Evidence For The Existence of God

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 196
#121
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
But what definition of 'God' suits both these:

"Mars was the roman god of war."

"God so loved the world he gave.... etc"

I don't think there is a single, simple definition of god/God - although if it restricted to capital-G od then its a lot easier, but then you might want to distinguish between the OT and NT versions.


But as a rule 'atheists' disbelief in gods is only part of a wider rejection of 'woo' including ghost and ESP so atheist tend to lump all god-like things together because none of them are real.


Topic's author
#122
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Posts 95. 98 and 105. Is there some reason you can't understand my answers? Is there some reason why you keep harping about this?

Oh yes, Its what you do.
#123
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You are wrong, and you know it.
In post 95 here is all you said,

"That's because there are a multiplicity of gods with a wide variety of definitions, not just one."
I answered. "You are being asked for your definition. Surely you mean something when you say God. Do you know what that is?
I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not.

You did not answer in post 95. You dodged.

In post 98, here is all you said,

I'm sure you could come up with hundreds of sources with definitions for hundreds of different gods, just like me or anyone else.
I answered, "Sure. But I am asking what you mean when you say "God". It is clear now that when you say "God", you haven't a clue what you mean. 

if you actually believe that you have "THE" definition of God, then that would indeed be intellectually dishonest.
I answered, "What I believe is immaterial. YOU used the word. Now here you are dodging a question asking, "what do YOU mean when YOU use the word. You haven't  clue.

You did not answer in post 98. You dodged.

In post 105, here is all you said,

I'll repeat this yet again because it seems you have yet to comprehend it. 
Repeat what? You have never answered. Not in post 95, not in post 98, and not in post 105.

There are hundreds of entities that have been referred to as "God" throughout history.
You aren't being asked what other people refer to as God. We are asking what mean. And it is obvious, you have no meaning. 

If the person were a Christian, I would assume he referred to Christ as God, a Muslim to Allah, a Norwegian to Thor. 
No one has asked you who "the person" was referring to, but who YOU are referring to. You don't know, yet you keep using a word which for you, has no meaning. Lol.

...the term God has been referred to in a number of ways. 
You have not been asked the number of ways God has been referred to. I'm asking you what YOU mean. 

You did not answer in post 105. You dodged.

You dodged because you can't answer. You can't answer because for you, the word "God" means nothing. You are vacuous Goldy. Basically empty.

You can stop now, you dodging has gotten embarrassing.
Topic's author
#124
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You can stop now, you dodging has gotten embarrassing.
It's funny, this is exactly what you did with everyone on ddo. No matter how many times someone answered a question, you would say they were dodging the question, Hilarious.

No one can really say the reason why, perhaps poor reading comprehension skills, being obtuse or because you've made another silly claim and can't defend yourself. There could be others reasons for that problem but at the very least, have it checked out.
#125
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Feels bitter...ahem....better to stop dodging? Good. Your feet must be tired. Sit a spell. You'll be on the dance floor again in not too long.
#126
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I don't think there is a single, simple definition of god
No one has asked for one. You buddy just knee-jerked to that as a dodge.

#127
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
What do I mean when I use the word god (case not sensitive)? Fictional characters.
Topic's author
#128
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Meet the Kind of Dodging...


#129
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 

If you look back you will see what Amalek did to the Israelites and if you look forward you see how they influenced the Israelites to turn away from God, as well as threatening Israel. God is being just and also looking out for the long-term interests of Israel, through whom the Messiah will come.

And if you opened your eyes you will see these was wars of  the Gods, struggling for power  but fought by duped humans. Humans were and still are tools of the gods. Chattel to lay down our lives for the egoes of gods who cannot live in peace among themselves. This kind of "faith" is a mental disease and blind faith will , without doubt, get you killed. And there is no reward.

And where do you find this in the biblical narrative? You read in all these imaginations. There was just reason to punish the Amalekites as I laid down in my previous post. 

I keep getting a distinct impression that you have a bone to grind here. It is obvious from the number of posts you have on the biblical God and the numerous misinterpretations of Scripture. 

#130
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
There was just reason to punish the Amalekites
Says who? The men who wrote the fiction?

#131
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
And where do you find this in the biblical narrative?

In the bible, where else. 
 
 
I keep getting a distinct impression that you have a bone to grind here.
Not atall. I am questioning the actions of this god in particular and the unreliability of the scripture. It is what I am interested in, it is what I do.
 
I have questions, lots of them and all raised by these unreliable scriptures.

Why were nations, men women and children ordered to be murdered simply because they had their own god?

This god, your god, is no better than the god of Islam is today who orders all and any who do not believe in him to be butchered. It was then, no different from Islam today.  The one thing I can say for the Quran is that it makes no secret of its purpose, its intentions and its penalties for not converting. Whereas the New Testament hides a another  story beneath it veneer of peace and love thy neighbour
 
 

#132
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
And where do you find this in the biblical narrative?

