Daniel

In other words, what does it mean to say that something exists for 0 seconds while taking up 0 amount of space? Isn't it more correct to simply concede that god(s) don't exist?

Won't your problems fall through?

In the early books, "The Lord" is in our image, speaks directly to his subjects, breaks bread with Moses, and "goes down" into several places to have a look around. He wrestles with Isaac, and is otherwise human in description. He has to ask Adam/Eve where they are hiding, and has to ask why they are hiding. He walks with them in the garden, and when it comes to Sodom/Gomorrah he needs to go look and see for himself, or send angels on his behalf.

With this clear description, and utter falsifiable nature of the God of Abraham, at what point was this being defined as "farther than we can see" through science. If we could explore the universe from end-to-end, we would be told that the God of Abraham is "outside" of it. If we could explore the multi-verse and all other possible universes, we would be told that the God of Abraham is "outside" of it.

At what point did this become the case? Why have the goal posts continued shifting as our knowledge of the universe has expanded?

If someone claims that a god(s) exists does that person have the burden of proof, or does the person who disbelieves this claim have a burden to disprove it?

In answering, consider the following: Do theists have a burden to disprove the other 2,999 gods and devils that humanity has invented when making their own claim?

Why isn't such a being contradictory and thus as invalid as saying "a married bachelor" because it cannot perform certain actions that I could perform as a human being? For instance, could a maximally supreme being forget where it put its car keys? Could a maximally supreme being create a pile of rocks so big it couldn't lift them all?

If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

For the purposes of your answer, this example must be accepted by the majority of the scientific community as being more valid.

i.e. "We thought sunsets were caused by the relative orbit of the earth and the sun but we found out that God dun it!"

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler said: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."

Relevant Bible verses:

Psalm 51:5

Romans 5:12–21

1 Corinthians 15:22

What exactly was the sacrifice of Jesus meant to save us from if the concept of sin did not enter the world as proclaimed in these verses?

Part of me thinks that he is a true believer, because I don't see how he could peddle such patently fallacious logic and reasoning and hold an ounce of self respect. On the other hand, he's in a state where this kind of stuff sells, and sells big. I'm sure he's raking in tons of money off his nonsense, and maybe he's just trying to see how far "out there" he can go and still stretch credulity to the point where he gets paid.

Where do you end up when you shuffle off the mortal coil?

For the sake of argument, each personality is distinct, and in the case of the faith-based personalities devout, and in the case of the atheist personality logically and reasonably consistent.

Many people who are religious make claims such as "I just know" or "The Holy Spirit tells me" or "I have enough faith" when asked to produce evidence. A concern they should have, is that all of this evidence seems to be located in their own mind. The human mind is notoriously unreliable at perceiving reality, which is why the scientific method is a very good means of finding things which are demonstrable and provable.

Do you have any evidence that exists outside of your own mind or experience?

Preferably something empirically testable.

For the sake of argument, skepticism when faced with a claim would be to ask for the primary source of evidence/belief that is being argued.

When told that Muhammed rode a winged horse into Heaven to chit-chat with Gabriel the Archangel so that he could have the Koran dictated to him, what would be your means of deciding whether this claim should be believed?

Do you believe that your own belief system would stand up to the same scrutiny?

More importantly - SHOULD it?

Historical research shows that the early Christians truly believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. Jesus even said that there were some alive at that moment who would not taste death until all had been fulfilled. He said that his generation would not pass away until all had been fulfilled. 2000 years later and other than some appearances on burnt toast or cheeze-it crackers, we haven't seen any sign that he is coming back.

Do you find that discouraging?

Before answering, please ask yourself the following:

1. Do you believe Satan exists?

2. Do you believe Satan has absolute knowledge that god exists?

3. Do you believe Satan's free will is in any way impacted by this knowledge?

Why would it be any different for us as human beings?

I read the account of a Christian who was extremely upset at the use of apologetics in Christian arguments for the existence of a god, because by their very nature of relying on the claims of logic/reason they can be dismantled using the same tools.

As an example, here is the teleological argument presented by William Lane Craig which is supposed to be one of the best arguments for the existence of god:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and...

Ultimately this argument is fallacious in several areas:

There is a false trichotomy in premise 1.

Premise 2 does not advance a positive argument for the existence of design, it merely asserts that the two other things which we DO see in nature should be discarded.

Premise 3 uses the argument from ignorance to claim that since we don't know, god did it, q.e.d.

What if we re-wrote the argument like this?

1. The universe was either designed by a monotheistic god of the Bible or it wasn't.

2. [ INSERT PROOF OF GOD ]

3. Therefore, god exists.

Surely this would be a trivial task for William Lane Craig, since he is so cocky and sure that god exists that he pushes the first argument like it is going out of style. Why isn't he willing to shoulder the burden of proof?

Are Christians aware of the non-Biblical reason they believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), carefully “calculated” all the generations given in Biblically provided genealogies, and making very careful GUESSES where there were blank spots, finally published the huge two-volume “The Annals of the Old Testament,” in which he wrote, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, which beginning of time, according to this chronology, occurred at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October in the year 710 of the Julian period.” In the right margin of the page, Ussher calculates the date in “Christian” time as 4004 B.C.

Additionally, he stated that all of human history would take place in a 6,000 year window, followed by a millennium under God.

According to his chronology, that would have begun in the year 1997.

Did it?

Why do Christians want to limit God to a six-thousand-year history, when (1) “god’s” geological record tells us completely differently, and (2) the Bible itself says nothing at all about how old the Earth is?