:shock: You’re actually going to try and justify mass murder? And what about the killing of the children and the enslaving of virgin girls?
You're attempting to convince me to believe your Christian teaching, therefore I'm going to kill you. I have the right to because I have the ability.
The reason I brought up Numbers 31:17-18 was to illustrate how God (as portrayed in the Bible) is not the upstanding moral being Christians make him out to be, but is actually quite evil by our modern ethical standards. And so your counter point is that humans can also perform evil acts, not just God?
Yeah, but the new testament laws were meant to be in addition to the old testament, not a replacement.
Personally, I agree with George Carlin's school of thought: "Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money!" To answer the first post, I think the idea of a deity was made up by man to try to explain things he did not know at the time. For example, "Why do hurricanes happen?" says a roman, "Because poseidon says so" answer another. Gods are still a popular idea in the modern age because there will always be things that we can't explain. If I wasn't obvious in this post, I believe gods are man's creations and I don't base my life around them as they are not real beings but rather just ideas.
So, its okay because a justification exists and some people approve of it, but not you? You must realize that this makes no sense at all.
If all of you atheists and agnostics try to use science to prove that there is no god, logic proves that your view has real problems in it. C.S. Lewis goes into lots of detail in his book "Mere Christianity", but here's basically a summary that uses logic to prove that there is a god. Basically he says "All of humanity feels the weight of some Law of Human Nature, which dictates to everyone's conscience a common sense of Right and Wrong, yet all of us fail to live up to it. Although instincts also persuade us in some course of action or another, this Law can override or promote instincts in a way that superscedes instinct. Attempts to justify the Law by reasoning fail with circular reasoning, but it is nevertheless true. Two opposing views exist on the creation of the Earth, and the Religious view proposes that God gives us this Law within us to suit His purposes. If God exists and has dictated His morals as Law to us, we are condemned by it, because we do not keep it. The very notion of good and bad promotes the stance that God exists. Christianity is not simple, and the details include the reality of a devil, in whose territory we are. God gave us free will so that we could love..." And if you are wondering why God allows all of these bad things to happen in the world, you need to think about this: If we were forced to be loving and kind and everything good, then would it really be good? No, it would just be something God told us to do. We need free will to experience the "good" in everything, but there is a risk in this, and that is the choice to do bad. You may try and argue that that this was a poor choice, but then you have to realize that without that choice you wouldn't be able to argue in the first place. So, using simple logic, I just proved to you that there has to be a God. Your welcome.
It sounds more like a theory to me. In the theory, you still assume there's a God, but you don't give solid proof. I think biologists know more and more about how our brains work, and so how our instincts and ways of thinking do. I'm not sure on this, but I believe scientists believe we have large brains because we evolved to stand and walk upright. This, coupled with our thumbs, allowed our ancestors to develop higher intelligence and more complex emotions than animals. Again, the text you provided us sounds more like a theory to me. Saying it's solid proof is like saying the theory of evolution completely disproves religion, if you ask me.
Don't you understand that you are agreeing with me? personally, this is something I don't understand about atheists, and that is they believe that the fact that there's science means that there is no god. But doesn't it make more sense to say that there was a Being before creation to think up and plan all of the science that goes on? Do you really think that the creator of something as beautiful as the universe was stupid? He understood that things need to go a certain way for everything to work out exactly, and so he planned it so that it all fits seamlessly together into something we call the Universe. For example, lets take evolution. Wouldn't you say it's possible for God to have created everything, and then it steadily evolves into new forms? Humans aren't exact copies, they are a mixing, or "evolution" of their parents' genes, and therefore no 2 humans have ever nor will ever be alike. Science does not prove that there is no god, but does the opposite. It proves, in all of it's staggering complexity, that there must have been a creator to think all of it up.
You proved nothing. You assume that this ''Law of Human Nature'' couldn't exist without a god. You didn't use logic you used assumptions. If you think that what you or Lewis wrote is in any way scientific I feel sorry fore you.
If there was such a thing as a god, or multiple ones, I wouldn't be surprised if they/he/she/it indeed created the world and the universe, and then just let it progress to see how things would turn out. Kind of like a hands-off game of EU3, but then he/she/it/they would intervene. Still, science hasn't come far enough to come up with a clearer theory of the beginning of the universe than the Big Bang Theory. Nowhere does science state or prove that the universe needed something or someone to think everything up. If we look at the example of evolution again, science doesn't say it has been created or thought up, but life forms have been reacting to their environment and adapted to it. They didn't need anyone to do it for them, they did it themselves.
[/quote]You proved nothing. You assume that this ''Law of Human Nature'' couldn't exist without a god. You didn't use logic you used assumptions. If you think that what you or Lewis wrote is in any way scientific I feel sorry fore you.[/quote] How could a set of morals known by every human that has ever existed have just evolved randomly? It is a thing in our heads, unique to humans, and you cannot evolve facts. Saying that the "Law of Human Nature" evolved and could be made without a god is like saying gravity evolved, or math has evolved.
[/quote]Still, science hasn't come far enough to come up with a clearer theory of the beginning of the universe than the Big Bang Theory. Nowhere does science state or prove that the universe needed something or someone to think everything up. If we look at the example of evolution again, science doesn't say it has been created or thought up, but life forms have been reacting to their environment and adapted to it. They didn't need anyone to do it for them, they did it themselves.[/quote] I never said that life forms never adapt or change with their environment. Each human is an evolution of the genes of his parents, and he/she adapts to his/her environment. But what came first? If you are atheist, then nothing came first, it just was, and then life is meaningless. If there is no god, then the whole idea of morals is pointless, Good and Bad are just descriptions of something used when something does or doesn't please you, but of course we all know that that is not the case.
Yeah unique to humans. [yt:532y1jad]BThmL-Td-IE[/yt:532y1jad] Your argument getting destroyed. [yt:532y1jad]vyd6om8IC4M[/yt:532y1jad] BTW explain what you mean by Law of Human Nature.