In the bible, where else. 
I'm asking for specific places like you asked me for specific evidence.  
 
I keep getting a distinct impression that you have a bone to grind here.
Not at all. I am questioning the actions of this god in particular and the unreliability of the scripture. It is what I am interested in, it is what I do. 
 
How is it unreliable? These prophecies are detailed and specific to a particular timeframe. Many of the OT prophecies that are unfulfilled before the common era (BC) revolve around a specific Person and a specific location. Daniel 9:24-27 is most specific. Isaiah 53 is most specific about the death this specific Person would die. So is Psalm 22. Zechariah 12:10 is most specific about the Messiah being pierced. Daniel 2 is most specific about four kingdoms that would conquer these OT people before God sets up the eternal kingdom. There are many others that trace the lineage of the Messiah.

All these find fulfillment in the NT.    



I have questions, lots of them and all raised by these unreliable scriptures.
 
You keep calling these sources unreliable yet these are mere assertions. 


Why were nations, men women and children ordered to be murdered simply because they had their own god?

I already explained this in another post. These peoples were evil. They did evil things. They would only corrupt God's people and lead them astray. This is precisely what they did, for Israel did not remove them all from the land. 

How can God murder? He is the Creator and taker of life. He only takes it for sinful actions. We all sin.
He made all things and all things belong to Him. How can He steal from Himself?
He owns all things so how can He covet? He is pure in motive and thought. 
The Bible tells us that He always tells the truth and He does not change. How can He lie?
The Bible tells humanity to worship their Creator because He is WORTHY of majesty and respect. He is the greatest possible being so there is no greater He could possibly worship. 


This god, your god, is no better than the god of Islam is today who orders all and any who do not believe in him to be butchered. It was then, no different from Islam today.  The one thing I can say for the Quran is that it makes no secret of its purpose, its intentions and its penalties for not converting. Whereas the New Testament hides a another  story beneath it veneer of peace and love thy neighbour
 
 He is better. He has demonstrated His love for humanity, but also His justice for wrongful actions. He will punish all such actions. He gives life and He has the right to take life. Islam recognizes the biblical God also. They just do not worship Him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:23-24)

How can someone be loving if they do not punish all kinds of evil? How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?



#133
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?

Is it your belief that god is omnipresent omnipotent and omniscient?
#134
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?

Is it your belief that god is omnipresent omnipotent and omniscient?

Yes, that is how He is described in the Bible.
#135
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Follow up question. Does evil exist?
#136
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
IMO there is no single canonical interprtetation of the word 'evil' nor even of 'exists'.

Thus the answer can be yes or no, depending on how the words are interpretted.
#137
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Follow up question. Does evil exist?
Yes, most definitely. It is the absence of the light of God. It is doing contrary to what is good. If you don't know God and good anything is possible, everything is relative and changing.

I found this article interesting:

A kid in Minnesota wrote the following NEW School Prayer:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I sit me down in school, Where praying is against the rule; For this great nation under God, Finds mention of Him very odd.
 If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights; And anytime my head I bow, Becomes a Federal matter now.
 Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene; The law is specific, the law is precise, Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall, Might offend someone with no faith at all; In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the State.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks; They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible, To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King; It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles; But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess; So, Lord, this silent plea I make, Should I be shot; My soul please take!
                                            Amen


#138
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

IMO there is no single canonical interprtetation of the word 'evil' nor even of 'exists'.

Thus the answer can be yes or no, depending on how the words are interpretted.

Yes, or no? There is a correct interpretation, surely? Did the author have a specific meaning in mind? 

What you are saying then is it is all relative. Relativism is a self-refuting position. It can't claim truth while at the same time denying it.
#139
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?

Is it your belief that god is omnipresent omnipotent and omniscient?

Yes, that is how He is described in the Bible.
Follow up question. Does evil exist?
Yes, most definitely.
In that case assuming you are correct about all these points then god knowingly allows evil in his presence. Which brings us back too
How could God be pure and holy if He condoned evil and allowed it in His presence?
So how can god be pure and holy?
#140
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I am willing to accept pga2.0's subjective interpretation in this case (though probably not in all cases).
#141
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Philosophy books are full of arguments over what the word 'evil' means/refers to and it is hotly debated whether abstracts can be said to exist or not.

To discuss 'does evil exist' we could start by saying 'for the purpose of this debate evil means.. and exists means....'.    But that means  people agreeing to use 'evil' and 'exist' in away they might prefer not to.


If SM specifies definite meanings I will endeavour to give a definite answer, but  I reserve the right to give a different answer if the meanings of 'evil' and'exist' are changed!
 
