Proof That God Exists
by Ted Slater on 05/01/2007 at 11:49 AM
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, whom I've interviewed for one of our Mentor Series articles, are taking on quite a feat this Saturday: proving to the two originators of "Blasphemy Challenge" that God exists.
The debate will be filmed in New York City for an upcoming edition of ABC's Nightline, and will also be streamed live from their Web site.
Comfort explained, "I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate -- once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists."
A press release on their Web site goes on to say that Comfort and Cameron will "prove God's existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith." While I'm not sure how that can be possible, in that science can really only support hypotheses and disprove null hypotheses, I am eager to see how the evangelistic team presents their argument. I found the two to be unconventionally wise and winsome during the time I spent with them, characteristics that will improve the credibility of their case.
Please take a moment to pray for Kirk and Ray, that they would be healthy and keen, that the Lord would bless their preparations and inspire them during the actual debate. And that regardless of who "wins," viewers would find themselves turning to the ever-existing I AM for salvation.
1. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:59 AM on May 1
Bottom line is that ANY belief system, scientific or spiritual requires some level of faith.
For example, all mathematical theorems require you to accept as truth certain postulates and axioms before theorems can be created.
And Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (one of my most favorite discoveries in logic) backs this idea up.
So you cannot "prove" God exists. Nor can you "prove" God doesn't exist. However, just because something is possible doesn't make it reasonable to believe. The issue at hand of course, is a preponderance of the evidence to see which is more likely.
What I find most interesting though is that even those who believe that there is no God rarely if ever, act according to their belief systems. A universe without God means that one should be able to do many things because there is no "judgement" after death (in fact there's 'after death' in the first place). This gives evidence that there does seem to be a "Natural Law" at work explained only by God (because some Natural Laws don't at all fit into what would be beneficial for evolutionary or natural selection advancement).
2. Greg said the following at 1:20 PM on May 1
This is really cool.
"... For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20, NASB)
Apologetics, including objective arguments regarding God's existence, is a follow-up to that verse. It is just an honest study regarding those things that are "clearly seen". We are told that an honest perspective on the world around us will bring a clear understanding of God's "invisible attributes", "eternal power", and "divine nature". Romans 1:19 says "... God made it evident to them."
So, it follows that there should be reasoning and evidences of God's existence, outside of Scripture. But from Romans 1:20-23, we know that such reasoning and evidence alone will not bring a person to repentance. I think apologetics is an incredibly interesting and useful study to help break down mental barriers that someone might have gotten themselves into a pattern of struggling with. Even the apostle Paul used apologetic reasoning in his ministry. But, it still doesn't negate or replace faith!
3. Jamie said the following at 2:44 PM on May 1
Hmm. I don't like this. Something about it seems to me intuitively wrong. That's all I can really say about it; pure gut feeling of not checking out with my spirit.
4. Sina said the following at 3:38 PM on May 1
How can you explain God without using the Bible?
5. Jeremy said the following at 3:46 PM on May 1
I dont believe God can be proven or disproven either. I personally think they have the wrong motivations for this debate.
6. Jethro said the following at 3:49 PM on May 1
I heard Comfort in a debate with an atheist some time ago and I'm afraid that this guy absolutely wiped the floor with Comfort. I cringed listening to Comfort's arguments because they were a terrible reflection on Christians as a whole. I hope this isn't more of the same......
7. Matthew Loftus said the following at 6:56 PM on May 1
I think they're probably going to trounce all the atheists with their banana example:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c5280214e0486b273a5f
...because that convinced me.
8. Abram said the following at 7:07 PM on May 1
Thank you Douglas Adams for these thoughts on the existence of God:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and white is black and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. While most leading theologians believe this argument to be a load of dingo's kidneys, that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
~Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
9. Leah said the following at 7:15 PM on May 1
Mike, it's true that any belief system requires faith, but believing there is a God is not the same as a full 'belief system'. The demons believe in God and I don't think they have any faith in him!
Sina- they are not trying to explain God, simply prove that he exists.
As for the original post- I think that while you can't conclusively PROVE God exists, you can come pretty close. I watched a series once where an Australian scientist (I think he's a biologist) was visiting a senior high school biology class in Canada. He did a series of lessons on the various theories concerning the origin of the earth. He went through each one, explaining the science behind each theory, then explaining, each time, how none of them are actually possible without some outside information being inserted into them somewhere long the line.
By the end of the series, you had the distinct picture that none of the theories put forward to explain the existence of the earth are scientifically possible without some degree of outside information.
Not once did this scientist mention creation, or God, or the Bible, or anything. He simply dealt with the scientific facts of each theory.
While people would try to explain their way around things- they always do- I still think that was pretty close to proving God exists, or that some higher intelligence exists.
As for this particular debate, I'm not sure if it sounds right. I dont know about Cameron, but I don't really like the attitude Comfort was taking- "I will prove this, once and for all, I will give undeniable scientific proof" etc etc.
10. KathleenM12 said the following at 9:53 PM on May 1
Mike Theemling writes: "What I find most interesting though is that even those who believe that there is no God rarely if ever, act according to their belief systems. A universe without God means that one should be able to do many things because there is no "judgement" after death."
This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs. Is there any evidence for that presumption?
Does one need a belief in a supernatural deity to maintain that, say, theft and murder are wrong? Put another way, would Mike tell us that his personal code of ethics is based on merely the threat of posthumous punishment? Is the fear of afterlife sentencing the only reason he (or any other believer) refrains from mugging old ladies and torching kindergartners -- and, if so, is that a solid foundation for ethics?
11. Greg said the following at 10:12 PM on May 1
Jethro, I honestly had some similar concerns. Comfort is no dummy, but I would much rather see folks like Ravi Zacharias, JP Moreland, Hugh Ross, or William Lane Craig in this kind of debate. However, I've got to honor Comfort's and Cameron's boldness in entering into this. Let's pray that God will be behind "fire from heaven" that "consumes the offering".
But remember - Romans 1:20-23 - we are almost guaranteed that some people, in spite of even the most compelling evidence, will still turn their backs on it in foolishness. "Undeniable scientific proof"? No matter how strong the proof, some people will still deny it. I'm not at all knocking apologetics -- I have a great appreciation for apologetics -- but it isn't the primary road to lead someone to Christ (and I know Comfort knows that! He is a prolific evangelist!), though it has played an important role for certain people (for example Josh McDowell who set out to disprove Christianity).
