Do you believe in God(s)?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

what about that post i made on the previous page detailing arguments against Christianity? does anybody have any thought on that?

Trade you.

[Amadeus]

Imagine a perfect being. List all the traits that such a being must have. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Benevolence, Etc...
Now, add "Existence" to this list. Is the being not more perfect, because it exists?
Clearly a being that is less perfect than another is not, in fact, perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
Applied: A perfect being cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect being must exist.
QED

I have not so far seen a proof that disproves this argument.

Indirect proof.

Imagine a perfect unicorn. List all the traits it has. It is cute and purple and fuzzy and cuddly and it has a silver horn that's so sparkly and magical. Did I mention the smooth flowy mane? Now add "Existence" to this list. Is the unicorn not more perfect because it exists?
Clearly a nonexistant, or rather, less perfect, unicorn is not in fact perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect the unicorn must exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn must exist.

But...wait.
Unicorns DON'T exist.
So indirectly, I have proved your proof false.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Imagine a perfect being. List all the traits that such a being must have. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Benevolence, Etc...
Now, add "Existence" to this list. Is the being not more perfect, because it exists?
Clearly a being that is less perfect than another is not, in fact, perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
Applied: A perfect being cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect being must exist.
QED

I have not so far seen a proof that disproves this argument.

Indirect proof.

Imagine a perfect unicorn. List all the traits it has. It is cute and purple and fuzzy and cuddly and it has a silver horn that's so sparkly and magical. Did I mention the smooth flowy mane? Now add "Existence" to this list. Is the unicorn not more perfect because it exists?
Clearly a nonexistant, or rather, less perfect, unicorn is not in fact perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect the unicorn must exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn must exist.

But...wait.
Unicorns DON'T exist.
So indirectly, I have proved your proof false.

Dude, I just did this. Like, three posts ago.
Am I the only person who gets pissed off at newcomers completely ignoring everything that has been said in a thread before posting in it? I mean Jesus Christ on a pogostick, people, if you're going to join a debate, it's on you to take the time to see the ground already covered.

[capt_weasle]

But...wait.
Unicorns DON'T exist.

Prove it.

[SlappyMcGee]

Imagine a perfect being. List all the traits that such a being must have. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Benevolence, Etc...
Now, add "Existence" to this list. Is the being not more perfect, because it exists?
Clearly a being that is less perfect than another is not, in fact, perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
Applied: A perfect being cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect being must exist.
QED

I have not so far seen a proof that disproves this argument.

Indirect proof.

Imagine a perfect unicorn. List all the traits it has. It is cute and purple and fuzzy and cuddly and it has a silver horn that's so sparkly and magical. Did I mention the smooth flowy mane? Now add "Existence" to this list. Is the unicorn not more perfect because it exists?
Clearly a nonexistant, or rather, less perfect, unicorn is not in fact perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect the unicorn must exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect unicorn must exist.

But...wait.
Unicorns DON'T exist.
So indirectly, I have proved your proof false.

Tsukatu -just- did this. Pay attention to the posts that come between the one you're quoting and your own. Otherwise, we'll never explore new issues in debate.

[Atilla]

Forgive me if I've already mentioned this, but there's something called the Teleological Argument (I think) states that god must exist because god is perfect. It goes like this:

Imagine a perfect being. List all the traits that such a being must have. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Benevolence, Etc...
Now, add "Existence" to this list. Is the being not more perfect, because it exists?
Clearly a being that is less perfect than another is not, in fact, perfect.
Concluded: In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
Applied: A perfect being cannot not exist.
Applied: A perfect being must exist.
QED

I have not so far seen a proof that disproves this argument.

The last line is based on the equivocation fallacy and does not follow from the others. "A perfect being must exist" can mean either "A being which is perfect must, by definition, also be a being which is existent" or "There must exist a perfect being.". The argument starts off with the former then suddenly shifts to the latter, quite different, meaning.

Observe what happens when we re-write it to make the meaning unambiguous:

In order to be perfect, a being must exist.
A being cannot be both perfect and non-existent.
There must exist a perfect being.

I think it's pretty clear that the last line doesn't follow.

EDIT: Oh, and here's a related argument:

$2 is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than God.
Therefore, $2 is better than God.

[otters]

$2 is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than God.
Therefore, $2 is better than God.

