According to Christianity, believers must have faith in God for them to receive eternal salvation. Now, depending on the Catholic (Purgatory) or the Protestant (Catholic Chruch was started by the Devil to trick people into not worshipping God and therefore anyone who does not pray to Jesus directly will burn in Hell forever) belief, sinners may/may not be able to make it into Heaven on Judgement Day, which is good news for agnostics/atheists if Catholics are right otherwise we're fucked.

Now, they also say that God does not give solid evidence of his existence because without faith in God, you do not believe in him. For instance, we all know electricity and how it works (Relatively) but we do not worship it, unlike tribes that do not understand electricity and therefore believe in it because they can't justifiy it in any other way.

By this logic, the only way to disprove God's existence is to prove his existence and therefore since we know he exists we do not have faith in him, and therefore do not believe in him, and so if we do not have belief in God, therefore he cannot exist.

Yes, there are a few holes in this, but generally it's sound. Sound as most arguments for/against the existence of God.

Therefore people who are trying to prove the existence of God (Preachers/Priests etc...) do not actually believe in God and so people who are <i>trying to disprove the existence of God[/i] (Scientists etc...) are actually keeping him as a faith and a believe, and so to believe in God, you must not try to prove/disprove his existence and just solely except him in faith, otherwise you are an unbeliever and therefore not able to get into Heaven (In the Protestant point of view that is).

In summary, the only way to disprove God is to prove his existance, and so anyone trying to prove his existence are truly not religious for they do not believe and so do not have the power of faith.

[This message has been edited by Tg.WaKu (edited 08-05-2005).]

Your point relies too much on what other people say.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Your point relies too much on what other people say.

The Bible is too much based on what people say. If you can prove the Bible is true, therefore the argument I posed must also be true. Therefore if I were to say this arugment is false, therefore the Bible would be false. Not that i'm necessarily saying the Bible is false, it could be true, but since the Bible is taken as an article of faith on what other people say, logically, my argument would be sound.

Bit of a Catch-22 on for thr poor old Almighty.

quote:Originally posted by Tg.WaKu:

According to Christianity, believers must have faith in God for them to receive eternal salvation. Now, depending on the Catholic (Purgatory) or the Protestant (Catholic Chruch was started by the Devil to trick people into not worshipping God and therefore anyone who does not pray to Jesus directly will burn in Hell forever) belief, sinners may/may not be able to make it into Heaven on Judgement Day, which is good news for agnostics/atheists if Catholics are right otherwise we're fucked.

Now, they also say that God does not give solid evidence of his existence because without faith in God, you do not believe in him. For instance, we all know electricity and how it works (Relatively) but we do not worship it, unlike tribes that do not understand electricity and therefore believe in it because they can't justifiy it in any other way.

By this logic, the only way to disprove God's existence is to prove his existence and therefore since we know he exists we do not have faith in him, and therefore do not believe in him, and so if we do not have belief in God, therefore he cannot exist.

Yes, there are a few holes in this, but generally it's sound. Sound as most arguments for/against the existence of God.

Therefore people who are trying to prove the existence of God (Preachers/Priests etc...) do not actually believe in God and so people who are <i>trying to disprove the existence of God[/i] (Scientists etc...) are actually keeping him as a faith and a believe, and so to believe in God, you must not try to prove/disprove his existence and just solely except him in faith, otherwise you are an unbeliever and therefore not able to get into Heaven (In the Protestant point of view that is).

In summary, the only way to disprove God is to prove his existance, and so anyone trying to prove his existence are truly not religious for they do not believe and so do not have the power of faith.



You are like Heidegger.

You write long essays with big words, trying to give the readers a huge mindfuck. At first glance, it seems very impressive, but the everyone's admiration wears off upon realising that the words are very big and the contents are very little.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

You are like Heidegger.

You write long essays with big words, trying to give the readers a huge mindfuck. At first glance, it seems very impressive, but the everyone's admiration wears off upon realising that the words are very big and the contents are very little.

Well, that's nice and all, but isn't that fairly ironic that you're citing my posts for having no point? Please, saying something that relates to the subject or please be quite, this is a theory, and I don't necessarily believe in it myself, I just want to see what other people think.

Getting into heaven is not dependent solely on belief in God. It is belief that our forgiveness comes from the suffering and death of Jesus. As far as my understanding goes, the Protestant doctrine says that there are no intermediaries between us and God. Catholicism (to the best of my knowledge, I'm not an expert), sees the Church as a necessary connection between the people and God. I must admit I've never heard the belief that Catholicism was started by the devil. I don't think it's a belief that many Protestants share.

