God does exist.

[Frencheneesz]

Marc:

"Change His mind and... repent? Why can't he change his mind?"

The reason humans change their mind is because they remember details that they did not consider. If god knows all and is all powerful, then he doesn't forget to consider things.

Jan Ardena:

"I take it, when you argue that God cannot be omniscient, you are using the examples as set by religion, as to the description of God."

Well, yes, but we need not consult the bible. You say god is omniscient (all powerful, and all knowing, which inclues perfect knowlege of the future), and that humans have freewill. I do not need the bible for anything given your ideas. I simply am trying to prove to you that freewill cannot exist without uncertainty.

"Did the first computer create itself, or was it created by a living being?
Do you get my point?"

Yes, but I consider it rather irrellevent. You imply that computers are different from humans because they were created by us and it doesn't experience emotions. You are quite right, yet I say this is irrellevant because I believe we may well build computers in the future that can experience emotions and be just as intelligent as we are.

The only problem is that neither of us can prove whether or not this will happen, thus making either argument useless.

"I have not said that, just by that one biblical verse i cited earlier, you can see that God is clearly in control of the material universe."

Would you mind clearing that up for whatsupall? He seems to ademently believe the opposite. Are you trying to say that every "soul" is a different personallity of god, so that god is controlling everything, but that he splits himself into many parts? If so, then what would be the rational for such a powerful creature to create the equivelant of an imaginary friend construed of his own essence?

"No, there are two ways, as told in scripture;
The wages of sin is death
The gift of God is eternal life. "

I don't exactly take that biblical anecdote to mean that there are "two ways", but what YOU think is all that matters for the sake of argument.
SO, you say there are only two ways for the universe to play out, OR that there is two ways for a single PERSON to act?

Nevertheless, if god knows WHICH path the universe will take, THEN there is no choice. If you say that there is choice, then freewill can exist (but is not required). IF you say that there is NO choice (only one way things can happen), then freewill cannot exist.

------I'm sure you can agree that freewill cannot exist IF IF IF there is no possibility for choices, right? ------

"Read read read above. "

Reading above does not answer the question. If there is NO CHOICE, THEN is there also no possible freewill? You have said that freewill is the ability to make choices, SO if there is no choices to be made, freewill cannot exist, right?

From this you are arguing that there ARE choices and I am arguing that there CANNOT BE any choices IF god knows the future perfectly and completely.

----------What is your definition of "knowlege"? -------
"To "know." "

Is that a joke? You cannot use the word or its base in the definition of the word. Besides, knowlege is not a verb and "to know" IS, therefore they are not equivelant.

Again, can you define knowlege?

"What am I "trying" to say, as you put it? "

It most definately is EITHER metephorical, or straight wrong. Something cannot be same AND different at the same time in the same sense. Something can be the same in certain ways and different in others. I think what you were trying to say is that god is in all of us yet is not the only component of us.

 

[Frencheneesz]

"To me, I think all knowing means "ALL DOING", "

You are, simply, wrong. You have placed this blame on athiests for a while. Any time anyone notices it, they tell you that is not what they think. Stop putting words in our mouths.

We mean that if god KNOWS the future perfectly, then everything IS predestined. Did we say that god predestines it, no. Even if we did say god predestined it, it still doesn't mean god is all doing. He can build the machine, start it, and then watch it roll. This is not all doing, quite contrary to what your petty little mind thinks.

"And no, there isnt 1 way that we can follow things, there is two, but as an atheists u like to lie and take things out of context. "

Two words: fuck you. You keep saying this. We lie we lie we lie. That is such a bullshit propaganda! Think about it! If WE just said: "whatsupall/muscleman Just lies and he is possesed by the devil", I'd think that you wouldn't appreciate that as relevant. We do not lie, we may be wrong, but it is not lying.

Your stupidity seems to blame out incompattable ideologys on the devil and on some assumption that we lie...

Marc:

"From all the posts I've read on this forum I have come to the conclusion that Atheism does not have any validity. Reading all the posts just made me realise that the atheists have no stance; no valid reason to deny God's existence."

So.... you think we are liers and are possesed by the devil too? Of course there is no evidence that god does not exist! Our sole reason for not believing in god is that many people have searched, only to find "evidence" that is not compatible with our logic. Simply, we have not seen any substantial evidence for god that we can believe. What is your proof of god's existance?

