Realm Master Member Posts: 1971 From: USA Registered: 05-15-2005 |
quote: now i KNOW God is alive and I know he rules the universe but i CANT FIND ANYTHING TO DISPROVE HIM! I really need too, but I CANT THINK OF ANYTHING! (beats head on keyboard, breaks keyboard, beats head on desk) WAA!! Im sorry God! I just couldn't think of anything!!! AAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!! (beats head on desk again and agian and again and again and etc.) ------------------ Blessed are those who show mercy. Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right. [This message has been edited by Realm Master (edited July 10, 2005).] |
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
He can't prove it and you can't disprove it. It's a stalemate, nobody has the upper hand. So we just gotta sit there grooooovin' on it, cause we dunno. |
Briant Member Posts: 742 From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada Registered: 01-20-2001 |
The approach used by the person claiming "God is dead" is faulty - it is not up to other people to prove someone else wrong. If his was a valid approach to logical support for a position, almost anything could "supported". For example: "The tooth fairy is real. Prove me wrong." or "I was Shakespeare in a past life. Prove me wrong." or "Only I exist. Prove me wrong." Instead, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion in the first place. If someone claims God is dead, or they were Shakespeare in a past life, or the tooth fairy is real, it's up to *them* to prove their own assertion - not up to everyone else to disprove them. |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
quote: i totally agree. Can you really isolate God, manipulate the environment, and record the results to prove His existence? of course not. He is not subject to this physical universe. It's all by faith, both viewpoints. ------------------ |
Rhyolite Member Posts: 86 From: UK Registered: 08-04-2004 |
As said, I have spent many many wasted hours arguing such things! These sort of thigs are best left as a stalemate. However, what I have done is used my own 'experience' of God as a witness. No-one can disagree with what you have experienced, even if they have not experienced it themsleves. So, just tell them the difference God has made in your life and why you 'go against the flow' and suffer the insults of other people etc. This is a powerful witness. Alternatively, if the person is willing to at least half listen (which in this case I guess not?), suggest they just 'pretend' God exists for a short while and then explain the world (creation) from Gods point of view. And dont beat yourself up about it, this guy probably said it with little thought and just to wind you (or others) up. I try and stay 'chilled' in such situations, the guy at the other end is usaly just havibg a laugh, so dont be too serious yourself. Oh, and if God is 'dead', then this guy must accept he was alive once?? Perhaps thats a starting point Rhy |
kiwee Member Posts: 578 From: oxfordshire, england Registered: 04-17-2004 |
'they spend too long arguing, and not enough time beliving' - quote of the day, by me ------------------ |
HanClinto Administrator Posts: 1828 From: Indiana Registered: 10-11-2004 |
Reasonably speaking, the only way we can prove if God is alive is if we can prove a supernatural event taking place. Would your friend agree with that statement? However, the trouble with this, is that supernatural events are exactly that -- not natural. So it's not like I can say "Hold on, I'm gonna' run to the store and pick up a few miracles, I'll brb". Possibly the most well known and easily provable supernatural event is that of supernatural creation. It's a fairly simple argument -- something in non-existence cannot will itself into existence. In simpler words, something cannot create itself. Therefore, since all we see is created, it must have been created by a Creator. However, that doesn't help you and your friend in this case, because I imagine he's arguing a point that's somewhat Deist (I.E. God spun the top of the universe and walked away or died). So that limits us to looking at contemporary supernatural events. The most significant supernatural event in the history of the world was the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a well-documented historical event. If you want a good summary of the evidence on trial for the resurrection of Christ, I recommend the book "The Case for Christ". So given the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, I suppose I can "prove" that God was active and "alive" 2000 years ago, and I can only take His word for it that He's still "alive" today. So there you have it -- I'm curious to know if he would agree that if you could prove the resurrection of Jesus that he would agree that God was "alive" at that time. Perhaps this excerpt from the Gospel according to Matthew would sum it up well: (for those not aware, the "scribes and Pharisees" were the spiritual leaders opposing Jesus. In asking Jesus for a sign, they were testing Him.)
