The belief that a God exists is reinforced by the evidence.

First, most religions have some element of the truth that Christians profess. Many, if not most, religions deal with some sort of higher being--which God is. I'd say that's a mark that God left. Now, why are there so many different religions? I would put forth that it's because God has 1) given humans free will to believe what they choose, and 2) given those who believe in him a field in which to live for him (going on Christian missions, for example.) But we are once more, we are debating God's reasoning behind doing things. This doesn't satisfy anything (except philosophical/theological curiosity), since most of God's reasoning we will probably never know.

Second, your analogy works only up to a certain point. I believe that math is fact and that God is just as much of a fact. But there is another factor present in the case of belief in God that is absent in the case of belief in math. If you disbelieve that the Pythagorean theorem is true, and I prove conclusively to you that it is true, that's not going to have any bearing on what you do with your desires, your urges, and your choices throughout your life.

However, if I prove to you (let's save the question of whether or not I can prove this for another thread) beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and that he created everything that exists in the universe, that will potentially have some bearing on the way you live your life.

In atheism, there is (technically) no moral accountability.

However, if it's proven reasonably to you that God created people and then you observe that most if not all people possess some sort of moral code within,

it's not unreasonable to conclude that God placed that code there deliberately. The implication, then, would be that a person would have an obligation to obey the code. A pre-established unwillingness to do so may conflict with an acceptance of the evidence for Christianity provided.

I've sort of already responded to this. I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. I'd say God's mark can be found on most, if not all, world religions--and even if this wasn't so, it wouldn't be a very good reason to disbelieve the existence of God.

I hear this response often, but it is never backed with anything at all. So what is this evidence?

It doesn't stand though. Because a majority of religions are not monotheistic in nature. So which is it? Is there a group of gods in reality or not? You have to be realistic. It's like if you were to thank a person for working on a project, but yet the project was a collaboration of many people who had equal amount of work on the project. By only thanking one of the people you have left out the others. It would seem absurd that if the reality were that there are in fact multiple gods then monotheistic would cause a conflict of interest. Not to mention that you would create other conflicts as well so you can't just say, this religion has multiple gods but since it is talking about a "higher" power it qualifies as having the exact same point as all the others. That doesn't work and a god would know that having all these different religions would actually create conflict and problems, why not influence them instead? That way you insure they won't fight over the details?

I don't follow your reasoning here. You could have absolute knowledge that a god or gods existed, yet decide not to obey their commandments. The bible is chalked full of accounts where people had first hand experience with god, yet chose not to obey. So I don't accept your argument, it's even right there in the beginning. Adam and Eve had face to face interaction with a god, did that ruin their free will? No, they still chose not to follow the rule. So why would you assume that if god revealed itself that it would some how conflict with a person's choice to do what they wanted? They would still have the choice.

This is nonsense, there is too accountability. My own self and those people around me. You think I don't care about the effects I have on society? You think that I do not have concern for what others will think of my actions? Maybe you don't have any empathy for humanity but I do. Maybe you need to have the threat of a god to be a considerate person or what ever, but I don't need anything than my own self reflection. I have to live with my self knowing what I have done in the past. You can argue if you want that god gave me the conscious that I am referring to but I say I don't need any god to be accountable.

Your argument fails because morality is adopted not innate.

Really? We've recently discussed this quite a bit in a different thread. Necessity of the beginning of the universe; evidence pointing to the Big Bang; the fine-tuning of the universe; the design and irreducible complexity of life.

My point is that most religions acknowledge a higher power, whether that power is comprised of one being or multiple beings. That in itself seems significant.

It seems to me that if you concluded that God exists and that he holds us to a moral standard, you would at least feel an obligation to meet that standard. You wouldn't necessarily choose to do so, but the compulsion would most likely be there.

Let me rephrase: In atheist materialism, there is no reasonable justification for the upholding of any moral standards. Assuming materialism, I could say:

1) All that exists or matters is the material.
2) A moral law is not material.
3) Therefore, a moral law either does not exist or does not matter.

I was considering starting my first thread on this forum based on this topic. If you, your family, and the rest of humanity are no better than single-cell organisms (since they're just wackily mutated versions of the latter), what's really the problem with killing and eating your fellow human beings? If you think human tastes good, and you happen to be hungry, I suggest you catch someone in a dark alley, tie them up, and eat them alive. Their pain and suffering don't matter--yours don't even matter. So what's the problem?