"That doesn't elliminate that fact that we made a choice. "

Im sorry, but I must argue that it does. You beg the question in your assumption that god knows what CHOICE we will make. You already assume that a choice was made, which in turn assumes that there are choices to choose from. The problem with that is that if god KNOWS exactly what will happen in the future, then there IS no choice.

I think you disagree with this important fact: for choice to exist, uncertainty needs to exist. Am I right (that you disagree)?


How bout you give me YOUR evidence that god exists? You cannot use followers in your evidence, this includes the bible. The reason you cannot use the bible or other followers papers is because you would then have to prove the validity of those papers, an awfully hard thing to do.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
Go to Merriam-Webster.com and review the differences between 'eyewitness evidence' and 'hearsay evidence'. The key search word to use when you get there is 'evidence'.

Very well:

Evidence n. 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.

eyewitness n. A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

hearsay n. Report; rumor; fame; common talk; something heard from another.

Hearsay evidence (Law), that species of testimony which consists in a narration by one person of matters told him by another. It is, with a few exceptions, inadmissible as testimony.

Now let's refer back to your statement:

Christians have EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Over 500 people testified to the resurrection, and were subsequently killed for it. Are eyewitness testimonies used as 'evidence' in a court of law?

And the Biblical quotation you refer to:

1 Corinthians 15:4 - 8
and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

What is obvious is that, at best, Paul's mention of the 'eyewitnesses' is purely hearsay. He did not see this event himself but is reporting upon something told to him by someone else. So you do not have '500 eyewitness testimonies. What you have is one account of hearsay evidence that claims there were 500 witnesses. If you had 500 eyewitness testimonies you would have to provide them. Which is what would be required in a court of law; you can't just claim they exist.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz


We mean that if god KNOWS the future perfectly, then everything IS predestined. Did we say that god predestines it, no. Even if we did say god predestined it, it still doesn't mean god is all doing. He can build the machine, start it, and then watch it roll. This is not all doing, quite contrary to what your petty little mind thinks.

ILL PUT AN END TO THIS TOPIC ONCE AND FOR ALL...AFTER THIS YOU SHOULD REALIZE THAT WE WON THE ARGUMENT, ASNWER THE QUESTION I WILL POST BELOW...ANSWER IT "YES" OR "NO".....

WHEN I WAS PLAYING MY X-BOX WITH MY TV, IN MY ROOM, MY NEPHEW CAME IN THE ROOM AND WAS WATCHING, AND IMMEDIATELY I PREDICTED THAT HE WILL GRAB THE CONTROLLER AND WANT TO PLAY. FEW SECONDS LATER I WAS RIGHT! HE DID, SO MY KNOWLEDGE WERE RIGHT, NOT THAT IM A PSYCHIC BUT I KNEW THROUGH COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC, THAT KIDS ARE CURIOUS AND WANTS TO EXPLORE THINGS (I WAS 100% ACCURATE WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE).

THE QUESTION IS, BECAUSE I WAS 100% ACCURATE OF THIS KNOWLEDGE IN THE FUTURE, DOES MY NEPHEW THEN HAVE A "FREEWILL" TO REJECT PLAYING THE GAME? AFTER ALL HE DID EXACTLY WHAT I KNEW?
ANSWER THE QUESTION "YES" OR "NO", DOES MY NEPHEW HAVE A FREEWILL TO REJECT THE GAME OR NOT....IM WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER.....

 

[Raithere]

Here's the problem

Originally posted by MarcAC
He is never wrong. We have the choices to make. God knows the choices we are going to make. We make the choices. We are predestined because we make those choices. I just can't see the problem.

Let's take a look:

choice n. 1. Act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from two or more things that which is preferred;

Thus to have a choice we must be able to choose between two or more things. Now let's say we have two options, A or B. And if we have free-will, the ability to choose between A or B, then we can choose either one. However, if God is omniscient and our future is predestined in that God knows for fact that we will select A then we are incapable of selecting B. For to select B would make God wrong and violate his omniscience. So while it might appear that we have a choice, in actuality, we do not because B would be impossible. Choice B may as well not exist because we are incapable of selecting it.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
so Raithere, because my nephew chose to play the video game instead of playing with my dog, then my dog doesnt exist? DOES IT THEN MEAN THAT MY NEPHEW HAVE NO FREEWILL TO REJECT THE GAME, AND THAT THE DOG WHICH HE COULD HAVE PLAYED WITH OTHERWISE DOESNT EXIST? AFTER ALL I WAS 100% ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE THAT HE WILL PLAY THE VIDEO GAME AND HE DID, I WAS RIGHT, DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL? answer me...