quote: The death, burial and resurrection *is* the sign given to people, and no other sign will be given. Respectfully, ------------------ [This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited July 11, 2005).] |
Brandon Member Posts: 594 From: Kansas City, Mo, USA Registered: 02-02-2004 |
quote: Amen! And what a powerful and miraculous sign it is. It stands unshaken as one of the best attested facts of history. And this has been for over 2,000 years! It's a tragedy that most people don't care to look into it. It's also sad that some people do look into it, but even with all of the facts pointing to the one single truth, and even with the enormous odds that they face in denying it, many still refuse to believe... ------------------ |
Realm Master Member Posts: 1971 From: USA Registered: 05-15-2005 |
Wow... thanks guys, although its too late:... the entier forum now sees me as an idiot ... ah, well, i spend too much time online anyway. Gosh, i hope someboyd knocks some sense into them soon... ------------------ Blessed are those who show mercy. Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right. |
mr_friend Member Posts: 17 From: Bonner Springs, KS, USA Registered: 06-19-2005 |
I have been in your shoes, the real kicker is that your NOT suposed to convince this guy, it is the job of the holy spirit. Your are just to be a whitness and say what the Lord tells you to. I often find my self trying to defend a God that is fully capable of defending Him self. I find my self ready to take up a sword and chop up the apponent, but a still and soft voice says "if I wanted this guy in little pieces I would have squished him with a big rock from heaven, I have something else planed for Him, so just go with me on this". I often find it is harder to restrain my self than, try to win the conversation. Besides it is actulay easy for God to get people to know He is real, the tricky part is getting them to believe with faith in God first. I would like to add one other note, and that is we are to make sure the record is stright. By that I mean we should not try to win the converstation or the argument, but simply make sure that the unsaved have the biblical facts correct. (It is very hard to do I am still trying and only hope that I am getting better). Gary ------------------ |
CapnStank Member Posts: 214 From: Sask, Canada Registered: 12-16-2004 |
Invite him here... I think we've spent plenty of time on topics like "Quick Question" or "Good Points" chances are even Cheese and I would smack him verbally because a dumb-*** 's approach to any view deserves abuse. Unless you bring valid debates/opinions into the conversation it goes dry and useless. ------------------ |
HeistheOne Member Posts: 26 From: PA, USA Registered: 06-24-2005 |
Yeah, that guy is in pretty bad shape... makes me sad really. He can't realize that even if he considers God an opiate of the masses type thing or any such lesser and baser being that God is ever-supreme to, that He still isn't dead because there is approx a billion ( I think ) claimed Christians, let alone Jews, Muslims, and other monotheists that worship what may all be the same god but to each is God/Allah/(namehere) nonetheless. God's not dead because, we'll He doesn't die; but how much more is He alive that we worhip Him on this day He gave us. Glory to God! Amen. -edit- ------------------ [This message has been edited by HeistheOne (edited July 15, 2005).] |
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
To save myself time I'll just cut and paste one of my own posts:
quote: I disagree with the implication made by some in this post that the debate is at a stalemate. To be an atheist, most choose to revel in ignorance. But to be an intellectually satisfied atheist you have to rely on the unknown and have faith in a multiverse reality that is capable of producing a life-supporting universe. Then you have to believe in a set of deterministic rules that defy information theory (both Natural Selection and Random Mutations were decried at the recent "Woodstock of Evolution" by a large group of committed Darwinists). Atheism and naturalistic philosophy isn't a worldview that can be sustained in ambiguity. For it to be a reasonable worldview--a view based entirely upon science as they claim it to be--it needs to be solidly based upon facts, not improbable suppositions. Then there is concessionary arguments like this:
quote: Again I must disagree. People will often try to redefine their opponent's arguments in order to defeat them (aka the Strawman Logical Fallacy). The design inference is a scientific inference based upon empirical evidence centered solely around the existence of a designer (not the designer's supposed characteristics). The metaphysical implications on the character of the designer are just that...implications. But if you go by this redefinition you're forced to concede defeat entirely. But there isn't any reason to concede to this tactic at all. Science often relies on inference since it is impossible to bring some things “into the lab”. For example, in astronomy researchers work by inference when detecting planets. The planets themselves cannot be seen but the effects of gravity is detectable. Dark matter is assumed to exist based entirely on the inference that there must be large quantities of unseen matter influencing entire galaxies. On a more local level research into quantum mechanics is hobbled by the precision of our instrumentation and we must often rely on inference. Of course we can't drag God into the lab, but just like the planets I mentioned we can see his effects. We may not be able to prove the God of the Bible but we can certainly quantify the existence of a designer based upon inference. As for the nature of “nature”, the above argument appears to define anything that is supernatural as directly equating to mythological. The unnamed designer is claimed to be “supernatural,” and thus outside the realm of science, when in fact the nature of nature is precisely what’s at issue. Most atheists today require that science be carried out according to the rule of methodological materialism: to explain the natural world scientifically, people must restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction). The problem with this viewpoint is that the designer could be perfectly natural provided that nature is understood aright. Who is to say whether nature operates exclusively by such causes? If nature contains a richer set of causes than purely material causes, then detecting the designer is a live possibility and methodological materialism--as defined above--will misread physical reality. I know some theologians might howl at seemingly “lowering God to our level” but God DOES have a plane of existence in which he is in his natural state...it just might not be comprised of matter and energy as we know it. In summarization, arguments by atheists typically rely on concocted scenarios where "God" is redefined and must fit into a preconceived mold in order for the arguments to work. Once reality invades those arguments are no longer valid. As an aside, for more on the nature of the mind, physics, and the classical view of reductionism see this: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.doc [This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 15, 2005).] [This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 15, 2005).] |
Lava Member Posts: 1905 From: Registered: 01-26-2005 |
quote: Hesistheone, regardless of your screen name, do you believe that the God of the Blble is the only true God and that only in Jesus you may receive eternal life? I am confused from your post. [This message has been edited by lava (edited July 16, 2005).] [This message has been edited by lava (edited July 16, 2005).] |
CapnStank Member Posts: 214 From: Sask, Canada Registered: 12-16-2004 |
He believes in your vision of God. His comment was that even though there are other religions he believes there is a chance that they worship the same God as you in different ways and under a different name. ------------------ |
HeistheOne Member Posts: 26 From: PA, USA Registered: 06-24-2005 |
Actually stank, you are correct; I was acknowledging the idea that other religions exist, as well as a concept called Scriptural theory that states that all "mythologies" (faiths religions etc) are actually one original idea manpulated by man over the years to fit the areas they were taught in... to set the record straight: I believe in the immaculate conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of the one true Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and by the Trinity with the Father and Holy Spirit is also one in God, and that The Bible is God's Word. Amen! ps- for the script.theory bit, i acknowledge the possibility. But if it is true that one original exists then I believe that Christianity is it. Basically Jesus Rules! ------------------ |
goop2 Member Posts: 1059 From: Registered: 06-30-2004 |
heres a good reply Get a life ------------------ |