Let's be praying. Some trust in horses, some trust in chariots, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. Not by might, not by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord.
12. Greg said the following at 10:17 PM on May 1
Another comment here... "Proof" isn't the word we're looking for. Demonstrating that belief in God is "Rationally Obligatory" is the right way to put it. In other words, it's not demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, but you'd be a fool not to believe. I think that aligns the best with Romans 1, too. My concern is that throwing the word "proof" around may be problematic. But perhaps it's the word that the majority of folks watching the debate will best understand.
13. Jon Featherstone said the following at 10:42 PM on May 1
If God can be proved, for me He isn't God anymore.
14. Missy W. said the following at 7:08 AM on May 2
I have seen videos by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and I admire their great passion for evangelism but I cannot help but say that their approach is a leery one. No Bible? No mention of faith? What! This seems to be more of an intellectual battle of wits than a fight for Christ's glory.
15. Leah said the following at 9:20 AM on May 2
Kathleen- you say "This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs. Is there any evidence for that presumption?"
Actually, there is. It's called post-modernism. More and more people these days are embracing the idea that because there is no God, there are no absolutes- so, one person cannot say what is wrong or right. What is wrong for me might be right for you, and vice versa. (As post modernists would have you believe).
It's the lack of God in people's lives that leads them to think "Well, if there's no-one to dictate what's wrong and right, then what's there stopping me from doing x y z?"
16. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:12 AM on May 2
KathleenM,
Excellent question. Some argue that you can have morality without having any sort of "higher power". Some may explain this in an evolutionary sort of way.
Let's take this for an example: Rape. We all know it is "wrong". But why? Let's assume we didn't have a commandment from God saying "Do not rape". Why wouldn't we allow it?
From an evolutionary standpoint rape would be perfectly permissible. After all, it's about spreading your seed (passing your genes on) as much as possible. Survival of the fittest. Ducks have been known to gang rape, and there is even a species of insect which have pincer-like appendages whose apparently sole purpose is to hold the female from escaping while he impregnates her.
From the argument "Well, it's not consenual" doesn't hold much water either believe it or not. Taxes aren't consenual. Neither are other forms of eminent domain. Yet there isn't a wholesale view that taxes are "immoral". On the flip side, we outlaw many actions that might very well be consensual. Prostitution, drug use, etc. So consent is not a reliable basis for morality either.
So when you say "is the fear of afterlife sentencing the only reason he (or any other believer) refrains from mugging old ladies and torching kindergartners -- and, if so, is that a solid foundation for ethics?" the short answer is "Of course not!" I understand the argument. Bertrand Russell himself used that as one of his main reasons why he rejected religion (esp Christianity) as a whole.
But at the same time there needs to be an element of coercion and justice here. What if God allowed ALL people into Heaven (or Hell if you were pessimistic) regardless of how they lived? Faith was irrelevent, actions were irrelevent. Everyone regardless of how they lived or were treated would receive exactly the same treatment. Would you consider that a fair and just God?
I just found Bertrand Russell's actions interesting. For example, he would defend "Wars of Colonization" on utilitarian grounds, and even to a lesser extent "Wars of Principle". But only when those principles seem to align with his own viewpoints.
Reference here
The point is there seems to be two forces which hint us towards a God. One, Natural Law as Lewis and many others have pointed out. Second, even if one is agnostic, and honestly "can't say for sure" whether there is a God or not one still has to live assuming one or the other. A choice MUST be made how you will live your life. To accept the idea of morality as something imparted by a higher power or to reject it as some archaic superstitious belief system.(Russell said he's at the core agnostic but in practical terms atheist). My argument is that atheists who claim boldly there is no God pretty much give up all rights to criticize any behavior because they have nothing to appeal to except their own personal opinion.
17. Ted Slater said the following at 11:29 AM on May 2
Kathleen suggests: "This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs."
No. Everyone has a system of ethics, even those who don't believe in God. If you don't think there's anyone greater than you (e.g., God), then your system of ethics is grounded not in what that Person thinks, but in what you think is best for you. It's naturally a "man is the measure of all things" kind of system of ethics. What's in it for you? If you can get away with rape (to reference Mike's comment), then if you're inclined that way, it's permissible.
18. xeres said the following at 12:05 PM on May 2
Mike,
You just hit a slam dunk right there :). Here's what I don't get about all this suffering in the world as one of the reasons for why people are atheist or moral relativist or whatever. If suffering in result of injustice is bad, isn't that saying that there is a moral standard of some sort that is applicable to everyone to show how not to be unjust. Let me put it this way to help anyone understand my point. You saw the line crooked so you concluded that there's no straight line. The problem with that is how can you know the line is crooked if you don't have the slightest idea what makes a straight line. Just food for that.
19. John said the following at 12:22 PM on May 2
I was always taught that Biblical salvation comes through the Spirit of God, working through a man of God who preaches the Word of God.
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans 10:17.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
Of course rational minds can come up with a logical proof of God's existence. However, persuading someone that there is a God is not the same as preaching the Gospel, leading to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The God of the Bible nowhere asks us to prove He exists. (Indeed, Romans 1 tells us that all people can know from nature that God exists, whether they realize it or not.) What we are to do is preach the Gospel, which is found in the Bible.
Why an evangelist would want to prove the existence of God without the Word of God is puzzling.
20. Samuel PG said the following at 4:29 PM on May 2
Ugh, this gives me a sinking feeling. I have respect for Comfort and Cameron and in the past really appreciated a lot of their apologetic works. I am nervous that they are being irresponsible with this press release in order to get more people to tune in to the debate. I have no doubt they are doing what they think is best for the spreading of the gospel but I do worry. What could they possibly be doing to prove God's existence? If they fail to do that (and although I am a firm believer in the existence of God and even that there are convincing if not conclusive arguments for His existence), and I expect that they will fail to prove it conclusively, what will the unbelievers who have been led to believe they will be hearing THE Christian argument think?
21. KathleenM12 said the following at 8:48 PM on May 2
Kathleen: "This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs."
Ted writes: "No. Everyone has a system of ethics, even those who don't believe in God."
