I think Islam is an evil religion, therefore their "god" is not real and does not exist.
I think the JudeoChristian god is evil (based on the book he allegedly wrote describing himself), therefore I conclude that he does not exist. This is not my actual argument, but it is just as valid as yours.
Read the testimony forums of believers who post their miraculous testimonies of what Christ has done for them (and me too). Did "allah" perform miracles? Never. He can't, he doesn't exist.
I guarantee you that if you find a community similar to this one, but composed of Muslims, they will have testimonies about how Allah performed miracles and changed their lives.
I gave you a place (Forum) to go to read about EVIDENCE of why our GOD is real, exists and the only GOD. You clearly reject the knowledge before you, so why bother asking any more questions?
Using prophecy as proof of a text is hugely problematic, because prophecies are so vague. By this logic, Nostradamus was a prophet because his prophecies can be interpreted as having come true.
misesfan said:
I am not stating that I reject these other religions because of my own ideas - I reject them because I have concluded God exists and by extension what God has revealed by the Bible says of these other religions - that they must be false since other religions state Jesus is not the Incarnation of God on earth. That is, to be logically consistent I must reject them since I accept Christ.
Then by what evidence can you conclude that Christianity is correct? Everything you have used so far could easily be applied to any other religion. If you just happened to believe in Hinduism, you could make the exact same argument in reverse: that you disbelieve Christianity because it contradicts Hinduism, which you (in this hypothetical) believe.
However, I think the evidence is fairly conclusive that Jesus existed and I know that others agree, including historical experts on the matter. I am not trying to argue to authority. I am stating a fact, which is that historians agree that Jesus is not a mythical person.
Many people agree that Jesus existed. I said it is debatable. Not everyone agrees.
For example, do you think Caesar lived? Do you think Archimedes lived? Plato? Aristotle? What evidence do you have for these men's existence? I think they lived because I have read historical accounts of their lives from those who knew them or those who knew of them.
Many of those figures have historical writings about them recorded during their own lifetimes, or by first-hand witnesses. Jesus does not have such records. Records written long after their lives tend to be very consistent. The gospels contain many inconsistencies.
Further I can see their effects throughout the course of history, humanity and civilization.
There is an important distinction to be made here. We see the results of these men's actions. Caesar changed the nature of an empire. Archimedes made important scientific discoveries. Plato and Aristotle contributed to philosophy. The later impact of these actions depends on the fact that these actions occurred. In the case of Jesus, the later impact depended on belief in Jesus, not whether or not he actually lived. Imagine a hypothetical world in which the Biblical authors wrote what they did, completely absent a historical person, and people accepted it. Nothing today would be different. The historical impact of Jesus does not depend on his actual existence.
You and I both know that the accounts written of Him were from those who knew Him (Matthew and John) or were disciples of those who did (Luke and Mark).
We don't know that at all. Most scholars do not think those people actually wrote the books.
You and I both know these accounts were written within the same generation of the time of the Crucifixion, and thus could be proven incorrect by those who would denounce the facts.
If they had actually observed the facts, which would require them to have actually occurred. And if they had sufficient reach to make their voices heard objecting.
Consider however, by being an atheist, one rejects the existence of God, even though we know that science cannot prove His non-existence. Doesnt that show a bit of intellectual dishonesty, since the atheist must assume infinite knowledge including knowledge of the supernatural and its existence? Even though he cannot prove the fact, he knows God doesnt exist because why? Wouldnt you agree that this is more akin to blind faith than reason? And wouldnt you agree that the Christian who has "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" is being at least internally consistent with his logic as opposed to the atheist who states that science proves something in which it doesnt?
I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists. This
DOES NOT mean that I explicitly deny the existence of God. I am not sure whether or not God exists. I am an agnostic. Atheist and agnostic are by no means contradictory. They do not answer the same question. There is much confusion about these terms, and the definitions I just used are probably not universal. However, most atheists I know would probably find those agreeable.
1) Classic proof:
- Everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence.
- The universe had a beginning
- The universe thus must have a cause to its existence.
- That cause must be God (since only God exists outside of time and space capable of creation ex nihilo - by definition)
I propose a natural process that exists outside of time and space capable of creation ex nihilo. I now use that same argument as proof of its existence. Also, things come from nothing all the time (virtual particles). And what is so impossible about an infinite regress?
If Jesus was God then you will be judged and go straight to hell without passing Go. I go to paradise.
If Jesus was not God then we both perish none the wiser.
Is it really worth the gamble, I am not a gambler when eternity is at stake.
This is a variation of a classic argument known as Pascal's Wager. There are a number of problems with it.
1) A benevolent god would not send anyone to hell (as typically understood) for any reason. Particularly not a decently moral person. (I'm alright, not perfect)
2) Can you really believe something just as "fire insurance?" What if I tell you that unless you believe there is an invisible pink unicorn on your head, it's going to get angry and spear you with its invisible pink horn? Can you do it?
3) This can be applied in many ways. What if another religion is right and you go to hell for believing the wrong one? There are countless religions. What if God created rational beings, and rewards us for not believing in him when he provided us with no evidence, sending believers to hell? You've created a false dichotomy.
rizen1 said:
If you go back you'll see Namith ( the suppose big bad atheist ) listened and never questioned me.
I will abide by the rules here, since it is your community and I do not wish to be an unwelcome intruder.
