Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[Data]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

[Data]

So, to give you some idea what is actually going on, I stop reading here.

Semantic evasion. You'll find Bible apologists do a lot of it.

[POI]

You revealed your argument(s). I'm just summing it up for you, and placing a bow on it, so others know your games.

What others? (friends or foes)

Anyone else reading this thread today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and until this site goes down, I simplified your tactics into a one-two system:

1) "We all have to use faith". (with explanation of the Christian apologist's tactics)
2) "God's ways are higher than ours". (with explanation of the Christian apologist's tactics)

How come you get so much of my argument wrong? (Expectations, Ideology)

Your responses demonstrate otherwise.

We could not move forward. (Expectations)

You missed my point here. Does God abide by logic, or not? As I stated prior, theists argue that "God cannot do anything which defies logic," You asked for evidence, and I gave you one that theists use "can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?"

Again, I know the world is not a flat disk. I know you cannot go north of the north pole. I know you cannot get colder than absolute zero.

Is that everything? Your argument goes from nothing to everything. From asking me questions to telling me incorrectly what my answers were. You use logic for that, don't you.

Of course, there are things we do not know (yet). But some things may not ever be knowable -- Xenu, Shiva, Zeus, Jehovah, Isis, Apollo, etc etc etc.... What logic has 'logically' informed you to rule out all others, but retain faith in yours?

If God had to first create it, then where was God before he first had to create it? It's a rhetorical question.

It's a stupid question.

Bingo! It's a stupid/nonsensical question. Thank you. It's as stupid and as nonsensical as asking what is north of the north pole.

If God must first create, and did create, this would also include God's "environment". Anything besides God Himself needs creation. God once existed in absolute "nothingness". This is where you state, on Q, tactic 2). "God's ways are higher than ours.".

Bingo! Part of the pretty little bow I placed on your argument(s), for others to easily read and see right through.

Explain that for those outside the army of your imaginary readers who you bless with your arbitrary logistics.

We've already been over this. I read other threads, just like I'm sure you have. Others will come here later. Sure, it's not a makeup tutorial, where 1,000's or 1,000,000's of hits can happen, but there will ultimately be some collectively.

Of Jehovah, I doubt it?

Why doubt it? I'm skeptical of Jehovah.

Puzzled then...? You stated prior, that you love Jehovah. Love is a pretty strong term for an agency in which you are skeptical of its existence?

Does confidence and certainty have levels? I'd say so.

Sure.

Great. Then aside from claiming solipsism, tactic 1) will get no play here with me. (i.e.) That "we all have faith".

Is having faith in God's existence the same as having faith that I even exist?

For me personally, no.

Same answer as directly above.

Another one of your arguments, where I placed a pretty little bow upon.

[Gasp] Why, you're a hero is what you are. Not delusional. No. A hero.

Nope. I merely exposed your tactics. So please stop with the lame videos which demonstrates that our perceptions sometimes fool us.

Do tell. I'm ready for your evidence. Bring it.

I already have. Some of it.

Must not have been very convincing or memorable. Can you please repeat them and/or introduce it? And please remember, I do not need to be open to the evidence. As I stated prior, I thought there was no way Trump could win in 2016. I also thought there was no way my ex high school girl friend would ever cheat on me.

Bring THE evidence for Jehovah.

[TRANSPONDER]

Have to concur with Alexx. God supposedly designed and made all this.All of it. Unless He is working blind and just trying to patch things up as they go wrong (which would explain a few things) this was all planned, and the options selected. Worse, if one buys Eden it was arranged to rob humans of Life (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then good old autocratic style, the doing of all of this is blamed on the victim.

I am so glad I don't believe it and don't have to excuse, evade or deny what's in this dismal book. It's not even an academic dispute but there are influential people who want us to live in a way that is based on their take on this awful tome. And they marvel that those who don't believe put in the time arguing about it.

Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world. Had Adam followed the simple instructions given to him he, and all of his descendants, i.e. all of humanity, never would have died gotten sick, old, or suffered as a result of natural disasters. Paradise. So, our ancestor, Adam, is responsible for all the suffering of this temporary world. God has offered a way out of that before he destroys that world. You're "argument" blames God for Adam's sin which was against God's advice, and you're suggesting the solution to it is to continue following Adam's example.

Don't buy it for a minute. Unless God is working blind, he planned the whole thing to make humans sinful before they did anything. And it doesn't matter whether you agree or not as it is not about trying to persuade those with their minds glued closed, but an open discussion for anyone to see. That's the only reason I even respond, because you are a great and welcome example of bad Bible - apologetics.

So I just laugh at your talk of it's Adam's fault and trying to blame Adam for what was a clear stitch-up by God,. It isn't a problem that has to be dismissed with Faithclaims that rely on a wide open mouth and a closed mind, because it is nonsensical myth to me, and that's why you Mr. just having fun with us, are wearing your manicure out either preaching fairy tales to me or messing me about, because i generally pick my battles.

I propose to others that your end of world doomsday nonsense be treated as it deserves. You can believe it or not, it doesn't matter. If the case is sound for regarding the Bible as generally non - credible, then all your threats and warnings are so much sulphuretted hydrogen. In short, you are losing on all counts (unless you are talking to a totally deluded choir) no matter how you may think you are making headway.

Have a nice weekend

[TRANSPONDER]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

Evasion, and a palpably inadequate one, with an irrelevant bit of semantic pettifogging doing nothing to fool anyone. If the sin was in humans, it was because of the pot that God made, and nobody is to blame but the potter

So, to give you some idea what is actually going on, I stop reading here.

Semantic evasion. You'll find Bible apologists do a lot of it.

Doesn't matter. It is not (as I find myself having to say ) all about you. Bible -apologists persistently seem to think debate is just about persuading them, and if they deny everything, stick their fingers in their ears and run away, they win. That isn't how it works. Your ignoring my posts and waving me off doesn't alter that the case is made to anyone that reads and your dismissal only looks like, you have no answer.

[Data]

You revealed your argument(s). I'm just summing it up for you, and placing a bow on it, so others know your games.

What others? (friends or foes)

Anyone else reading this thread today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and until this site goes down, I simplified your tactics into a one-two system:

1) "We all have to use faith". (with explanation of the Christian apologist's tactics)
2) "God's ways are higher than ours". (with explanation of the Christian apologist's tactics)

How come you get so much of my argument wrong? (Expectations, Ideology)

Your responses demonstrate otherwise.

We could not move forward. (Expectations)

You missed my point here. Does God abide by logic, or not? As I stated prior, theists argue that "God cannot do anything which defies logic," You asked for evidence, and I gave you one that theists use "can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?"

Again, I know the world is not a flat disk. I know you cannot go north of the north pole. I know you cannot get colder than absolute zero.

Is that everything? Your argument goes from nothing to everything. From asking me questions to telling me incorrectly what my answers were. You use logic for that, don't you.

Of course, there are things we do not know (yet). But some things may not ever be knowable -- Xenu, Shiva, Zeus, Jehovah, Isis, Apollo, etc etc etc.... What logic has 'logically' informed you to rule out all others, but retain faith in yours?

If God had to first create it, then where was God before he first had to create it? It's a rhetorical question.

It's a stupid question.

Bingo! It's a stupid/nonsensical question. Thank you. It's as stupid and as nonsensical as asking what is north of the north pole.

If God must first create, and did create, this would also include God's "environment". Anything besides God Himself needs creation. God once existed in absolute "nothingness". This is where you state, on Q, tactic 2). "God's ways are higher than ours.".

Bingo! Part of the pretty little bow I placed on your argument(s), for others to easily read and see right through.

Explain that for those outside the army of your imaginary readers who you bless with your arbitrary logistics.

