can form from nothing, and a God cannot.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. There's not evidence, so I don't believe it. Matter and energy have nothing to do with it.

I would like to add, that debating good/evil has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You're merely trying to contradict current events with the storys that follow the Abrahamic God. Whether or not there is good or evil in this world, is totally irrelevant to the topic of whether or not a God/god exists.

I agree. That's why I said it depends on your conception of God.

I see more and more of this. Instead of debating the core topics, every skeptic seems to take a sideway in and act as though it's relevant to the topic at hand.

That's not only wrong but hypocritical.

Here is my belief. You can agree or disagree.

When we were little our parents told us that Santa Claus was real and that if we acted like young good children then we would wake up to presents. And if we didn't act so swell we got nothing. When we were little our parents told us the Easter Bunny was real. And the same rule applied. But Easter involves eggs. When we were little our parents told us the Tooth Fairy was real. Mainly because us young children are scared of losing something important like our teeth. So telling us that some flying fairy comes to your house and trades money for your teeth will make it a lot easier right. Our parents told us this because it made their jobs easier.

I'm making a point here. How do we know that our parents told us God was real only to make problaby everyone else's life easier? A good example of why I don't believe in him. Another good reason is because in the bible God says that one must not cut their hair or it was sin. So I guess everyone is going to hell. Another exampe is how God said that he loves everyone equal with fair treatment on Judgement Day. If this is so true why do people claim God hates gays? Mainly because it says in the bible that one should only marry the opposite kind. If God was real he would want us to be happy. Not give us a bunch of rules to follow by and if you didn't you were going to hell.

Now I'm going to use one of my favorite people in history, Hitler. People said that Hitler brainwashed a lot of people making them follow him. Which was clearly wrong because those people were for Hitler the whole way through the huge situation. But if one person can apparently brainwash millions of people do you possibibly think that maybe a few people brainwashed some humans and the thrend went on? I think so. How can people believe something that isn't there. And don't bring up that well you can't see air but you breathe it statement because it won't work. God's father was so against murder that he allowed his only son to be killed for us. Right. Come on people.

While is it true you lack belief in God, you do believe everything happend by chance, with requires faith. I can turn your statment right back around. Theism is just lack of belief in a "pure chance creation." Hyprocritical? Need I remind you that in your first post you said God was fake because

For example if you believe that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, then you run into the problem of evil.

So in brief:
1. No evidence
2. Wishful thinking
3. Contradictions

You basically just implied that an all loving and an all powerful God wouldn't create evil. In other words, you implied that (assuming they truly do) if these two contradict themselves, this means God doesn't exist.