Simple poll of posters on this board

I’m not interested in essays written by other people. I’m interested in arguments YOU can make supporting YOUR beliefs.

It doesn’t matter how many times you yell it from the rooftops, you have no evidence of your God. Saying it over and over again is not an “argument”, it’s just repeating a claim.

And he’s not my God because I don’t worship the motherfucker! I have no god, and as far as you can demonstrate, neither do you. You have an imaginary god concept that doesn’t appear manifest in reality. So you’re gonna need more than an essay to convince me that the god that you imagine exists is real. You’re gonna need EVIDENCE! Conveniently the one thing you don’t have.

I'm pretty sympathetic to arguments like these and to Catholicism, but I think this essay makes a lot of bad assumptions:

The existence of consciousness. Thanks to science, we know that the human brain works by taking in electrical signals, running them through circuits, and outputting more electrical signals. This means that the brain is nothing more than a machine, albeit a very complex one. However no machine can ever be conscious of its decisions, or experience what we call the “theater of the mind”. This means that humans must have an immaterial part of our existence, which we call the soul.
That's a massive assumption. I know that I experience some sort of qualitative dimension to consciousness. I assume others who are physiologically similar to me have a similar experience, but I can't be absolutely certain (solipsism is pretty much impossible to refute). I have no idea if anything else has a conscious experience because I have no way of verifying that. So it's quite possible that a machine could be in some sense conscious of its decisions. Maybe it couldn't, but perhaps a human brain can be because of something unique about the configuration of matter without any need for anything extra. Or maybe no-one is really conscious but me. The hard problem of consciousness is (IMO) insolvable - there are a number of potential solutions, all of which fit with our limited understanding of consciousness, but none of them are testable. There is no reason to think the answer posited here of mind/body dualism is preferable to more materialist (or even idealist) solutions. In fact it could be considered less preferable as it requires two substances rather than just one.

The design of the universe. When we play a computer game, we observe how the world in the game operates according to consistent rules, according to the dictates of a programming language. In the same way, our universe has consistent rules, which are in the language of Mathematics. Humans never “invented” math, math is written in the very fabric of the universe. And just like a programming language could never exist without an intelligent programmer, how could the laws of the universe come about without an intelligent entity?
This may be a backwards understanding. Mathematics could be our way of describing reality rather than the basis of reality.

The fine-tuning argument. Building on to my last point, not only are the laws of the universe beautifully written in math, but they are very specifically-tuned to allow for life. Stanford University physicist and cosmologist, Leonard Susskind, says, “ If the value of this ratio [electrons to protons] deviated more than 1 in 10^37, the universe, as we know it, would not exist today. If the ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 10^40, the universe would have suffered a similar fate. Furthermore he states that “If the expansion rate of the universe deviated by more than 1 in 10^37, or the mass density of universe varied more than 1 in 10^59, there wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe.
This assumes that the amount of life in the universe is exactly what a fine tuner would want. But it could be tuned in such a way that there would be much more intelligent life and it would develop even faster. Now maybe God might have a reason that he wanted life to exist but in a very small portion of the universe and take billions of years to develop, but that's just pure speculation.

In contrast, the gods of polytheistic religions are not infinite or all powerful. These gods usually have a beginning, live in the universe, and follow pre-existent rules like time, space, and matter. Although these gods could explain certain things in life, they don’t explain the “First Cause” that got time and the universe started. (To work around this, some polytheistic religions actually do believe in a single highest power).
Once we look at the basic evidence, we can establish that there exists some sort of single higher power.
This doesn't refute polytheism though, it just means it must have a single higher power which as stated many polytheist religions accept. So the essay still needs to refute such polytheistic beliefs which it doesn't do.
Plus this is all built on the foundation of the previous three arguments, none of which are conclusive.

Christianity vs. Judaism and Islam

All three major monotheistic religions have a lot of things in common.
They've skipped a few steps here. As mentioned they haven't successfully refuted polytheism so they can't yet discount it. And even if they could, monotheism could be correct yet Christianity, Judaism and Islam all false. They've narrowed things down to those 3 religions too soon.

This is well within the lifetime of many witnesses of Jesus, who would be able to make counterclaims if the events recorded in the Bible were inaccurate.
Most witnesses would not have been literate and of those that were, they would have needed to be around Jesus enough to get a clear idea of who he was and still be around when the Gospels were being circulated and then felt the need to put a refutation in writing and then that writing survive to the modern day. So it wouldn't be that surprising if we don't have a lot of counter claims. Plus we do actually have some admittedly small evidence that there may have been at least some counter claims going about: Celsus claimed in the second century that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. We don't know where he heard this from (he may well have just made it up and I suspect that is the case), but it may have been a rumour floating about for some time.

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest earlier dates for the Gospels however. Furthermore, even before the Gospels were written, the Apostle Paul was writing letters in the 40’s and 50’s which describe the essential beliefs of Christianity, including Christ’s death, resurrection and divinity. So there really was no time for myths to develop.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. All sorts of myths developed around Haile Sellasie while he was still not only alive, but actively denying those myths!