We've already been over this. I read other threads, just like I'm sure you have. Others will come here later. Sure, it's not a makeup tutorial, where 1,000's or 1,000,000's of hits can happen, but there will ultimately be some collectively.

Of Jehovah, I doubt it?

Why doubt it? I'm skeptical of Jehovah.

Puzzled then...? You stated prior, that you love Jehovah. Love is a pretty strong term for an agency in which you are skeptical of its existence?

Does confidence and certainty have levels? I'd say so.

Sure.

Great. Then aside from claiming solipsism, tactic 1) will get no play here with me. (i.e.) That "we all have faith".

Is having faith in God's existence the same as having faith that I even exist?

For me personally, no.

Same answer as directly above.

Another one of your arguments, where I placed a pretty little bow upon.

[Gasp] Why, you're a hero is what you are. Not delusional. No. A hero.

Nope. I merely exposed your tactics. So please stop with the lame videos which demonstrates that our perceptions sometimes fool us.

Do tell. I'm ready for your evidence. Bring it.

I already have. Some of it.

Must not have been very convincing or memorable. Can you please repeat them and/or introduce it? And please remember, I do not need to be open to the evidence. As I stated prior, I thought there was no way Trump could win in 2016. I also thought there was no way my ex high school girl friend would ever cheat on me.

Bring THE evidence for Jehovah.

You've repeatedly misrepresented my argument by changing my words, sometimes into quotes, into your own words. You've done the same thing with "Christian apologetics." I don't trust you and I don't like you. I don't think you're capable of providing your own argument, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

[Purple Knight]

I'm antisocial and apolitical so that's a neutral observation not politically motivated.

I'm antisocial and though I consider myself liberal, I constantly offend other liberals so I find myself in some sort of political disease hole where everyone who knows me says I'm whatever they are not. And I have noticed the opposite. We're so afraid of tyranny of the majority that we have allowed tyranny of the minority and sanctioned it. Special interests, big money, and corrupt representatives rule the day. Everyone intelligently voting on issues in their own interests with an eye to the fact that if they start playing hardball, everyone else will, might be better.

A couple points. I don't think you are reflecting upon the "unknowingly" in my response. Often the issue of morality is exaggerated and objections are short sighted or an obvious product of idealism. Idealism tends to hamper our practical judgment. For example, you say everyone now realizes slavery is awful, but there is more slavery now than historically there ever has been. Also, the cultural significance is overlooked. The type of slavery now most common is more subtle than it was previously. They would think our form much more insidious. They would think our alternatives were morally repulsive. And there may be good reasons for that. Another important thing to consider in an evaluation of the differences might be that, especially in more recent history, morality is not an accurate representation of the public. For example, when I was very young the hippies and today's woke culture were and are small pockets that don't very accurately represent the majority of people or everyday life. It's socially and politically motivated sensationalism. It sells. But it also becomes an attachment of the quixotic and a useful tool for the powers that be. Especially in divide and conquer. Show me someone for reform and I'll show you someone with a head full of evil intentions. 6

I entirely agree and I've tried to make this point before about slavery. The people in general have this naive belief that what is repugnant is just owning someone on paper. Oh, you're suffering two 40 hour jobs? Too bad; no bill of sale no deed you're not a slave. I have made the earnest attempt to show people this and they can't see. See?

Look:

I, Purple Knight, own the Queen of England. She is my property.

Now, what atrocity is that, that which I have just done by writing those words? None! Because I have done nothing to her. If I do start doing things to her, those things are, or are not, atrocious, based on those things I do and regardless of whether I think she's my property or not.

But here's the thing: If everyone agrees that this naive belief is right, and I am wrong, I can't go against that. This is now what morality is. I can argue for my sense of things just like I can argue for legalised murder, but if I go against the collective agreement, I err. I am still wrong. I am still immoral. I still broke the law (I mean, that's why we have laws). The fact that most people are colossally stupid is something I just have to accept. I still do have to defer to them. That's the difference between thinking I'm smarter than everyone else (which is just true) and thinking I'm better than everyone else, which can never be true.