Topic's author
#142
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
A kid in Minnesota wrote the following NEW School Prayer:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I sit me down in school, Where praying is against the rule; For this great nation under God, Finds mention of Him very odd.
 If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights; And anytime my head I bow, Becomes a Federal matter now.
 Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene; The law is specific,
That kid in Minnesota will someday (hopefully) learn that he is not in a country controlled by his religion or any religion, that the countries laws are secular, because there's more than one religion and everyone needs to be treated fairly. He is free to practice his religion at home where it belongs, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to practice his religion in school where it doesn't belong, which is what he is trying to promote.

Unfortunately, his parents should have pointed that out to him before he publicized that "Prayer" as now it only makes his parents look like bigoted fools.

#143
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I am willing to accept pga2.0's subjective interpretation in this case (though probably not in all cases).

Does PGA's think that evil is something 'subjective'?
#144
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
It doesn't matter since his claim about what god(s) do and do not allow is contradictory regardless of his definition.
#145
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Philosophy books are full of arguments over what the word 'evil' means/refers to and it is hotly debated whether abstracts can be said to exist or not.

To discuss 'does evil exist' we could start by saying 'for the purpose of this debate evil means.. and exists means....'.    But that means  people agreeing to use 'evil' and 'exist' in away they might prefer not to.
If morality is subjective do you think we are going to come up with the same terms? We may but what about those who think differently? Are they right or wrong? Who says?

I see evil as the lack of the light of God. The further away you depart from His goodness (try the Ten Commandments for starters) the more horrific the deeds become. 

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.



If SM specifies definite meanings I will endeavour to give a definite answer, but  I reserve the right to give a different answer if the meanings of 'evil' and'exist' are changed!

It may define meanings but what makes them any "better" than those who give opposite meanings?
#146
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
A kid in Minnesota wrote the following NEW School Prayer:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now I sit me down in school, Where praying is against the rule; For this great nation under God, Finds mention of Him very odd.
 If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights; And anytime my head I bow, Becomes a Federal matter now.
 Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene; The law is specific,
That kid in Minnesota will someday (hopefully) learn that he is not in a country controlled by his religion or any religion, that the countries laws are secular, because there's more than one religion and everyone needs to be treated fairly. He is free to practice his religion at home where it belongs, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to practice his religion in school where it doesn't belong, which is what he is trying to promote.
Yes, secularism, for the most part, controls the USA. It is very intolerant to religious views. The secularist wants him to practice his religion at home while the secularist hijacks the moral fiber of the country to a leftist/socialist position. The secularist pretends he/she is the most tolerant person but when you look at what is going on in your country the opposite is the case. If the religionist can't practice his religion at school because the secularist will not let him how tolerant is the secularist to other views? The secularist wants only what the secularist likes. What the secularist is doing is not tolerant. If I want to say a prayer in public the secularist does not have to be included, but the secularist wants to control every aspect of public life for the religionist. 



Unfortunately, his parents should have pointed that out to him before he publicized that "Prayer" as now it only makes his parents look like bigoted fools.

Again, the statement demonstrations intolerants. 
Topic's author
#147
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
Yes, secularism, for the most part, controls the USA. It is very intolerant to religious views.
You couldn't be more wrong. So, I have to question your motives here, whether you really don't understand what secularism is about or you're being dishonest and deceptive.

The secularist wants him to practice his religion at home while the secularist hijacks the moral fiber of the country to a leftist/socialist position.
Theres not such thing as a secularist, its Secularism, and its meant to protect you and everyone else from religious oppression.

The secularist pretends he/she is the most tolerant person but when you look at what is going on in your country the opposite is the case.
You'll need to support that claim with evidence.

If the religionist can't practice his religion at school because the secularist will not let him how tolerant is the secularist to other views?
A school is a place of learning, NOT a place of worship. You have churches, your home and plenty of public places to pray and worship your God, yet here you are complaining about not being able to do it in schools, where people are learning things, like writing and reading and being able to comprehend concepts and ideas. Pray in your church, they don't teach math and physics there, so stop complaining.

If I want to say a prayer in public
Then, you are free to do so in many public places. You are conflating Public with Public Schools.

Clearly, you have never bothered to understand secularism or you are deliberately trying to deceive. Which is it?
#148
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
you wrote:

I am willing to accept pga2.0's subjective interpretation [of evil] in this case (though probably not in all cases).

PGA wrote;

I see evil as the lack of the light of God.

Are you still willing to accept PGA's interepretation?
#149
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Check out post 139 and I think you will see that pga2.0 is going to have to resolve his beliefs about evil and god or there is an apparent contradiction and it doesn't matter what he considered evil to be the contradiction still exists.

Once that issue is resolved he and I may discuss whether or not the concept he thinks of as evil actually exists at all. We will see where the conversation goes.

Until then I am accepting his definition provisionally for the purposes of our conversation about that apparent contradiction. You are under no obligation to do so.
#150
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
So the bare bones is that you are asking pga why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god permits evil to exist?