It all sounds quite caustic, but it seems to me that the inevitable conclusion following logically from atheist materialism is that nobody matters, morals are mere fantasy, and life and existence itself are a big joke.

I think there is evidence on both sides of this topic. It would be interesting to delve into this, but it may be another tangent from the thread at hand. (We are probably already on a tangent, in fact.)

The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?

Actually no, none of these are any evidence. I have refuted IC on many occasions and it is well documented to be a fallacy. I also have provided an alternative to the big bang theory, even though I am not against the theory. As far as fine tuning the universe, I think it is a gross misrepresentation of natural laws. How can you know how things would or would not be? It's like looking at something and saying, well this thing would be all chaotic but it's not because god made it not. It is a little absurd to reason that out without knowing the state of existence of the universe in all it's possible states. Not only that, but none of those things point to a god existing.

No, how can you make that argument when the bible even states a case where it did not happen how you are even arguing? Actually there are about a dozen cases in the bible where they knew of gods existence yet chose to disobey his commandment. So how can you actually make that claim?

Yeah you could try to make this claim but it is a common fallacy. My thoughts themselves are not material yet they have a huge impact on the things I do. So what would give you the impression that I would hold no value to my own personal morality?

It is a problem for me because I would sympathize with the situation. I don't even eat animals because I sympathize with their position. Why am I considered more important than any animal or human? I am not, I am equal to any animal or person, so killing them for myself to continue living is unjust in my opinion. So I would never kill a person, just so I can wave off dying of hunger. Not only that but your scenario is flawed. Think about it, if it really required me killing someone so I wouldn't starve, what happens after I eat them? Am I miraculously saved? Or do I have to go find another person to eat? If that was the last person, then I am screwed anyways. So instead of killing them I would rather offer myself up instead. You are going to die at some point, so why place yourself above everyone else?

You make that claim but that is not how I see it. Perhaps you need to have this threat over your head to have respect for others, but I don't. I see myself in others, so I can easily put myself into their perspective. If I am trying to take advantage of that, it would be nothing different than someone else taking advantage of me. Since I do not like being taken advantage of, I can respect the fact that I won't take advantage of anyone else. It is simple logic and it doesn't require any god at all to understand.

They ARE evidence--what matters is the conclusions you draw from the evidence. I have seen yours and others' refutations of IC, and I don't agree with them. (I make such a simple statement because this isn't an IC thread.) Also, your argument against the fine-tuning of the universe is a little vague.

Yes, they do point to a God existing. They are evidence in support of the fact. What you're saying is that because you feel you've refuted the theist conclusions drawn from the evidence, there was never any real evidence to begin with.

I'm not making the argument that we would have no choice but to obey a moral standard. I'll reiterate: there would be the COMPULSION, but obedience would not necessarily follow from this. You don't think that Adam and Eve would have felt the slightest pang of conscience after following God's commands like they did?

Your thoughts are not material? I thought everything you do is governed by electrical impulses in your brain? That's what the scientific EVIDENCE suggests. Now, if you're not completely materialist, then my argument doesn't apply to you as much.

This is where you go wrong. First, yes, from a materialist point of view, you are equal to any animal or human animal. And that is why there would be no problem with eating them; lower animals eat each other, so why shouldn't we? Second, what happens after you eat them is that you keep on surviving for a little while longer. After all, in materialist evolutionism, that's all that life does--it uses the stimulus provided to seek out food, so that it can go on to reproduce and then die; the goal of life is self-perpetuation. Pretty useless, if you ask me.

If you don't need to believe in God to accept morality, then in order to do the latter you have to at least allow that there are things in existence that are not material. Also, the last part of your paragraph isn't logic--it's compassion and empathy, two things that, from a materialist point of view, stem from mere chemicals floating around in the brain (in addition, perhaps, to acquired and arbitrary societal values).

That doesn't work and a god would know that having all these different religions would actually create conflict and problems, why not influence them instead? That way you insure they won't fight over the details?.

Hi Krumple,
I don't want to stray from the thread point - But, what makes you think that God's intention isn't to create conflict and problems? Man cannot know or assume the intentions of God.

I'm not in conflict with that possibility, and I have brought it up in the past. However; I think it is incredibly rare that any theist actually believes that god is actually against them. I think a majority believe god has their best interest in mind. It is just another assumption without any evidence so why assume it either way?

Hi Krumple,

If they've read their bible they will (Those attached to said system, of course).

Have a glance at Isaiah 45:7.