Whatsup, I don't think this will have any effect but I'll try to explain anyway.

Using your example:

Your nephew has two choices: either A (play a video game) or B (play with the Dog). Now if God knows that he will play the video game (A) then there is no way he can play with the dog (B); is there? Then how can he really have free-will? It might appear that he can do either but, in truth, he cannot because God knows that A will happen and B cannot happen.

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

I dont think you read the question, Ill post it again...Answer me directly....

so Raithere, because my nephew chose to play the video game instead of playing with my dog, then my dog doesnt exist? DOES IT THEN MEAN THAT MY NEPHEW HAVE NO FREEWILL TO REJECT THE GAME, AND THAT THE DOG WHICH HE COULD HAVE PLAYED WITH OTHERWISE DOESNT EXIST? AFTER ALL I WAS 100% ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE THAT HE WILL PLAY THE VIDEO GAME AND HE DID, I WAS RIGHT, DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

I WANT AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, YES OR NO...DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

answer me yes or no...GIVE ME AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, OTHERWISE THIS TOPIC WILL NEVER END....

 

[VAKEMP]

whatsupyall,

I WANT AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, YES OR NO...DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

MarcAC,

He is never wrong. We have the choices to make. God knows the choices we are going to make. We make the choices. We are predestined because we make those choices. I just can't see the problem.

According to MarcAC, the answer is NO! You might think your nephew has a choice. The dog might think your nephew might play with him. However, GOD KNOWS your nephew will choose to play the XBox. You might think there was a higher probability that your nephew would rather play the XBox, but that is not the same as GOD KNOWING he would play the XBox.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
I WANT AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, YES OR NO...DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

The answer is not yes or no. The answer is that you did not have knowledge of what his choice would be until he chose. Prior to his choosing you only had a prediction. That it was an accurate prediction makes no difference, it was still not knowledge until after he had chosen.

Knowledge is truth. Knowledge cannot be incorrect or it is simply a false belief. You might have been wrong. The possibility that you might have been wrong allows for free-choice.

But if you had known... truthfully, factually, inerrantly, known what your nephew would have done then the answer would be No. He would have no free choice.

~Raithere

 

[inspector]

"Many of the things referenced in the Bible are based upon historical facts. This does not mean the rest is truth."
-------------------------------------

So, how do you choose what is valid and what is invalid? Most illogical.


"Fact is, not a single supernatural event is referenced outside of the Bible."
--------------------------------------

Fact is, not a single supernatural event is refuted in any document from the Romans and Jews of that time period either.


"I'm not going to argue every item of archeological evidence available and what it's meaning is."
---------------------------------------

Of course not. You will predictably dismiss it and change the subject.

><>

 

[VAKEMP]

stu43t,
Your explanations are full of contradictions.

For example:

He knows what the future holds, He does not know whether we will accept Him or not...He is all knowing

In summary:
He is all knowing, but He does not know.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by inspector
So, how do you choose what is valid and what is invalid? Most illogical.

Hardly. I'm quite logical when analyzing interesting or extraordinary claims. I am also rather critical of such claims no matter what the source. I rely upon evidence, logic, and critical analysis.

Fact is, not a single supernatural event is refuted in any document from the Romans and Jews of that time period either.

So you believe every claim made by anyone unless you have a refutation of that claim? If not, why?

Of course not. You will predictably dismiss it and change the subject.

Not at all. I'm really getting tired of your presumptions as to my character. I agree that there is historical truth in the Bible. However, there are also historical inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. In addition, religiously speaking, the most important facet of the Bible are the miracles and there is no outside supporting evidence for them.

If I said that I can walk on water or raise the dead would you believe me? Why? And if not, then on what grounds do you believe that Jesus could?

~Raithere

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Raithere
The answer is not yes or no. The answer is that you did not have knowledge of what his choice would be until he chose. Prior to his choosing you only had a prediction. That it was an accurate prediction makes no difference, it was still not knowledge until after he had chosen.