Of course they do. My comment was not that a god-belief is necessary for ethics (it's not), but that Mike's statement was presuming otherwise.
Ted writes: "If you don't think there's anyone greater than you (e.g., God), then your system of ethics is grounded not in what that Person thinks, but in what you think is best for you."
Two major problems with that:
1) If your ethics are based on following God's orders so as to avoid God's punishment (or reap God's reward), it is indeed grounded in what's-best-for-me self-interest.
2) Why assume that a god-free ethical system is necessarily based on "what's best for me"? Stealing from my neighbor might benefit me, but it would harm my neighbor -- so god-free ethics can easily be based on 'cause no harm' or 'treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself' or 'behave as if your behavior were universally adopted' or any number of other principles that have nothing to do with mere personal gain.
22. KathleenM12 said the following at 9:11 PM on May 2
Kathleen: "This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs. Is there any evidence for that presumption?"
Leah writes: "Actually, there is. It's called post-modernism. More and more people these days are embracing the idea that because there is no God, there are no absolutes- so, one person cannot say what is wrong or right."
A lack of god-belief is a separate issue from a belief in moral absolutes -- they are not necessarily mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive. For instance, I can subscribe to the belief that "do no harm" is a moral absolute without needing to attach a god to it.
Similarly, I can subscribe to a god-belief, but not really believe in moral absolutes. To give an example: I insist that the "Thou Shalt Not Kill/Murder" commandment is a moral absolute, yet I also insist that it was perfectly acceptable for the Old Testament Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child of the Canannite tribe. Herein, I simultaneously claim to believe in a moral absolute, yet I demonstrate that I do not believe in that moral absolute at all.
23. KathleenM12 said the following at 9:56 PM on May 2
Mike writes: "Let's take this for an example: Rape. We all know it is "wrong". But why? Let's assume we didn't have a commandment from God saying "Do not rape". Why wouldn't we allow it?"
Several comments to this:
- Could you point me to the Biblical commandment against rape?
- Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that such a commandment exists. If rape were wrong merely by commandment, would it be right if there were a commandment demanding it?
As for what you refer to as the 'evolutionary argument', we can find species where the female decapitates the male after copulation, and species where parents eat their own offspring, and species where certain young are selected for starvation or fatal abandonment and exposure, etc. These are examples of species behavior (either by design or by evolution, although if you maintain it's by design, the implications are a bit unsettling); so I'm not quite sure how you've concluded that a god-free ethical system demands that humans mimic certain non-human behaviors -- if that is indeed your conclusion -- so perhaps you can explain the connection to me.
Mike writes: "So when you say "is the fear of afterlife sentencing the only reason he (or any other believer) refrains from mugging old ladies and torching kindergartners -- and, if so, is that a solid foundation for ethics?" the short answer is "Of course not!""
Okay. But two sentences later you say "but there needs to be an element of coercion and justice", which seems to indicate that you do indeed believe fear of punishment is a solid foundation for ethics. I'd say that while fear of punishment might be a good foundation for criminal law, it's not a good foundation for ethics. I trust the reasons are obvious.
As to your question "What if God allowed ALL people into Heaven (or Hell if you were pessimistic) regardless of how they lived?": isn't this a what's-in-it-for-me system of ethics? If your behavior is based on whether you'll be rewarded in heaven or punished in hell, your ethical system is based merely on self-benefit, is it not?
24. Mandi said the following at 11:28 PM on May 2
Interesting to see atheists divided amongst themselves (and we know where that leads)...so who are the "True Unbelievers" when there is a "sectarian split among atheists"?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010010
25. David said the following at 1:16 PM on May 3
Adam saw God face to face and fell, and therefore, you can have undeniable proof that God exists (and loves you, cares for you, wants to provide for you, etc...) and still go about lacking faith in Him and His promises to guide us for His name's sake.
26. Chris said the following at 6:53 PM on May 3
David writes: "Adam saw God face to face and fell, and therefore, you can have undeniable proof that God exists (and loves you, cares for you, wants to provide for you, etc...) and still go about lacking faith in Him and His promises to guide us for His name's sake."
How is this undeniable proof? If you're trying to use the Bible, then you're entering into circular logic in proving the existence of God. If you're relying on the existence of Adam, you have no "scientifically" verifiable proof that such a person existed (or, likewise, that such a person was created by God and so forth and so on). Using this logic, I could claim that the fact we're all here is proof that Xenu exists.
27. M said the following at 10:02 PM on May 3
Mike: For example, all mathematical theorems require you to accept as truth certain postulates and axioms before theorems can be created.
The problem is that math isn't science. Math is the study of patterns. Sometimes it's the study of patterns in the real world (i.e., statistics), but it's usually the study of patterns in artifical, internally coherent systems other professors developed to get tenure.
28. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:03 PM on May 4
M,
First, I love that last blurb at the end: "but it's usually the study of patterns in artifical, internally coherent systems other professors developed to get tenure". Tongue-in-cheek for sure, but not totally inaccurate.
You are correct that math and science are not exactly the same. However, I believe that largely the THINKING process is the same.
Consider this. The "scientific method" is that where since elementary school we start out with a hypothesis, synthesize a method for testing that hypothesis, state the results, and come up with a conclusion.
The conclusion we come up with I would argue relies upon the same idea of "assuming" some basic facts or premises. The basis of these can lead us to certain conclusions or doubt ones presented.
Throughout history, scientific ideas have been put forth, and often accepted until some evidence was given to the contrary proposition.
Consider ideas that were accepted:
- The world is flat
- Heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects
- The sun (and other heavenly bodies) revolved around the Earth
All of these were accepted because they seemed to jive with what people observed. In essence, they "assumed" that:
- A round world would cause things to "fall off" (like trying to stick something on the bottom of a ball) so it wouldn't be possible
- Because much lighter things (such as feathers) fall slower than heavier objects, it must be universally true
- If the Earth were moving, that people would be able to sense or observe it ("if the earth moves so fast, why is it when I jump straight in the air I am not so many miles away from my initial point?")
Even today, there are assumptions made which cause us to interfere with scientific questioning:
- Acceptance of quantum physics was a bit slow because it seemed to violate Newtonian physics
- Doctors saw a strong correlation between high sodium levels and high blood pressure so they assumed that high salt intake itself "caused" high blood pressure
- It was believed that evolutionary changed occured over long periods of time. Now many say that radical evolutionary changes happened in very short bursts.