Thank you, Krumple.

Mark...

Yeah I am familiar with the passage. But there is a whole different side to the psychology of a christian. Since a majority do not even read it, they don't ever consume any thing other than what their minister or pastor feeds them. So there tends to be a lot of selective readings with a whole log of verbal editing mixed in. I bet you a million dollars there is an apologetic response to this line, ill go find it for some laughs.

"Scholars have observed that "evil" can be used with a purely secular meaning to denote physical injury or times of distress."

This doesn't make any sense because if they didn't mean the word evil, why use it? Why use a word that could create confusion? Why not be more specific and use a term that wouldn't be confused. I bet the original word is also evil yet they want to insist that the term meant other things other than evil.

So there you go, an apologetic response to the passage. God really doesn't bring on the evil, it means, god will mess you up if you don't obey. If you ask me it's a very fine line and quiet honestly sounds the same to me. I never liked abusive parents.

Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.

"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done."

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push."

Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.

Is this whole thread not based on the pretense that the message in the Bible is not to be talked about, and Christians are supposedly worshiping ink and paper when they read daily?
."

I'd like to answer this,

I would feel nothing whatsoever in performing the above act. Why? Because religion in general is a plague of this planet. It corrupts minds, and teaches people to not think for themselves. It breeds terrorism, and brings death to those who oppose anothers views. Its a form of brainwashing.

The leaders of religion are the shepherds, and the followers are sheep. Thats a good analogy.

The greatest irony is that many of these supposed men of God, who are "holy", righteous, are nothing of the kind. They are sick, evil, and perform their perverted acts on children.

The good that comes from religion, will never outweigh the destruction that it causes. Its no wonder that if there is a god, its why he remains obscure.

Shredding and burning bibles. You may be onto something here.

Hi Jack,

Not at all, it is about placing special significance on something "Material". The message within can be spoken, and is therefore not material. A place, such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho, Mecca, etc - A thing, such as, a cross, shroud, font, water (holy water), church (building) - A document such as, a gospel, letter, book, scroll, etc - - - All "Material". The reverement of ANYTHING "Material" is classed as idolatry in the book of Isaiah, and many other places, in collective scriptures, fundamental to the processes of orthodox christianity.

Thank you Jack, and have a great day, sir.

Mark...

So, the word is material? Or is the Gospel is material?

Why has IC never been accepted by any scientific media? There is not a single scientific paper that supports or endorses IC as being a legitimate possibility, not a single one. Science is not anti-religion, so there would be no reason why IC wouldn't have been documented in a scientific finding. Yet there are none, and the reason is, there is absolutely nothing that backs up IC as being a legitimate theory.

Why would they have such a reaction? Didn't they know who god was? Wouldn't that have been enough for them to make a proper decision? Or did god leave them in the foggy haze or lie to them about who he was? I find it incredibly hard to believe that a being interacting with the maker of the universe would be so candid and uncaring to a single and simple rule. It doesn't logically make sense unless they were ill informed of who it was making the rule, or they were absolute morons.

Sure there are electrical impulses but the thoughts themselves are not the impulse itself. Probably more like a byproduct of the chemical reaction within the neurons. The same for emotions. I wouldn't consider them a physical thing either, if they were, I bet humanity would be far more unstable than it currently is. It is the fact that these emotions do not always arise, where we can actually change our behavior in either good or bad ways. If they were physical, this wouldn't be possible.

That is how you chose to see it but I don't see it so bleak. Yes all life has it's source that it requires for it's own survival. The funny thing is, you were arguing morality, as if eating a human were considered wrong, but then you turn around and state a naturalistic course. As if you can say that animals eating animals is good, but a human eating a human isn't. Why would a god chose either way? Sounds like picking and choosing to me without any particular reasoning. So in reality if god designed animals to eat other animals then by all means humans are animals it should stand that it would be okay for humans to eat other humans.

I would feel nothing whatsoever in performing the above act. Why? Because religion in general is a plague of this planet. It corrupts minds, and teaches people to not think for themselves. It breeds terrorism, and brings death to those who oppose anothers views. Its a form of brainwashing.

The leaders of religion are the shepherds, and the followers are sheep. Thats a good analogy.

The greatest irony is that many of these supposed men of God, who are "holy", righteous, are nothing of the kind. They are sick, evil, and perform their perverted acts on children.

The good that comes from religion, will never outweigh the destruction that it causes. Its no wonder that if there is a god, its why he remains obscure.