Despite there being many opponents of Christianity in the 1st century, nowhere do we see anyone denying the first three claims. In fact, later Jewish writings call Jesus a sorcerer who led Israel astray, which validates the fact that he performed miracles, even if they disagreed about how he did them. And Jesus’s death by crucifixion is very well corroborated by the Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historians.
I think this is a fair point, but that Jews took the claims about Jesus seriously doesn't necessarily mean they're true.

We know that Jesus’s tomb really was empty, because if his body was still there the Jewish leaders would have easily taken it out and disproved his resurrection. But did Jesus really rise, or did his disciples steal the body as the Jewish leaders claimed?
That assumes the Gospel account of Jesus' elaborate burial is accurate (which seems unlikely - how many criminals would receive such treatment?). If he was buried in an unmarked grave, refuting the claim would be very hard. Especially if the claims of physical resurrection did not start as soon after his death as the Gospels suggest.

The Bible cites women as the first witnesses of the Resurrection. During the time of Jesus, the testimony of women was not seen as being equal to men, and women were not even allowed to testify in court. If the disciples were simply making the story up, they would never have invoked women as the first ones to discover the empty tomb.
Maybe. But there could be other reasons for portraying women as the witnesses - perhaps it might actually strengthen the claim based on the very logic of this article ("people will believe if we say women were the witnesses because they'll assume that if we were lying we'd use men as witnesses!") or it could be to fit with the general message of the Gospels that it is society's undesirables who tend to have the strongest faith rather than Pharisees, Sadducees, the wealthy etc.

A lot of the other arguments regarding the strength of belief of apostles and other followers only shows that they were strong in their faith which I don't think anyone denies. Every religion has die-hard believers, ready to give up everything for their faith. There's nothing unique about Christianity here.

Protestants usually uphold the Bible as the sole basis of Christianity, but that makes little sense. The Bible wasn’t fully written until the 70’s AD at the earliest, and they weren’t put together into a definitive book until the late 300’s! If the Bible is the only legitimate source for Christian beliefs, does that mean that Christianity for the first 300+ years was not legitimate!?
I don't think Protestantism claims that. It's more that the Church gradually transformed into something else and so to get 'back to basics' they go to the Gospels. If the Gospels are as accurate as Catholics claim, that shouldn't be an issue.

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. -Luther[2]

Luther is flat our wrong. Yes, we are saved by Faith, but Faith Alone is not sufficient. Instead we must both believe in Jesus and obey him. These two things are inseparable.
I'm no expert on Luther, but most Protestant writers I've read consider good works something that comes via faith rather than separate from it. They don't consider good works unimportant.

In fact we know the answer to both questions. Jesus set Peter as the rock and leader of his Church, so that all his followers could be united under one Pope. The Catholic Church has maintained the succession of Peter all the way to our current Pope.
Eastern Orthodoxy also claims apostolic succession. So if unity is the goal, aren't Catholics no better or worse than Orthodox here?

While I understand the appeal of having a Church where everyone is the same ethnicity, I don’t think that this reflects the spirit of inclusivity and unity that Jesus wants us to foster. I want to be part of a Church that is truly universal, one that welcomes and reaches out to people from all nations and cultures.
Officially Orthodoxy does not forbid people of any ethnicity. Now I think the essay is 100% correct that there is segregation in practice, but that doesn't refute Orthodoxy, only how it is practiced. It would be like refuting Catholicism on the ground of clerical child abuse.

What a lot of atheists think doesn't concern me. That's not a topic of relevance when it comes to what my position is on the existence of gods; it's a red-herring!

I know what the ozone layer is, and it's not "pretty much deleted". In fact the hole in the layer has been steadily decreasing for a while now. What does this have to do with anything? I'm waiting for you to produce EVIDENCE for your God.

You couldn't be more WRONG, and this argument is indicative of someone who hasn't properly studied rational argumentation. The ozone layer has a "function", not an intrinsic purpose! It was not "created" to protect life on Earth. It developed naturally, and as a consequence life (as we know it) was able to spawn and evolve matching its conditions. There's no evidence of intentionality there.

You're free to speculate about the theological positions of others. I have no intention of engaging with you on yet another red-herring. I'm here to point out that you have no evidence for the god you believe in. All of this tap-dancing you're doing is just a distraction from having to produce evidence to support your claim.

Don't really know....


What do you call a guy who lives his life like God doesn't exist... but, really hopes that He does, as Him not existing is far more depressing of a notion?

Sees a universe created by a God just as likely (if not more) as one that just "created" itself.. but, see the universe existing as if there wasn't one?


Sees that evil deeds will be rewarded just as much (if not more) than good deeds...  but, still tries to do good and not evil because good seems like it should be the default by nature? 

 My point regarding the existence of the O Zone was my evidence for the Existence Of Our Heavenly Father.

So what if it developed naturally. Its function protects life on Earth from the harmful rays of the sun. Therefore, Someone (Our Father) PLANNED for it to be.

I'm not tap dancing on anything. You just refuse to acknowledge the arguments that I have given you. I notice that you did not respond to my point about you used to being a devout Christian yourself, albeit one that followed the heretical view (Arianism)as opposed to the orthodox view (the Trinity), & have now since turned to atheism.

Ah yes. Because believing that it all came to be, without Any Supreme Intelligence Willing it, whatsoever, makes the most, perfect sense - NOT!!!

From all eternity.

Who created eternity? 

Who created the outside of space and time?