The problem though I have with modern science is that often the discoveries often fail to mention the possibility of being wrong. I can't recall the last time I saw a recant in a mainstream publication of a scientific discovery.
At its core though, scientists who are atheists in practice can easily dismiss any theories of intelligent design, miracles, etc. because they assume right off the bat that God/divine intervention does not exist. To be fair, the God argument is often abused to debunk theories simply based upon the idea that "it seems to contradict what it says in the Bible" (this is why the helio-centric theory persisted for so long).
The point is that although science is not as neat as science, science itself, and conclusions reached need to be based upon a set of assumptions. Some of it may be trivial (for example that measuring/observation equipment is accurate), but some of it as mentioned above can be more significant.
29. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:45 PM on May 4
KathleenM12 you said,
- Could you point me to the Biblical commandment against rape?
Not directly. But it's fairly clear that God is against sexual immorality. This includes adultery (Exodus 20:14), fornication (Matt 15:19. Notice that Jesus makes a distinction between adultery and sexual immorality), etc.
Finally there is 1 Thess 4:3 which states:
"It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality"
The Greek word used 'porneia' which covers a number of sexual sins.
Regardless of whether they are consentual or not (i.e. rape) the Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong.
- Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that such a commandment exists. If rape were wrong merely by commandment, would it be right if there were a commandment demanding it?
I THINK what you are asking is "Should we follow a commandment by God simply because God said it, regardless of how it makes us feel?"
The short answer is "yes". There are times where God "commanded" certain things which upon not looking at the context can be pretty hard to swallow. Consider the following commandment God gave to King Saul:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' (1 Sam 15:3-4).
Pretty harsh words. Sounds like genocide. But consider that archelogocial evidence points out that this and probably other neighboring societies practiced acts such as child sacrifice, male/female prostitution, which were abhorrant to the high standards Yaweh set for Israel. Also consider that God did not bring punishment on these societies quickly. They had many generations time to repent and were always allowed to be accepted into the Jewish fold if they wanted to and adhered to her laws. Not saying this explains everything, but does say that the act of cleansing was not without warrant.
The only analogy that I can give which theists and atheists can both understand is that when we raise children, when a parent gives an instruction and the child asks "Why?" many times we say "Because I said so and I'm your mom/dad" simply because we know they CAN'T understand the entire rationale at that age level. Does not understanding a rule negate its goodness or usefulness?
- As for what you refer to as the 'evolutionary argument', we can find species where the female decapitates the male after copulation, and species where parents eat their own offspring, and species where certain young are selected for starvation or fatal abandonment and exposure, etc. These are examples of species behavior (either by design or by evolution, although if you maintain it's by design, the implications are a bit unsettling); so I'm not quite sure how you've concluded that a god-free ethical system demands that humans mimic certain non-human behaviors -- if that is indeed your conclusion -- so perhaps you can explain the connection to me.
You are talking about the praying mantis, many types of animals (who eat their own young or species), etc.
My point was that many use the evolutionary slant to justify their behaviors (for example saying monogamy is stupid because most animals aren't monogomous). I was simply saying that human values cannot totally be explained by evolutionary behavior or what is best for a species. This is where "Natural Law" comes into play. People just like to use the evolutionary argument when they encounter a value that they don't like. It's one of those excuses that we don't mind using until it's used against us.
- Okay. But two sentences later you say "but there needs to be an element of coercion and justice", which seems to indicate that you do indeed believe fear of punishment is a solid foundation for ethics. I'd say that while fear of punishment might be a good foundation for criminal law, it's not a good foundation for ethics. I trust the reasons are obvious.
It is part of a foundation for ethics, yes. Consequences, both good and bad are necessary for an ethical system to be relevent and effective. Otherwise, what would be the point of an ethical system if there were no consequences?
- As to your question "What if God allowed ALL people into Heaven (or Hell if you were pessimistic) regardless of how they lived?": isn't this a what's-in-it-for-me system of ethics? If your behavior is based on whether you'll be rewarded in heaven or punished in hell, your ethical system is based merely on self-benefit, is it not?
I made this point to say that if there were no consequences in the afterlife (let's assume there was one for a second) of our actions or how we treated others in this life, my argument was that our entire system of ethics as it stands now makes little sense. So what if Hitler killed millions of Jews? Or Mother Theresa gave her life for the poor. In terms of the afterlife, both their actions on Earth had NO bearing whatsoever on their present state.
To address your point though about a "What's in it for me?" philosophy, I would respond that a system totally based upon this would be devoid of any love.
Here's an example. What if you tried to run a marriage/family off of this way of thinking; like one big contract. The husband would say, "Ok. I'll bring home the bacon and take the kids to soccer games but in return I require from you wife sex at least 2 times a week and can watch 3 sports events per month undisturbed". The wife would say "Ok, I'll keep the place clean and feed the kids (and you) but in return you have to spend 2 hours a week of 'quality' time with me and you need to allow me to spend 10% of your take home pay on whatever I want".
Sounds pretty absurd. Do the majority of husbands/wives (outside of Hollywood :D) operate this way? Of course not!
The key is there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. The former is wrong, the latter is perfectly natural and acceptable. But there also needs to be that element of love.
So to answer this question, yes it is in our self interest to "not go to hell". But the whole point of our relationship with God was to have one with Him based upon love, not a quid-quo-pro basis.
May not have answered all your questions, but I do enjoy the exchange and don't mind at all disagreements, especially ones like these as they have been ones I've struggled with before.
30. KathleenM12 said the following at 6:24 PM on May 4
Mike writes: "Regardless of whether they are consentual or not (i.e. rape) the Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong."
But we're discussing rape, not sex outside of marriage. Since rape exists within marriage, adultery and fornications laws don't apply.
So, again, where is the Biblical command against rape? If there isn't one, how do you know it's wrong? Do you really need to search the Bible to know that rape is wrong?
Mike writes: "I THINK what you are asking is "Should we follow a commandment by God simply because God said it, regardless of how it makes us feel?"
Actually, the question I'm asking is: "If rape were commanded by God, would that make rape moral?"
We'll pick up the other questions in the next post.
31. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:02 AM on May 5
KathleenM12,
- But we're discussing rape, not sex outside of marriage. Since rape exists within marriage, adultery and fornications laws don't apply.
So, again, where is the Biblical command against rape?
In that case, that is something very specific then (since we agree that sex outside of marriage, consentual or not is wrong according to the Bible). Your core question then is is "rape within marriage" permissible?
To reiterate, there is nothing explicit. But let's consider the following passage in 1 Corinthians:
"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command." (1 Cor 7:2-6)
Here we see two ideas: One is that both the husband and wife don't have sole possession of their bodies in a marriage. Second, is the concession to not "deprive each other" (i.e. abstain from sex) except mutually and for a brief time.
Does this justify rape then? I would say not. Although not explicit, the THEME in marriage is one of love and respect for each other; not just getting what you want. Rape is a selfish act not considering the other person, and the Bible is clear that kind of attitude is wrong. It's the same reason why although physical spousal abuse is not mentioned it agreed it is wrong: It is derived from "hating your brother" and Jesus spoke that that is equivalent to sin (Matt 5:21-22).
- Actually, the question I'm asking is: "If rape were commanded by God, would that make rape moral?"
I thought I already answered the question in the affirmative. God is the ultimate moral authority whether we like it or not. Not saying that there aren't times where we may think something He commands isn't moral, but He is the author of such. I tried to give the example of the parent/child where it may seem like the parent is giving unfair instruction.
32. KathleenM12 said the following at 1:02 PM on May 5
Yes, Mike, "attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" -- that does indeed sound like wholesale murder and genocide to me, even down to the infants and donkeys.
Let's address your arguments for justifying it.
"They may have practiced child sacrifice and prostitution." If I understand you, you're saying that the Israelites killed all the Amelekite children ..to show that child sacrifice is bad? Infants and goats were killed for engaging in prostitution?
Furthermore, if this was the reason for the slaughter, why is it never mentioned? Instead, Yahweh states an entirely different reason ('I will punish them for waylaying the Israelites coming out of Egypt').
"Not saying this explains everything, but does say that the act of cleansing was not without warrant." 'Cleansing' is an interesting choice of words. Don't all campaigns of ethnic cleansing and genocide provide at least a fig-leaf of a reason? The Nazis were protecting Aryan purity against the degeneracy of Communists and Jews. The Ottoman Turks justified the Armenian genocide on the basis of national security. A justification can always be found.
Upshot: I think you're proving my point. The slaughter of the Amelekites runs directly counter to the commandment against murder. Yet, in justifying the slaughter, you're proving that 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' is not a moral absolute at all. Murder and genocide, by your logic, are perfectly acceptable in this case and presumably lots of similiar cases.
Coming back to the original point about the basis of morality: here we see that god-belief actually doesn't subscribe to moral absolutes, even while it claims that it does.
33. Dustin said the following at 4:23 PM on May 5
Two things:
One)
The one argument that I believe is superior to all others, with respect to proving the existence of God, is the argument from reason. In this argument the "proof" for God's existence is actually the axiom of God's existence, menaing that without the supposition "God exists", no arguments are rational. Any meaning at all rests on the foundation of an intelligent world, and since intelligence is the property of a mind, and since nature cannot give what it does not have, namely ratonality, it necessarily follows that the universe is the product of a mind, and that any and all rationality is grounded in God's nature. To deny it is to affirm it. If one says that we know truth through the laws of logic, the next step is to ask why logic is reliable. If one responds by saying that logic is reliable because it's reliable, then one has committed the fallacy of a arguing in a circle. If one says that logic is simply the property of the universe, then one has simply pushed the question back further and the question now is "How does intelligence arise from non-intelligence?".
Two)
On a personal note, I think Ray Comfort is incredibly arrogant and rude. I cringe everytime I watch him talk to people. He comes across as pushy and very proud. I do not like his methods.
34. Lorelei said the following at 8:55 PM on May 5
Mike,
I think people know not to punch someone, on a basic level, because they should naturally be able to have empathy for others (i.e. they are not sociopaths). They know that being punched in the face hurts and that it is not a good feeling. I think most people have a sense of humanity where they figure, 'wow, yeah, I don't want to put a fellow human being through that,' which prevents them from punching people.
I assume you have not been raped. Rape is not just 'sex without consent' or something. It is PAINFUL. Even 'non-violent' rape (no other physical attack techniques involved) is physically painful. It is also an invasion of boundaries, which people find to be unpleasant at best. It's not like people who have been raped are upset about it because others tell them to be.
I really don't know where you're trying to go with the rape example. And I, too, would like to see scripture that says 'do not rape,' seeing that plenty of rape goes on in the bible if I recall correctly.
35. Ted Slater said the following at 9:01 AM on May 6
This talk about rape is just silliness. Of course it's wrong, and Scripture is clear that it's a bad thing.
Consider Zechariah 14:1-3, in which the Lord includes "rape" as one of the bad things godless nations will do against Jerusalem.
Or consider Lamentations 5:11, in which rape is included as one of the tragic things experienced by those in Zion.
Why would anyone think Scripture is not clear about the evil of rape?
36. Dustin said the following at 3:55 PM on May 6
Kathleen-
I believe I have some arguments to defend the OT commandments to destroy nations, but I will have to wait until I am done grading all the papers I need to grade. I will, however, begin the discussion by asking you a question: is anything more reasonable than obedience to God?
37. Mike Theemling said the following at 6:56 PM on May 6
KathleenM12 you said,
"Coming back to the original point
about the basis of morality: here we see that god-belief actually doesn't subscribe to moral absolutes, even while it claims that it does."
It seems that we are coming to a convergence of ideas here albeit from different angles (maybe).
Your orignal statement/question way back when was:
"This presumes that the lack of god-belief (or lack of belief in afterlife judgement) equates to a lack of ethical beliefs. Is there any evidence for that presumption?"
Your core question though it seems is, "Is the existence of or belief in God necessary for an ethical code?"
You then point out that even God at times seems to "violate His own rules" thus arguing that if there are no "moral absolutes" in God's system, why should that not validate the opposite: That belief God is NOT necessary to live by an ethical code? Want to make sure this a correct representation of what you are saying.
Let's say that it is correct (the representation of your position). Now that means the real question is: "Does existence or belief of God imply the existence of moral absolutes"?