Knowledge is truth. Knowledge cannot be incorrect or it is simply a false belief. You might have been wrong. The possibility that you might have been wrong allows for free-choice.

But if you had known... truthfully, factually, inerrantly, known what your nephew would have done then the answer would be No. He would have no free choice.

~Raithere

knowl·edge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nlj)
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience
or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or
learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.

RAIT, AND VAKEMP, YOU ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE THE QUESTION I HAVE POSTED, BUT TRUST ME, YOU WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH IT..YOU HAVE NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION BUT INSTEAD CHANGE TOPIC AND TALKS ABOUT YOUR THE DEFINITION OF "KNOWLEDGE". YOU ARE MAKING YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE...MY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MY NEPHEW COMMITING THE ACT WAS 100% TRUTHFULL, FACTUAL, INNERANT, ABSOLUTE, AND ACCORDING TO YOU THIS IS KNOWLEDGE, SO MY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MY NEPHEWS' ACT IS INDEED KNOWLEDGE...AGAIN MY KNOWLEDGE OF MY NEPHEW DOING THE ACT WAS FACTUAL AND TRUTHFULL, AND I DIDNT HAVE THE THOUGHT THAT HE WILL REFUSE PLAYING GAME WITH ME, I WAS 100,000,000,000% ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFULL WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE...


I WANT A DIRECT ANSWER FROM THE ATHEIST, FROM VAKEMP, TO FRENCHENEEZ, AND YOU STU43T, YOU AINT A CHRISTIAN, DUDE, GOD IS ALL KNOWING, HE DIDNT JUST KNOW PART OF THE FUTURE AND KNOWS HE WILL WIN, HE KNOWS EVERYTHING 100% ABSOLUTE, JUST AS WITH MY KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING MY NEPHEW...

So once again, Ill post it...Answer me directly....

so Raithere, because my nephew chose to play the video game instead of playing with my dog, then my dog doesnt exist? DOES IT THEN MEAN THAT MY NEPHEW HAVE NO FREEWILL TO REJECT THE GAME, AND THAT THE DOG WHICH HE COULD HAVE PLAYED WITH OTHERWISE DOESNT EXIST? AFTER ALL I WAS 100% ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE THAT HE WILL PLAY THE VIDEO GAME AND HE DID, I WAS RIGHT, DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

I WANT AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, YES OR NO...DOES MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTION THEN MEAN HE HAS NO FREEWILL?

answer me yes or no...GIVE ME AN ABSOLUTE ANSWER, OTHERWISE THIS TOPIC WILL NEVER END....

 

[whatsupyall]

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION DIRECTLY AND ABSOLUTE...THEN THIS CASE IS OVER, WE WIN...IT JUST SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NO STANCE IN YOUR BELIEF, ANSWER ME EITHER YES, OR NO, AND DONT CHANGE TOPIC, YES OR NO, OTHERWISE I WILL CONSIDER THIS TOPIC DONE, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....MY ANSWER IS YES, HE DOES HAVE FREEWILL TO REJECT A GAME EVEN THOUGH I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS DECISION (LIKE GOD TO HUMANITY), THATS MY STANCE...ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE WITH ME THAT MY NEPHEW DONT HAVE FREEWILL? THEN I HAVE JUST PROVED TO YOU THAT ATHEIST ARE MUCH MORE DELUSIONAL THAN CHRISTIANS...

 

[MarcAC]

He Knows

Originally posted by stu43t
God has given us free will, He knows what the future holds, He does not know whether we will accept Him or not, otherwise what would be the point of free will. He knows that you have that choice, this is free will.

He is all knowing, He knows what the future holds, He knows the Devil will be defeated, He knows the thereafter. He knows that whoever does not accept Him will also perish with the Devil. Whoever believes in Him through Jesus our Lord, will go to heaven, this is all knowing.

Through free will He knows that you will either choose to believe or not. He knows that you have that choice. He knows what ever the outcome of your choice will determine whether you will go to Heaven or perish with the devil. This is Gods all knowing and free will.

He knows whether we will accept Him or not. Because He knows everything. It is in the Bible that He knows.

Now for the rest.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
This is perfectly acceptable. But it does mean that God is not omniscient in the sense of knowing the future.

