Thread: *for christians only* It's time to regroup guys those atheists are killing us.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

"Speak for yourself, please. I do not deserve hell."

You must then be perfect since it is only through perfection that we deserve God.

In your world, perhaps. But there is certainly no logical problems here if we simply take away God. I am not "perfect," but then I don't need to be. Few people would deserve the Christian description of hell.

"Makes me wonder if God ever had this same thought."

Imagine you are God. You have always existed. You know everything. It is absurd to suggest that God wonders if he had a maker, since he is eternal.

I find it no more absurd than a human wondering if he had a maker. Your earlier logic was "I exist... therefore there must be God!" God should then say "I exist... therefore there must be a higher God!" If the logic is valid on one level, it should be valid on all levels, or it should be thrown away outright.

"Actually no. the chances of you existing are one in one, as evidenced by the fact that you are here. "

What is your gender? Male? Female? What are the odds that you would be male or female? Most people would agree that it's one in two, but by your logic (since you already are either a male or a female), the odds of being that specific gender are one in one. This is obviously wrong.

I am male. If my gender were on the betting boards at Vegas, they would assign the odds at 100%. There is no mystery, I am already defined.

Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%.

Are there an infinite amount of things that don't exist? Can you name one, please?

Well, I suppose I could go the obvious route and just say "God," but I'm guessing that won't quite do the trick here. Obviously one can't say with certainty that something specific doesn't exist, but your counter to this seems to be to suggest that every possible thing that can exist, does exist. But this is curious... if that were true, than it's quite obvious that your chance to exist becomes 100%! So please, define this further so I can see what you're trying to say. If you deny that there are things that don't exist, you must agree that everything MUST exist.

Originally Posted by skysaw

In your world, perhaps. But there is certainly no logical problems here if we simply take away God. I am not "perfect," but then I don't need to be. Few people would deserve the Christian description of hell.


I find it no more absurd than a human wondering if he had a maker. Your earlier logic was "I exist... therefore there must be God!" God should then say "I exist... therefore there must be a higher God!" If the logic is valid on one level, it should be valid on all levels, or it should be thrown away outright.


I am male. If my gender were on the betting boards at Vegas, they would assign the odds at 100%. There is no mystery, I am already defined.



Well, I suppose I could go the obvious route and just say "God," but I'm guessing that won't quite do the trick here. Obviously one can't say with certainty that something specific doesn't exist, but your counter to this seems to be to suggest that every possible thing that can exist, does exist. But this is curious... if that were true, than it's quite obvious that your chance to exist becomes 100%! So please, define this further so I can see what you're trying to say. If you deny that there are things that don't exist, you must agree that everything MUST exist.

"In your world, perhaps. But there is certainly no logical problems here if we simply take away God. I am not "perfect," but then I don't need to be. Few people would deserve the Christian description of hell."

The difference of opinion here is not going to be settled. I've already spoken my mind on this matter.

"I find it no more absurd than a human wondering if he had a maker. Your earlier logic was "I exist... therefore there must be God!" God should then say "I exist... therefore there must be a higher God!" If the logic is valid on one level, it should be valid on all levels, or it should be thrown away outright."

Let me then rephrase. I popped into existence out of nothing, therefore God exists. Certainly, God could not use this logic, given that he has always existed.

"Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%."

There are three marbles in a bag, each a different color. One is red, the other is blue, and the third is green. The odds of you pulling a red marble out of the bag are one in three. Let's say you actually do pull out a red marble. Do you suddenly believe the odds of pulling that marble were one? Of course not. Regardless of which marble was pulled, the odds of pulling that particular marble remain one in three. So odds do not only come into play about things we don't know. I know very well that I pulled a red marble, but the probability of making such a pull still remains.

"Obviously one can't say with certainty that something specific doesn't exist, but your counter to this seems to be to suggest that every possible thing that can exist, does exist. But this is curious... if that were true, than it's quite obvious that your chance to exist becomes 100%!"

Actually, all I have said here is this: everything that does exist, does exist and everything that does not exist, does not exist. And as I have previously illustrated, something's existence is not indicative of a one in one probability.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

"Let me then rephrase. I popped into existence out of nothing, therefore God exists. Certainly, God could not use this logic, given that he has always existed.

Well I think this is certainly more convincing... a definite improvement. I wonder though, are you certain you have not always existed? Can you remember a time when you didn't? And could God be certain he always existed?

"Odds only come into play about things that you don't currently know. You can say early in the morning that the odds of rain are 30%, but when it starts coming down, you're going to have to revise that to 100%."

There are three marbles in a bag, each a different color. One is red, the other is blue, and the third is green. The odds of you pulling a red marble out of the bag are one in three. Let's say you actually do pull out a red marble. Do you suddenly believe the odds of pulling that marble were one?

"Were" - no, "are" - yes. The odds that you have pulled the red marble are 100%. You can't look at it in your hand and still tell yourself "there's a one-in-three chance that this marble is red."

There is also the sticky issue of determinism, if you buy into it. If you were destined to pick that marble, then the odds always were 100%.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Well I think this is certainly more convincing... a definite improvement. I wonder though, are you certain you have not always existed? Can you remember a time when you didn't? And could God be certain he always existed?


"Were" - no, "are" - yes. The odds that you have pulled the red marble are 100%. You can't look at it in your hand and still tell yourself "there's a one-in-three chance that this marble is red."

There is also the sticky issue of determinism, if you buy into it. If you were destined to pick that marble, then the odds always were 100%.

"I wonder though, are you certain you have not always existed? Can you remember a time when you didn't? And could God be certain he always existed? "

I'm surprised you're suggesting an eternal self considering your denial of God. As far as my finite knowledge takes me, this is my first life. God has infinite knowledge and can be absolutely certain he has always existed. To suggest otherwise would be absurd.

"Were" - no, "are" - yes. The odds that you have pulled the red marble are 100%. You can't look at it in your hand and still tell yourself "there's a one-in-three chance that this marble is red."

Instead of saying, the odds you have pulled the red marble are 100%, you should rather say, it is certain that you pulled a red marble. And yes, it is certain that you pulled the red marble. Clear as day, you are holding the red marble in your hand. But the odds that the red marble would be pulled (rather than the blue or green one) are still one in three! Similarly, it is certain that I exist, but the probability that I should exist remains one in infinity.

"There is also the sticky issue of determinism, if you buy into it. If you were destined to pick that marble, then the odds always were 100%."

Yeah this is another topic for discussion entirely.

No, the odds that you exist are 1.

The odds for you coming into existence, instead of either non existence, or a slightly different version of yourself are 1/(incalculable finite amount, though definitely not infinity)

Originally Posted by wannywan

No, the odds that you exist are 1.

The odds for you coming into existence, instead of either non existence, or a slightly different version of yourself are 1/(incalculable finite amount, though definitely not infinity)

If the past is infinite (which even some atheists hold, if not most), then there was an infinite causal chain prior to your birth. Every event in that causal chain had to go exactly right in order to yield your birth. If an infinite amount of events had to go perfectly right in order to yield your existence, then the probability that you should exist remains one in infinity.

Bit of a straw-man argument in there I think.

Why do you think most atheists believe in an infinite past? I'd love to know.