If the answer is "Yes" then by definition there are certain behaviors which are "wrong" and certain behaviors which are "right".
If the answer is "No" then would you agree then that no ethical system is morally superior than any other ethical system because there is nothing to appeal to except one's own opinion? That since the afterlife is either non-existent or irrelevant to this life so much as how we lived that there is "no point" to a ethical code? You could have a moral code, but how would it in any way be superior to another moral code which may be totally opposite? What baseline would be used?
Down to the nitty gritty. "Does existence or belief of God imply the existence of moral absolutes"? Is this true despite the examples of commandments to murder,etc. given by God Himself? I would argue yes.
First, the Bible is clear on the existence of sin which by definition is: "an offense against religious or moral law" (Websters).
Sin is mentioned a lot in the Bible. But one thing is clear about it: God disapproves of it. The question now is, "What is 'sin'?" As pointed out, why is it that one act of murder is sin (10 Commandments) and another act of murder (the wholesale slaughtering of people [also read the book of Joshua. A lot of bloodshed in that book]) is not?
Rather than try and pick out a miriad of hypothetical or real-life examples I next point to what Jesus said in an exchange regardling the Law and Commandments (which told people what was sin and what was not):
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:34-40)
There we go. Every commandment and rule summed up in 2 basic "golden rules": Love God, love others.
Of course, now one could argue "What is 'love' in this context?"
The Greek here is "Agape" which is the selfless type of love. In general it means "total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the object loved"
So basically, all commandments are based upon loving God/people self-sacrificially.
Is this a moral absolute? I can't find a single passage in Scripture where there is an exception to this. It is true that at times loving God may trump loving others (the cleansing example), but the first commandment is certainly an absolute.
So after all that rigamarole, here is my line of reasoning addressing your objection:
- If God exists...
- There is things He disapproves of (sin)...
- How we can determine sin is through various laws/rules given by Him but ultimately summing it up sin is not following the Greatest commandment which is...
- Love (Agape) God first, people second. ALL laws/rules hang on these.
Therefore, this shows that God indeed does have a morale absolute: Loving Him first, and people second. HOW that is shown is through following His commandments (John 14:15-21) among other things.
So to answer any "what about this situation?" circumstance I would always point to someone that it should be about loving God first and loving people second. Interestingly, obeying government officials is following God's commandment (a subset of Commandment #1) because He is the one who put that authority there in the first place (Rom 13:1-7). However, when the government's rule is in violation of God's rule, God's rule must take precedence (Act 4:18-20).
The Hebrews in the Old Testament were in a unique situation because they were ruled by God directly, so obeying anything said by Him was in fact Commandment #1. The command "Thou shalt not murder" was I'd argue based more with Commandment #2 (Notice how the first 4 commandments talk about the people's relationship to God, and the final 6 about people's relationship to each other).
Again, this cannot completely explain the God-directed destruction of the Amalekites to everyone's satisfaction, but it does point out that by doing so the people were loving God first.
Back to the whole point of this essay: If God exists, I've shown there are absolutes even if they are at times hard to determine. Because of this, that means that there are absolutes for us, and trying to develop one which is superior to others is futile.
38. Mike Theemling said the following at 7:09 PM on May 6
Dustin you said,
"In this argument the 'proof' for God's existence is actually the axiom of God's existence, menaing that without the supposition 'God exists', no arguments are rational."
There is a problem with this argument (but down the right path to be sure).
You state up front that God's existence is an axiom truth which is ultimately what you are trying to prove. This is begging the question (circular reasoning).
What it SEEMS like you are arguing is the following proof by contradiction:
- Assume that God doesn't exist
- Then if that's the case, there wouldn't be any rational thought because God is a prerequisite to rational thought (see below. This is the sticking point)
- Since we have rational thought, therefore, we cannot say "God doesn't exist"
- Therefore, God exists.
Your key sentence which would be scrutinized would be:
"Any meaning at all rests on the foundation of an intelligent world, and since intelligence is the property of a mind, and since nature cannot give what it does not have, namely ratonality, it necessarily follows that the universe is the product of a mind, and that any and all rationality is grounded in God's nature."
Basically, a twist on the "chicken and the egg" question. Whence did reason/rationality come from unless it came from something itself rational (in your case, a rational mind namely God's)? The "problem" with this argument is that skeptics would point out that in nature A does not always have to produce A; it could produce B. For example:
- Matter could be a product of energy, and vice versa (conservation of matter/energy)
- Evolution produced "intelligence" (order) from something non-intelligent (a bunch of ammino acids swimming in water with some sort of energy catalyst starting the whole thing)
So they would say it's very reasonable to say that our intelligence and reason could be a product of something that had no intelligence or rationale whatsoever.
But it is a classic argument given for the existence of God put forth in the past by philosophers. Just wanted to let you know it isn't fulproof.
39. Samuel PG said the following at 11:58 PM on May 6
Um everyone, does anyone know what came of the proof?
40. Leah said the following at 12:23 AM on May 7
Kathleen- 'murder' is not 'killing'. You said "Yet, in justifying the slaughter, you're proving that 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' is not a moral absolute at all. Murder and genocide, by your logic, are perfectly acceptable in this case and presumably lots of similiar cases." The instance of the Amelekites was not "murder". Murder is cold-blooded killing. This is not what was done to the Amelakites. Are you saying God is a murderer for killing everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah? Or for killing the entire world's inhabitants except Noah's family? You seem to equate any killing with murder, and this is inaccurate.
There are times when killing is warranted, and even necessary, and this is not the same as teh murder referred to in the 10 commandments. We know this is true because God commanded the Israelites to kill people at certain times. Are you saying God went against his own command? Of course not.
What we may call "innocent children" are still sinners. And, awful as it may sound to us, we must still remember that these people are God's creation, who are sinners who ahve rejected him, and he has the right to do to them what he wants. And if he uses their death as an example to others, or to help his chosen people the Israelites (as they were int he Old Testament), then so be it. We are in no postiion to tell God what is right and what isn't.
I dont know what you mean by "god-belief". Christians believe in a God, so do Muslims, Jews, etc etc... so making any blanket statements about "god belief" is ridiculous as it applies to far too many situations. Christianity, however, does have moral absolutes. Not all people stick to them unfortunately, but there are absolutes. However, if you try to take this too far and say "you must never hit someone" or "you must never work on a Sunday" then you are in danger of acting legalistically which we aren't supposed to do. Because of course, there are situations in which hitting someone or working on a Sunday are necessary. We must exercise wisdom in these situations.