There is obviously no point in pursuing this discussion.

I definitely did not mean it in the sense you indicate and I find the suggestion to be somewhat absurd. A fanatic is someone who is overzealous and unreasonable.

Very soon after the atrocity, the US gov. blamed, Osama bin Laden for the act, without producing any evidence.
In the US, Britain and Europe, Sikhs were murdered, beaten and abused over period of about a couple of days, until the governments appealed to the ignorant masses. Why? Because they wore turbans, similar to the one that bloke on the telly wore (OBL).
I found that somewhat absurd.

One may choose, instead, to die.

Then God will know that the person chooses to die, because the person has desired it.

One might desire to eat chocolate cake.

Chocolate cake isn’t the desire, the desire is to satisfy the craving you have.
Chocolate cake is a choice that you have made, because it is available to you, and it has all the ingredients, texture, aesthetics, to make it desirable.

But upon considering this one might realize that chocolate cake has lots of calories and fat and is therefore unhealthy.

I see your point.
That is true, but what has happened is that one does not get the same satisfaction one used to get by eating chocolate cake and as a result, one has lost ones taste for it. But the desire for gratification is still alive and kicking, but has developed into something which can give, seemingly, more satisfaction.

This means the desire has changed, that’s all.
The desire to be slim and attractive, is to some people, far more appealing than chocolate, for which one has become bored with.

Thus, after consideration, one no longer desires chocolate cake.

I do see your point.

The problem is, what you probably consider to be evidence I probably do not.

What I consider evidence, has to affect me, the process of believing something, has to start with me. There is no point accepting anything, so profound as God, without first having some experience. This experience can happen in any way.
When you look purely for external evidence, then you shut a part of yourself down, and you can only accept things as they are put to you by whichever authority you trust. You become part of a collective.
This is not a bad thing, but it means you cannot accept any personal experience.

All reputed evidence for God that I've seen has had some critical flaw that causes me to refuse it as grounds for a belief in God.

All external evidence can be seen to have critical flaws, just as a good lawyer can make a mass murderer appear innocent.

All the logical arguments I've seen have either involved a critical fallacy or are based upon what I consider to be faulty premises.

Then you have to dig deeper, or reject the whole idea, either way you eventually have to make a decision.

All the physical 'evidence' that I have considered has had a better or simpler explanation that did not involve God. All the rest has been anecdotal.
Then go with whatever you feel is right.

So what do you consider to be evidence of God?

If I were to give a more detailed answer, it would be quite a long post, so I will start with “everything” as my first answer, and if you like, we will take it from there.

Previously you have argued from the observation that all life comes from life...

This is a physical observation, we see life as having a beginning and end, so that means life had to start from somewhere, I’m sure you can agree that this is basic logic.

yet this line of reasoning does not support a conclusion of a supernatural cause,

It depends how you see things. If man could make another man, then I wouldn’t think about the supernatural.

much less necessitate God.

You have to be patient, and understand that GOD is not your order supplier, He is Supremely Magnificant, in all His Splendour and Glory. He is the Oldest, the Greatest, the Wisest, the most Intelligent, the most Munificent, the most Beautiful, the Biggest, the Smallest, the most Merciful, the most Pleasurable, the most Wealthiest, the most Awesome, Terrible, Fearful Person.

I know that this is my opinion from your perspective, but that is who and what He is described as, so before you even start, you must have some respect, because such a Person does not come to you cheaply, this respect starts out by having “faith” without which, the road to God is not possible. That is where you must start.

So, what else do you consider evidence for God? I'm happy to analyze whatever evidence or argument you provide.

I’m happy to go down this road with you, but you have to let me do it in my way, as you are asking me. Therefore we must take things one step at a time, patients is a virtue.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[inspector]

"I'm really getting tired of your presumptions as to my character."
---------------------------------

But you are just doing this 'for fun', remember?






"I agree that there is historical truth in the Bible. However, there are also historical inaccuracies and outright falsehoods."
---------------------------------

Could it simply be that you have not been exposed to the solutions to your claimed 'inaccuracies'? Provide specific biblical examples, please.





