A civil conversation...

[Statler Waldorf]

Spyder and I have decided to start a new thread for our conversation about the existence of God (YHWH). I have posted his first response to my questions below. If anyone else would like to jump in please do, let’s keep this discussion cordial and civil though. I think it should be a lot of fun.

Here is Spyder’s response to my questions about what he meant by evidence and if we’d be able to know anything at all if God didn’t exist.

If Back to it...

By evidence I mean anything that would hold up in a laboratory or a courtroom. Anything that someone who wasn't indoctrinated from birth would be able to believe rationally.

I will now address your question. If God didn't exist would we be able to know anything at all?

My answer is yes, without doubt. God doesn't exist and yet the human brain still works. The human brain functions through a complex series of electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, etc. You can quite easily trace the evolution of the human brain all the way back to fish and it lines up beautifully.

Upon answering your question and clarifying my own, I still want to know if you think there is any more evidence for the existence of your god vs. Krishna, Allah, Santa Claus, etc.

My response…

1. I am not sure the question of whether God exists or not is something that could be answered in a laboratory, I can’t really conceive of a “test for God” you could conduct in any such environment. As for a courtroom, are you saying that we the people as the jury determine whether or not God exists and as long as a majority or consensus of us believe He does exist then He does? I guess I am not quite following you on that one either. I agree with your last criteria though, I think that a rational person could arrive at the belief in God without being indoctrinated. In fact, I think a very strong case could be that rationality requires a person to believe in the God of scripture, a case that I hope to make throughout our discussion.
2. A. Addressing your points about the Human brain; how do you know the human brain functions in a manner that accurately reflects reality? More precisely, how do you know that what you sense to be real is indeed real and your ability to reason accurately discerns what is true? In a Universe that is purely natural and material I do not understand how you can have any confidence that your brain has evolved in a manner that accurately depicts reality. As a Christian I can have confidence that my brain depicts reality because I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him and His creation.
B. Now about your point about Humans and Fish, I am not aware of any such lineage being traceable; could you be a bit more specific on how a person can trace the evolution of the Human brain from that of a Fish’s? Thanks.
3. Yes, I believe there is proof for the existence of YHWH as opposed to other gods and Santa. In order to not get off topic though I’d like to store that discussion away for a little bit if you don’t mind and continue to focus on what you believe (naturalism) and what I believe (Christianity). Fair enough?

[NY8123]

I've always have a simple retort to this line of thinking. Prove it either way. If the burden of proof is on me, why shouldn't it be on you as well? There is no evidence for or against God that will hold up in a court of law but that is the beauty of the argument, it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law.

I have also said many many times there are even examples of how every religion on Earth including Atheism could be right all at the same time.

[rob19]

I've always have a simple retort to this line of thinking. Prove it either way. If the burden of proof is on me, why shouldn't it be on you as well? There is no evidence for or against God that will hold up in a court of law but that is the beauty of the argument, it doesn't have to hold up in a court of law.

I have also said many many times there are even examples of how every religion on Earth including Atheism could be right all at the same time.

1) God is necessary for knowledge to exist, despite there not being a single shred of evidence to back such a claim
2) Now that I've established this claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up;
3) God exists

Don't you get it NY???

[Statler Waldorf]

1) God is necessary for knowledge to exist, despite there not being a single shred of evidence to back such a claim

2) Now that I've established this claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up;
3) God exists

Don't you get it NY???

The only problem is that I actually can back that claim up (and have on several occasions), it’s demonstrated by the fact that you cannot provide a means to explain how knowledge can be possible in a purely natural world and I can provide a means by how it can be possible in a world created by the God of scripture. So it’s actually the naturalist who is claiming knowledge is possible without God but then failing to demonstrate how it could be possible without God.

[DisturbedShifty]

[SIZE=5][FONT=Calibri][COLOR=#000000]A. Addressing your points about the Human brain; how do you know the human brain functions in a manner that accurately reflects reality? More precisely, how do you know that what you sense to be real is indeed real and your ability to reason accurately discerns what is true? In a Universe that is purely natural and material I do not understand how you can have any confidence that your brain has evolved in a manner that accurately depicts reality. As a Christian I can have confidence that my brain depicts reality because I am the creation of a rational God who desires for me to learn about Him and His creation.

I think someone has watched the Matrix one too many times.

And the part about a rational God. Pffft. What God would let his creations suffer so much?

That being said, I believe there is a higher power of some sort. And each of the major religions have a piece of the puzzle, but are all to damned stubborn to put aside their differences to figure it out. And I am including science in that group as well. This may be taken as a ignorant point of view. But that is your opinion.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

[Statler Waldorf]

I think someone has watched the Matrix one too many times.

And the part about a rational God. Pffft. What God would let his creations suffer so much?

To be honest I have never watched the Matrix, I am not a Keanu Reeves fan.

I am not sure why a rational God cannot punish His creation for their rebellion, let’s not forget that He is also a just and gracious God.

How would you determine which parts of the major religions are true and which parts are false?

[DisturbedShifty]

To be honest I have never watched the Matrix, I am not a Keanu Reeves fan.

I am not sure why a rational God cannot punish His creation for their rebellion, let’s not forget that He is also a just and gracious God.

How would you determine which parts of the major religions are true and which parts are false?

By getting together and figuring out which parts they all have in common.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

[Statler Waldorf]

By getting together and figuring out which parts they all have in common.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

If two belief systems have something in common does it necessarily mean that thing is true?

[rob19]

The only problem is that I actually can back that claim up (and have on several occasions), it’s demonstrated by the fact that you cannot provide a means to explain how knowledge can be possible in a purely natural world and I can provide a means by how it can be possible in a world created by the God of scripture. So it’s actually the naturalist who is claiming knowledge is possible without God but then failing to demonstrate how it could be possible without God.

"You don't know how the universe was created, so this POSSIBILITY that I choose to believe MUST be the correct answer".

Not how proof works, sorry dude.

[DisturbedShifty]

If two belief systems have something in common does it necessarily mean that thing is true?

I think so, yes. Religions as as a whole started by word of mouth. So all you have to do is stop and back track where it all came from and you have a better idea of what is "truth" and what was added on.