On of my all-time favorite writers, Frank Herbert, in Chapterhouse Dune, wrote: “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.” Morality uncorrupted is imposed for the protection of the people, by the people or in the Biblical sense, even better, the creator. Immortality was punitively taken away to preserve, not oppress mankind. Prior to that what were the rules? Fill and subdue the earth, don't touch the tree. We don't needlessly suffer for someone else's sin; we inherit the unfortunate environment as a result of that sin. I use the analogy of an unfortunate child who, though not being punished for his father's crime, suffers poverty, fatherlessness, and all that comes with that because his old man has been locked up in prison for committing a crime.

I agree that people can suffer misfortune because of what others have done. I disagree that if anyone is up there enforcing it, that it is morally righteous. The child suffering for his father's misdeed is not suffering because anyone willed it. A law that says, "Children of fathers who commit crimes are to be beaten," is wrong. You can reconcile this if God is not infinitely powerful in the way Christians think of him as being. But if he is infinitely powerful and wrote it onto the fabric of the universe he brought into being that people are going to suffer for what they did not do, then that's wrong. He ought to have written that no matter if your father sins, you are born innocent and without any special corruption or inclination to sin.

And I more than agree with that Frank Herbert quote. I know these people who are slaves to their own desires. The biggest TV with the most pixels is not enough. The 4th sports car is not enough. I'll be honest: I raise cats and they cost about $3k each. My greed is cats. I love adding a new breeding queen. But I more love that I have them. If tomorrow, the stuff hit the fan and I could never get anymore, I would be much more happy with what I have than I would be pining for what I never could have.

I think it's a balance. Buddha got that right, I think. Too much stuff and you can't appreciate what you have; it's always more more more. Too little possessions and you starve. Cats need enrichment (toys, to be played with, affection, stuff like that) and so do people. Higher animals are not amoebas that only need what they strictly need: Food, water, and air. We need more to be happy and I think that's okay. But it absolutely can go too far and make someone miserable.

Freedom is the same. When you keep adding more rights, and more freedoms, piled up to the sky (*cough* Libertarians *cough*) you start making life worse for everyone, including yourself.

One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible, I think, is contextual.

No. At some point, words say what they say, and if this book is divinely inspired, those words are not meant to be ignored, and say what they say. A strike is not an insult; it is a physical attack. There is a categorical difference. The idea that people should suffer physical attacks meekly is evil. The idea that anyone should suffer any attack without the right to retaliation in kind, is evil. People breaking a good rule doesn't mean replace it with a bad one. It means, enforce the good rule, better.

I agree with you about institutionalised religion but in the case of Christianity, the yokes and chains to enslave people are not shoehorned in by clever interpreters; they're there in the teachings and people simply use them. When you become a clever interpreter and use context to excuse every instance of the message to never fight back, never demand repayment of debt, let people enslave you, let people exploit you, you think you're doing a good thing, but by using evil methods for a good purpose, you're legitimising those methods.

Even as an atheist I'm not interested in debating the Bible as not divine because in that case, nobody has to listen to it and it doesn't matter what it says. I would much rather argue that every word is true and God is most probably evil. This is the real dilemma. If God is good then he cares about everyone and everyone ought to be defended, so if the Bible says something else then maybe it's wrong. If God doesn't exist then likewise, it is right to defend people who are wronged and that includes yourself. But if God exists and likes it when good people who love him get hurt, and secretly loves abusers more, so he tells us never to raise a hand against them, then what do we do?

I think we have at least the right, and possibly the obligation, to disobey an unfair master.