I'm not seeing why the existence of God is dependent on our belief in him. In reference to your analogy, our understanding of electricity does not mean it does not exist.

Maybe I'm missing something.

As for proving/disproving the existence of God in general, I think it's futile. How can you prove something where no truly concrete evidence exists? I'm not saying, however, that attempts shouldn't be made. For some people, it seems to be their way to express their beliefs, which happen to involve God. The same goes for the people who try to disprove the existence of God, they are just trying to express their beliefs. Personally, I think their talents would be better used in other endeavors, but who am I to judge? I just wish there each side showed the other a little more respect sometimes.

By the way, the statement, "without faith in God, you do not believe in him" is very profound. ;-)

http://www.nirvananet.org/how_to_argue.html

Tg.Waku: without faith in God, you do not believe in him

When I was younger, I believed in God. But there was no faith involved. It was simply what I believed -- it seemed "obvious" to me.

Because this assumption fails, so does the rest of your argument.

"Fuck you religion!"

- Message from God

quote:Originally posted by Antagonist:

"Fuck you religion!"

- Message from God

That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say.

To the point.

How can trying to disprove god exists make you religious, and trying to prove god exists make you atheist.

It makes no sense

quote:Originally posted by midgetbasketball:

That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say.

Er.... Hitler was extremely religious.

The argument doesn't make sense...

quote:Now, they also say that God does not give solid evidence of his existence because without faith in God, you do not believe in him. For instance, we all know electricity and how it works (Relatively) but we do not worship it, unlike tribes that do not understand electricity and therefore believe in it because they can't justifiy it in any other way

Christianity doesn't require worship of a god, at least not in the way you describe a native may worship lightning.

It requires (depending on what Christian you ask) either believe in Christ as a savior, and that alone, or both that and to repent for one's sins. You can do both of them if the Christian god is proven to exist without any doubt.

So the rest of your argument doesn't follow.

A logical analysis of Tg.WaKu's arguments.

The numbers in brackets represent the point it is supposed to follow from. Words in parentheses are my comments.

Where I put "does not logically follow" it may be possible to prove it correct by adding in additional logical steps. I already added one such step, and that is assumption #7. But that's all I could see to fix.

Assumptions:

1. a person must believe or have faith in God to go to heaven. (questionable)

2. we know how electricity works

3. we do not worship electricity

4. ancient people did not know how electricity works

5. ancient people believed in electricity (they knew about lightning, but that's it)

6. we know God exists (cannot be safely assumed)

7. one does not have faith in something they know is true

Logic:

8. without faith in God, you do not believe in him [2,3,4,5](does not logically follow, and can be proven untrue*)

9. the only way to disprove God's existence is to prove his existence. [8](does not logically follow, is self-contradictory)

10. we do not have faith in God [6,7]

11. we do not believe in God [8,10]

12. God does not exist [11](does not logically follow -- ability to believe in God does not affect his existence)

13. people who are trying to prove God's existence do not believe in God (does not logically follow from any points previously made)

14. people who are trying to disprove God's existence believe in God (again, does not logically follow from anything)

15. people who try to prove or disprove God do not believe in him [13,14](contradicts #14)

16. people who try to prove or disprove God will not go to heaven [1,15]



* if there is no opposition to the belief of God, there is no requirement for faith. also, theoretically, if someone is whisked away to heaven daily to have tea with God they don't need faith to believe in him.)

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 08-07-2005).]

See the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, the babel fish and oolgin somethings book.

They said it as as joke so i dunno.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

* if there is no opposition to the belief of God, there is no requirement for faith. also, theoretically, if someone is whisked away to heaven daily to have tea with God they don't need faith to believe in him.)



The way i understand it, Faith is less about belief in/of God, and more about belief/trust in the Promise(s) of God.

Galatians chapter 3:1-29 explains Faith in the promise of God, and the purpose of the Law. I think it also is a good indicator against the Catholic belief that our good deeds for the day help Christ in our Salvation. It is also a good indicator that our suffering.. fasting.. denying earthly pleasures, etc. also have no bearing on our Salvation. (on an aside: these fruits do have some purpose, but not for our Salvation. And if done, must be done with the right frame of heart and mind... i think this is better explained in Romans and Corinthians).

Faith is a gift from God. It can be recieved either by having been raised in the Faith, or by (1)realizing the condemnation of the Law AND (2)the need for Redemption ... once those conditions, then asking Jesus for forgiveness with a repentant heart.



Galations 3:10-11

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.



Galatians 3:21-25

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.



23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.



24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.