Ah, fallacies of ambiguity. <3


All right, I hope you all take note of this, because someday I hope that The RealN Forum's atheists will stop restating irrelevant and ignorant arguments against the Christian God—but until then, the best way I can help is simply by explaining the problems behind those arguments and the explanations for them.

• Of course, it is impossible to disprove God, but I do believe that he (or she?!) doesn't exist.

Okay. I'm not condemning you for your belief. You're entitled to believing what you want to believe.
I hope I've put enough emphasis on the above statement so that it will be legible by even the most curiously and selectively blind of you.
A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. I get tired of saying this. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs.

• If God does something, it could be anything to communicating with believers to creating the world then he is experiencing a change. How, though, can something that is perfect ever change?

Whaaat? In creating or communicating God is changing other things, not himself...

• Furthermore, how can anything be perfect anyway? The God of the old testament is far from perfect: he is a jealous God, he admits it himself. Jealousy is a neqative quality, therefore anyone who can experience jealousy cannot be perfect.

/me sucks teeth
Jealousy, in this context, is a selfless emotion: it's used here because we don't have an equivalent word. God is a jealous God because he wants us to choose Him, rather than other gods. Therefore, since he is the epitome of goodness, it should be a good thing that he wants us for himself.
Yeah, that'll be misinterpreted soon.

• Unless this is a different God from the God of the new testament, in which case there would be two Gods, which would be an interesting situation, then the God of the new testament must also be an imperfect God.

Well, they do seem different. I think in the Old Testament God was angry with us, and rightfully so—something He created turned really wicked. At that point, I would have just wiped everyone out, no matter what they thought, but God made a better decision.
I think personally God changed his mind. He can do that, you know.
The New Testament was about the A.D. section of time. Christ was born; he followed all the rules, so we wouldn't have to (he fulfilled the covenant); he tore away the barrier between God and man; and he fixed the relationship.

• And if God is meant to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then how can he allow Satan and all the evils of today exist?

Well, why wouldn't he let evil exist? With the existence of evil, we have the ability to choose good. The choice is the crux of the matter: with no hate available to us, we couldn't love God in a real sense.

[SlappyMcGee]

incluye, you're missing the fundamental part of the argument atheists make. When we argue with things like, "Your Bible doesn't hold up." or, "Your God-Rules Are Ridiculous", we're trying to stoop to your level to (hopefully) let you realize what we can all plainly see. When it comes down to it, there is no legitimate reason to believe the Bible is more factual than Homer's Oddessy. Like, the thing that pisses me off so much is that you people don't believe there is any reason for people who don't believe in God to try and impose our beliefs on you. But the fact of the matter is, gay folk get attacked because of some ridiculous fucking book, millions of people have died in the name of their Bible, and not one of them has had any proof that it was true. At this point, I want you to wake up and face facts; it's a book. Science has proven that this book is likely untrue. Look at this proof that assumes no logical leap:

Claim: The Bible is not true.
Proof: Science proves that much of the Bible, if not all, is false.
Argument: The Bible says that the Devil could have created this stuff.

I'm glad that you're happy living in a loop, but I'm not. I live rationally. I realize that I have no intial reason to believe that this Bible is true, and subsequently realize that there is no reason to assume any proofs I have against the Bible can be countered by Biblical fact.


I'm sick of living in a world run by cyclical arguments about how God can exist because, look, the author of the Bible already covered your argument. I'm sick of convenient hallucinations that you people have when you're stressing about the Bible. Stress brings on Hallucinations. And if that stress is related to your religion, chances are so will be the hallucination.

Two-thousand years ago, when people's brains were undeveloped, when they didn't have any science, when they didn't have the internet to hear about the other identical messiah stories going on at the time, when they didn't have the balls to be skeptical and subsquently assassinated, then yes, they were allowed to be religious. In today's day and age? Grow up. If you need a crutch, get mental help. Don't turn to archaic writings told to you as fact.

The Bible had some good stories that we could learn some shit from, but they're just stories. That doesn't lessen their impact. It just means that you have to take what somebody said thousands of years ago with a Tsukatu's-Brain-sized pinch of salt.

[Tanner]

A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. I get tired of saying this. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs.

The Apostle Paul? Simon Peter? Jesus? None of these guys could be considered Christians according to you?