Also, just because teh Nazis were wrong in their "cleansing" does not mean all cleansing is bad. If God commanded something, such as some of the battles in the bible, then that's how it goes.
Also, as for your rape question- we're commanded to love one another. Rape is not loving one another. As for "is rape ok if God commands it", I think we need to consider, would God really command something so horrible? And I don't think killing someone is anywhere near as horrible as raping them. These battles that the Lord commanded in the Old Testament had a purpose. I see no purpose for a rape.
I think we should also keep in mind that God has not commanded any killing or battle or anything like that since Jesus came to Earth. God doesn't need to use these other forms of justice or judging, because the ultimate judge and sacrifice has come- Jesus.
41. Leah said the following at 12:32 AM on May 7
Somethign was brought to my attention this past weekend. If we try to convince people that God exists through intellect, then we are acting like intellect was not affected by The Fall.
Intellect is still fallible, not just ours but our opponents', so even if we give a water-tight argument we may still not convince them, as their intellect has been affected by The Fall like every other aspect of their being.
The only thing that will ever convince anyone of God is the Holy Spirit. We must allow the Holy Spirit to use us, and I think it's difficult to be true to God and his Word without actually using the Word.
42. Erin said the following at 3:05 PM on May 7
Leah, I agree with you. I have tried more than once to convince an atheist that belief in God is logical, and every time have ended up frustrated. No matter how many different logical arguments I use, they will always have an answer because they don't want to believe. Sometimes the answers sound logical, more often they are thinly veiled personal attacks, attempting to intimidate me. None of this has shaken my faith in God, but it has taken away my desire to debate these issues. The Bible says that some people are "willingly ignorant" (2 Peter 3:5), and their understanding is "darkened" (Eph 4:18). Sometimes you just have to realize that no matter how good your arguments might be, you are very unlikely to win over a staunch atheist. I'm afraid that only more hostility and ridiculing results when a Christian claims that he can prove the existence of God.
To me, the main purpose of logical arguments for the existence of God is not for arguing with adamant atheists, but rather for gently and humbly easing the doubts of people who are searching for God but are confused by atheistic philosophies and presuppositions that saturate much of today's culture. Arguments for God's existence can also strengthen the faith of Christians who have begun to doubt after a confrontation with a skilled atheist's arguments.
43. dustin said the following at 4:57 PM on May 7
Mike-
I appreciate your comments, but I stand by the argument. No one can claim that nature produces rationality and at the same time hold that rational arguments are meaningful (they can argue it, but not with reaosn on their side).
It is not begging the question to posit God's existence as an axiom. Axioms are not conclusions drawn, so the argument basically follows like this:
-we have two possible axioms
-there is a God
-there is no God
Only one explains all other explanations. Reason is grounded only in a mind. Ultimately there can be only one mind that is responsible for everything else.
44. Kenneth said the following at 2:47 AM on May 8
I have the up most respect for everyone's beliefs. Lets talk facts here. From everything I have ever heard or read no scientist has ever tried to prove there could not be a God. That's impossible and scientist know that. I doubt few scientist have a hard time excepting that there could exist a God. What science has a problem with is the information given in the modern day Bible. This very book is what shapes our idea's and views of God. The real debate is if the Bible is true and accurate. The real problem is not the debate among scientists. It's the radicalism that most Christians believe only their way is correct. The very same radical narrow minded mentality that Islamic terrorist subscribe to. Both believe their way is the only way. At the same time atheist tend to follow the same mentality. Otherwise it would not bother them to say one nation under God! No Christian can prove the Koran to be wrong and no Muslim can prove the Christian Bible wrong. So to refuse to accept yours might be wrong is unreasonable. Although I do think those worshiping cows are way off who am I to judge? You could produce all the proof in the world that God could not exist. You could also prove that he does. You can never convert someone else to your belief regardless what you do. Your Bible tells you why it's called free will. To argue it is pointless. Be open minded and accept everyone's beliefs as accurate as your own. This is the very same problem that is causing all the terrorism across the globe. Progressive society is pushing an anti religious agenda. Those progressive persons are every bit as radical as Islamic terrorist. What you will end up with is multiple groups of people with radical ideas wanting to force everyone else to follow their beliefs. Trust me the Muslims are only the beginning of what's to come. Remember those abortion clinics being blown up in America? If we continue on the path we are on radicalism will spread throughout all faiths including atheists. Followed by large scale war. Why war? Waging war is what keeps us from being subjects and servants to someone else. This is what protects your free will. You want to prevent war then stop radicalism by starting with yourself. It's really simple just do to others as you would have them do to you. Remember that from Elementary?
45. Leah said the following at 7:47 AM on May 8
Kenneth- actually, there are many scientists who scoff at the idea of there being a God, and I sure have heard of those who try to actually disprove there's a God!
46. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:25 AM on May 8
Kenneth,
I understand your feelings, really I do as I've asked myself the same questions before. But at the same time we have to realize a few things.
- "From everything I have ever heard or read no scientist has ever tried to prove there could not be a God."
I tend to agree with you. That most scientists tend not to start out with the agenda that there is no God. However, many scientists conclude from what they observe there is no God or they tend to adopt a "no God" theory because they are taught and believe evolution is true and thus remove God from the equation. For example Richard Dawkins states:
"We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed."
- "It's the radicalism that most Christians believe only their way is correct. The very same radical narrow minded mentality that Islamic terrorist subscribe to. Both believe their way is the only way. At the same time atheist tend to follow the same mentality."
For the most part this is a true statement, certainly. The problem though is the assumption that because parties A, B, and C feel so strongly about it and they are generally mutually exclusive then NONE of the worldviews are correct. This is a fallacy. I see only two possible conclusions. Either:
- One of the three worldviews (Christianity, Islam, Atheism) are correct
- Or none of the worldviews are correct and another one is
If one then throws up their hands and states, "There is no truth that we can know!" then that surrenders to moral relativism. If that is the case, then we cannot call any action "good" or "evil" no matter how we may feel towards it. And I don't know any people who honestly are completely wired that way. Just because pursuing truth is difficult or may require some element of REASONABLE faith doesn't make a truth go away.