I agree, and I think we do have it. For example, when I became a believer, I was forced to make a choice. As a practicing homosexual I had to choose to live by Jehovah God's standards or my own. At the time I didn't think it possible for me to abandon my lifestyle so I chose it over God. I call this period of time my Dark Days. Promiscuous sex, drugs and alcohol. I'm amazed that I came out of that unscathed. And having that choice allowed me to see that that lifestyle wasn't "just the way it is" but there was a better, for me, alternative. I don't morally judge people who choose that lifestyle, or any other. My motto is live and let live, but I believe as sovereign Lord, Jehovah God has the right to protect and guide his creation, and though I think it fair that he allows those to choose destruction over that, it isn't our right to inherit his purpose for mankind to live forever in peace without following his wise council thereby spoiling it.

As someone who is very straight, this scares me a little, because as a very smart person I have the ability to see all sides at once. I am constantly putting myself in the shoes of the other person. And if someone told me, being straight is an abomination, I couldn't just switch myself off. I could probably be celibate but in no universe could I pound butts. I don't want to. It's disgusting to me. So what really disgusts me, if I universalise, is the idea that God wants one thing or the other.

I don't know why homosexual males have this tendency toward promiscuity and drugs, but they do. Homosexual females do not. If it's what I think it is, and the female is just naturally more reserved, and acts as a reserving influence on the male, it's going to take more effort for a male-male relationship to be wholesome but that doesn't mean it can't happen. And I can't believe that being gay is wrong, because then I have to believe being straight is wrong. I can't just change and be gay, if that happened to be the right thing. Why should you try to change and be straight? If I'm not attracted to men, I'm not. If you're not attracted to women, you're not.

[alexxcJRO]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

Q: So when a human "sins"(steals, rapes, murders) he/she/them does not commit evil?

Q: When a psychopath(Luis Garavito comes to mind) tortures, rapes and then kills a child is not committing an evil?

Q: Really?

evil
/ˈiːvl/
adjective
profoundly immoral and wicked.
"his evil deeds"
Similar:
wicked
bad
wrong
morally wrong
wrongful
immoral
sinful
ungodly
unholy
foul
...
Opposite:
good
virtuous
noun
profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
https://www.google.com/search?q=evil+%2 ... s-wiz-serp

sin
/sɪn/
noun
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
Similar:
immoral act
wrong
wrongdoing
act of evil/wickedness
transgression
crime
offence
misdeed
misdemeanour
error
lapse
fall from grace
trespass
wickedness
evil
evil-doing
sinfulness
ungodliness
unrighteousness
immorality
vice
iniquity
irreligiousness
irreverence
profanity
blasphemy
impiety
impiousness
sacrilege
profanation
desecration
Opposite:
virtue
good
verb
commit a sin.
"I sinned and brought shame down on us"
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8

[Data]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

Q: So when a human "sins"(steals, rapes, murders) he/she/them does not commit evil?

Q: When a psychopath(Luis Garavito comes to mind) tortures, rapes and then kills a child is not committing an evil?

Q: Really? :writers_block: :blink:

Q: What is sin?

Q: What is a sin?

Q: What is God?

Q: What is a god?

[TRANSPONDER]

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

Evil (Hebrew ra, also translated calamity) was God's response to the sin. Not the sin itself.

Q: So when a human "sins"(steals, rapes, murders) he/she/them does not commit evil?

Q: When a psychopath(Luis Garavito comes to mind) tortures, rapes and then kills a child is not committing an evil?

Q: Really?

Q: What is sin?

Q: What is a sin?

Q: What is God?

Q: What is a god?

Why don't you tell us? You're the one who believes they exist, atheists don't.

Spoiler, I'll give you a definition if necessary (hint: it isn't "Something of great value" for one and "Not doing what I want...sorry what God wants..." for the other) but that demand that atheists define what they don't believe in is invalid logic. It is well known theistic wrongheadedness or dirty tricks. It's often hard to tell which.

I almost hate to labour what is probably obvious to all anyway, but trying to pull the same semantic cheap trickery that has already been exposed as trash is pitiful really.