Or do you mean that a "real Christian" will let God do all the judging? How, then, do you account for Christian discernment?

[jean-luc]

A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. I get tired of saying this. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs.

The Apostle Paul? Simon Peter? Jesus? None of these guys could be considered Christians according to you?

Or do you mean that a "real Christian" will let God do all the judging? How, then, do you account for Christian discernment?

Well, this is a hard point in religion. There are quite a few places in doctorine that suggests that it is never our place to judge others based on their beliefs, that that should be left entirely to Jesus and/or God. But, of course, we seldom see anyone living this. Even the apostles, including big names like Paul, judged based on beliefs.

[yungerkid]

and Jesus also says, "you shall know them by their fruits". we aren't supposed to act like we're completely sure of the nature of a person's will, but we can notice corruption and evil. we can judge for ourselves who is being an evil influence in a situation, although we will not be able to say that they are evil by nature and are going to hell.

[Tanner]

and Jesus also says, "you shall know them by their fruits". we aren't supposed to act like we're completely sure of the nature of a person's will, but we can notice corruption and evil. we can judge for ourselves who is being an evil influence in a situation, although we will not be able to say that they are evil by nature and are going to hell.

That's not very Biblical. Let me give you some verses.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5)
"The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18)
"I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing" (Romans 7:18-19)

The idea in Christianity is that everyone's a bad guy and the only thing that sets Christians apart is the remorse and repentance (and, of course, the assumed forgiveness). That was sort of a different thing than we were talking about, though, yungerkid.

[sept]

Yessiree, I believe in God! :)

[yungerkid]

ok, rennaT, i know that we are all of sinful nature. what i meant by evil by nature was that we cannot know whether a person is saved or not. we cannot know what they feel about God. i misworded that. but i wasn't denying the fact that we are all of an evil nature.

well, a real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. it is true. but a Christian will say that others' beliefs are wrong. a Christian will let God do the judging as to whether a person is saved or not, but they will also use the person's fruits to determine if God has saved them yet. ultimately the decision is up to God, but we can say that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. i think what incluye was saying was that Christians will not attack unbelievers for anything other than their fallen nature and need for God. we (Christians) do need to judge (and condemn) beliefs based on their fruits, but we cannot judge based on beliefs (because according to the Bible, we cannot know others' beliefs).

[Tanner]

i think what incluye was saying was that Christians will not attack unbelievers for anything other than their fallen nature and need for God. we (Christians) do need to judge (and condemn) beliefs based on their fruits, but we cannot judge based on beliefs (because according to the Bible, we cannot know others' beliefs).

Not knowing people's beliefs doesn't really work in most situations because, well, people will just tell you. It's not really a shy point, especially on the internet.

[yungerkid]

...they could be lying. what i was saying was that we can't make a judgment based on their beliefs because we can't know with certainty where their heart lies. besides, we would be acting very arrogantly to assume that we are as just and as informed as God in pronouncing judgment over other people. ultimately our fate is up to God anyway.

[Tanner]

...they could be lying. what i was saying was that we can't make a judgment based on their beliefs because we can't know with certainty where their heart lies. besides, we would be acting very arrogantly to assume that we are as just and as informed as God in pronouncing judgment over other people. ultimately our fate is up to God anyway.

I agree but I think you haven't taken that conclusion to its end point.

If you were like me, after you did the Myers-Briggs personality test the first time, you read this description of your personality and realized things about yourself that you have never consciously thought. Personally, there were several realizations about my inner workings that I hadn't known about myself before that point. So the question then is: If I can conceal such things about myself from myself, how can I accurately judge whether or not I am a real Christian; whether I am saved or not?

I've come up with two possible answers. The first is that we cannot know, we must simply have faith, not only that there is a God but that, if there is, we're actually doing the right thing by him. And the second is that God grants us discernment of motive for ourselves but not others (in accordance with your argument).

If you agree with either one of those statements (or a third possible situation?) please provide Bible verses to back up your claims if you can.

[yungerkid]

my view is that when an unbeliever is converted, his old sinful nature is destroyed, and replaced by a new nature that God gives to him. that new nature is guided by the Holy Spirit. so the new spirit knows that it is in Christ. i believe that would be the second option. i do not know the Bible well enough to provide verses yet; i haven't read it for years, and i know what it says but not where it says it. but i am absolutely positive that that is the position that the Bible supports. i have heard it preached in two churches, and i recently read it in a commentary, both providing Biblical support for it.