"In addition, religiously speaking, the most important facet of the Bible are the miracles and there is no outside supporting evidence for them."
-----------------------------------

Wrong and wrong. First, the most important facet of the Bible is salvation by grace through faith. Second, there is eyewitness testimonies written by the eyewitnesses themselves supporting many miracles performed by Jesus.




"If I said that I can walk on water or raise the dead would you believe me?"
-------------------------------------

I do not attempt to prove negatives. Additionally, there is much more to Jesus' existence than solely miracles. Have you fulfilled any prophecies lately?




"I agree that there is historical truth in the Bible."
--------------------------------------

Well, at least there is hope for you.

><>

 

[VAKEMP]

stu43t,

I did not write the words in that context.

Yes you did.

You wrote:
'He knows what the future holds'
- Is that taken out of context?

- 'He does not know whether we will accept Him or not'
- Pretty simple to understand.

- 'He is all knowing'
- Once again, speaks for itself.

I understand this as:
- God knows everything, even what will happen in the future. But, God doesn't know who will accept Him.

It is impossible to be all-knowing AND not know something at the same time. If He doesn't know something, then He's not all-knowing.

If He knows what will happen in the future, then He should know who will accept Him now AND in the future.

Therefore, according to your interpretation of God, we do not have freewill, and our paths are already set.

 

[MarcAC]

Views

Voodoo Child
You're quite right. There is no good reason to deny the existence of ANY extraordinary, supernatural being that we haven't seen. Generally you don't believe in something until you find a reason not to. You not believe in something until you find a reason to believe.

Having said that, there are reasons not believe:

- the incoherence of the God idea

- parsimony.

However, as sciforumians have shown there is no real reason to believe or disbelieve in any God. Proofs from philosophy and archaeology fail miserably things like the problem of evil are quite unconvincing.

Most people are atheists, some just believe in one less God.

The reasons people believe are real. The reasons people don't believe are also real. But are they justified? Some people don't believe because their life is a living hell: some people's lives are a lving hell and they still believe. Some people don't believe because of the human invention which attempts to explain God's works, logic: others believe because of the limitations of logic. Some people believe evolution occured and say it is all a matter of chance - nothing behind it: other's believe evolution occured and say God is behind the natural selection. What is the difference between them? The ones that believe put their faith in God. Some speak of lack of 'evidence'. For those who believe there is plenty of evidence. Faith makes you see the evidence. The lack of faith makes you deny the evidence and even say faith itself is foolish. The non-believers want God to just come down and say; 'Yeah The I Am is here': God wants you to seek him and find out that He is here. It is your choice to seek him and find faith along the way. God already knows the choice you will make. I don't. He want's you to make the right choice. I am a Christian - that said - DON'T ask me what I think the right choice is. We all want it to be easy and simple. However, it is not so, and is a consequence of our actions. Before God created the first man he knew what the last man would do. So what? Would you have preferred non-existence? That is your choice. The only reason my feeble mind can hold on to [USING LOGIC] is that God has allowed us to traverse this path in our existence because it strengthens us in some way when you consider eternity in mind - otherwise I have faith in my God's goodness. The soul existed before and will exist after the body. I see this bodily form as a mode of improving us for a better existence - just like being educated to live a stereotypically better life.
What is the incoherence of the 'God idea'? You mean the existence of many religions? The Bible explains that.
How does parsimony fit in?
Most people are atheists some just believe in one less God? Don't get that.

 

[MarcAC]

What's the problem

Originally posted by Raithere
Let's take a look:

choice n. 1. Act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from two or more things that which is preferred;

Thus to have a choice we must be able to choose between two or more things. Now let's say we have two options, A or B. And if we have free-will, the ability to choose between A or B, then we can choose either one. However, if God is omniscient and our future is predestined in that God knows for fact that we will select A then we are incapable of selecting B. For to select B would make God wrong and violate his omniscience. So while it might appear that we have a choice, in actuality, we do not because B would be impossible. Choice B may as well not exist because we are incapable of selecting it.

~Raithere

Fine Raithere. To put it simply. When you talk about choices A and B you mean we make those choices right? So therefore we choose. Now God doesn't make the choices for us. So if He knows what choice we will make it doesn't matter. We still make our choice out of the variables which are there. God simply knows which variable we will choose. And I have seen that you smartly do not say that knowing is doing. Do you see your error? And why didn't you just answer what's up y'alls questions. Simply yes or no.