- "No Christian can prove the Koran to be wrong and no Muslim can prove the Christian Bible wrong"
Actually, there have always been critics of historical text throughout history. For example if someone were to state (as some have) "the Holocaust never existed" we could show them mounds of evidence to say that it did occur (concentration camps, testimony from survivors, etc). Sure, it may be POSSIBLE that all this was an elaborate scam, but not within the realm of reasonable doubt.
What makes the Bible hard to refute (I'll just focus on the Bible as I don't know enough about the Koran [some, but not enough to be comfortable in commentating] is that from a historical document nothing in there has been shown to be incorrect. Very few ancient historians, Christian or not, deny the Empires listed in the Bible existed (Medes, Persians, Hittites, Egyptians, Romans etc) nor even that a figure named Jesus existed. The "problem" is that sometimes the ONLY historical reference listed is in the Bible, and of course there's all the stories about miracles and God's intervention.
So it IS possible to disprove a text. It just may take while and you'll always have those who will believe despite evidence.
- "You can never convert someone else to your belief regardless what you do."
Not true at all. There are many, many stories of people raised in other faiths (or no faiths)converting. Some convert to Christianity (Sundar Singh, Josh McDowell, etc.) some from Christianity to other religions (John Walker Lindh). So the arguments of "you can't change someone's beliefs so why bother trying?" is not valid. Difficult? Yes. And certainly doesn't happen in droves. But it does happen.
- "It's really simple just do to others as you would have them do to you. Remember that from Elementary?"
The problem with this idea of "can't we just all get along and coexist?" is that written into the beliefs of Islam and Christianity (and others too I suspect) is the COMMAND to convert non-believers. How this is accomplished is debatable, but it is fairly clear that conversion is part of practicing you religion.
So you run into a problem here. You either try and outlaw practices of that religion (namely proselythising) which will undoubtedly produce unrest, or you outlaw all religion completely which again is very difficult to enforce and produce unrest or drive religion underground (the Soviet Union adopted this policy).
You talk about war, and I'm not saying war is a "good" thing at all. But I am saying that people will go to war for just about anything: land, resources, religion, money, pride, etc. Communism tried to eliminate war by leveling the economic playing field. However at least in the Soviet Union that didn't work and many commented it really didn't solve corruption or the human condition anyway.
No, war among humans is here to stay I'm afraid unless the aliens start attacking us.
Kenneth, I can understand the frustration here. If there were one true God why doesn't he/she/it/they reveal themselves to everyone clear as day? The only response I can give is a story Jesus told recorded in the Bible:
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
"EVEN IF SOMEONE RISES FROM THE DEAD". The ironic part is that Jesus did rise from the dead and the people who needed the most convincing (the religious leaders of His day) STILL didn't believe.
The Bible states that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Heb 11:6). That does not mean that the faith is blind or irrational, but that ultimately if you are looking for iron-clad, fulproof evidence that God exists you will not get it.
But keep searching Kenneth, and I'm glad you came and read/posted.
47. Leah said the following at 8:21 AM on May 9
Mike- you said "The problem with this idea of "can't we just all get along and coexist?" is that written into the beliefs of Islam and Christianity (and others too I suspect) is the COMMAND to convert non-believers."
Nowhere in the Bible does it command Christians to convert non-believers. It is implied however. It says "make disciples" not "make converts". We are to take the converts- who have been converted by the Holy Spirit (through our work)- and disciple them into maturing children of God.
48. Ted Slater said the following at 9:14 AM on May 10
The debate has taken place, a bit later than initially planned. You can view some excerpts at the ABCNews.com website:
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Please don't comment on it unless you've viewed it.
49. Devin Haynes said the following at 4:11 PM on Jul 11
I do not believe in God. There is not enough proof, just faith. I mean God did not write the bible, a man did. does anybody know the exact date the Bible was written, no. Do you hear anybody say that when they died they saw heaven or hell? No.
50. San Soo said the following at 7:28 PM on Jul 11
Devin,
What would be sufficient proof for you to believe there is a God? Forget about the Bible, the afterlife, religion, etc. What about the existence of God? What would be enough proof for you?
51. Mandi said the following at 11:10 AM on Jul 12
Devin,
What is your proof that God doesn't exist?
52. Meeko said the following at 2:59 AM on Aug 30
What Biblical Texts do clearly state that God really exists?
53. Matthew said the following at 6:18 PM on Jun 2
Devin,
What is your proof that God doesn't exist?
Let me answer that.
1. Problem from evil/hell
2. Problem of disbelief
3. The bible is contradictory
4. THEISTS are the ones supposed to start proving, because the onus is on them. So give me a proof.
54. Tracy said the following at 9:46 AM on Jun 6
Hi everyone, I am new here and have to admit I have enjoyed reading the comments on this page. All are intelligent and respectful. That is refreshing. To give some background, I was raised in a Christian home but religion did not play a huge role in our lives unless it was convenient. Sad but true. Myself, I am an Agnostic-Humanist. While I believe in the possibility of a creator I feel I do not have the knowledge or enlightenment to know what God is or to explain him, I feel I cannot say that the one true God is Christian or Islamic. My faith lies in Humanity, as hard as that is at times, it is what it is. My Questions are as follows, and I may ramble so bare with me. It seems that this discussion is only focused on the Christian God. What about The Islamic God, What about those Religions that are Polytheistic? As an Agnostic I feel I understand that I have no more insight into the existence of one version of God over another. I am no expert on the subject of Religion but I have read about many and I have discovered similarities in them. Which Religion is right, which God exists. Do all Religions believe in the same God and if so why do we have religious wars. If I say I follow the Hindu Religion will I spend an eternity in Hell? Please don't suggest that the Christian Bible is the true word of God because it says it is or Because Jesus states it is. All Religions suggest that their scriptures are the true and only word of God. So, where does that leave us? This is why I have chosen to be Agnostic. I live by a set of Ethics which I feel are pretty much universal. Yes, people stray from the path of morality from time to time for what ever reason. In order to know Good one must know evil, in order to know love, one must know hate etc. I choose not to live my life fearing what is to come in the afterlife if there should be one. Any and all insight into my questions are welcome.