[Tanner]

my view is that when an unbeliever is converted, his old sinful nature is destroyed, and replaced by a new nature that God gives to him. that new nature is guided by the Holy Spirit. so the new spirit knows that it is in Christ. i believe that would be the second option. i do not know the Bible well enough to provide verses yet; i haven't read it for years, and i know what it says but not where it says it. but i am absolutely positive that that is the position that the Bible supports. i have heard it preached in two churches, and i recently read it in a commentary, both providing Biblical support for it.

You should not be so confident in that opinion because that is not, in fact, the position that the Bible supports.

Please read Romans 7:7-25 and you will quickly find that his sinful nature is in no way destroyed, replaced, or ever displaced. What Paul suggests is that the Christian acquires a second nature and that nature is God but also maintains the sinful nature of his body.

Honestly, dawg, I appreciate your position but if you're getting out-Bibled by a non-Christian, it might be time to hit the books, yeah? I'm done here because you have an annoyingly tangential way of debate and don't read the book that you think is going to keep you from spending an eternity in hell. I'll be back if incluye follows up.

[Amadeus]

Honestly, dawg, I appreciate your position but if you're getting out-Bibled by a non-Christian, it might be time to hit the books, yeah? I'm done here because you have an annoyingly tangential way of debate and don't read the book that you think is going to keep you from spending an eternity in hell. I'll be back if incluye follows up.

C'mon was that necessary? I mean, its a debate. If you don't know your stuff, you're outdebated, but it shouldn't get shoved in your face. It feels like people are too uptight about this stuff. If someone doesn't know their stuff then they have a disadvantage, but their fellow debaters don't need to criticize them on it.

[Tanner]

Honestly, dawg, I appreciate your position but if you're getting out-Bibled by a non-Christian, it might be time to hit the books, yeah? I'm done here because you have an annoyingly tangential way of debate and don't read the book that you think is going to keep you from spending an eternity in hell. I'll be back if incluye follows up.

C'mon was that necessary? I mean, its a debate. If you don't know your stuff, you're outdebated, but it shouldn't get shoved in your face. It feels like people are too uptight about this stuff. If someone doesn't know their stuff then they have a disadvantage, but their fellow debaters don't need to criticize them on it.

Not need to. Get to.

But yeah, I'm a dickhead. Sorry, yungerkid.

[yungerkid]

oh, it's ok. i made the mistake of debating about God with Tsukatu a while back, so i'm used to ad hominem. i actually agree with you, though. i don't know where things are in the Bible at all. by the way, rennaT, that concept of acquiring a second nature still fits with the position i stated earlier, that Christians know they are saved from their holier nature. that passage sure does conflict with my understanding of what a "nature" is, though.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Honestly, dawg, I appreciate your position but if you're getting out-Bibled by a non-Christian, it might be time to hit the books, yeah? I'm done here because you have an annoyingly tangential way of debate and don't read the book that you think is going to keep you from spending an eternity in hell. I'll be back if incluye follows up.

That's pretty much what I've been thinking for the last page or so.

[otters]

A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. I get tired of saying this. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs. A real Christian will not condemn others for their beliefs.

The Apostle Paul? Simon Peter? Jesus? None of these guys could be considered Christians according to you?

Wait, what?

No, no, I meant, in a literal sense, discrimination against someone else because of their religious beliefs, applying it a lot more to present day then to the past. That was probably confusing. o_o

Or do you mean that a "real Christian" will let God do all the judging?

No.

Please read Romans 7:7-25 and you will quickly find that his sinful nature is in no way destroyed, replaced, or ever displaced. What Paul suggests is that the Christian acquires a second nature and that nature is God but also maintains the sinful nature of his body.

Immediately following Romans 7, Romans 8 begins:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."

Doesn't look like I've been out-Bibled yet.

I'm done here because you have an annoyingly tangential way of debate and don't read the book that you think is going to keep you from spending an eternity in hell.

I hope this post I've just made changes your mind about this.

Tsukatu, could you link me back to the old forums, where you had that massive rant against Christianity, why you hated it and everything? I'm losing track of your motives.

[yungerkid]

...be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

...but the sinful nature is still *there*. we just don't live by it.