Don Corleone would agree. He used the concept of 'reasoning' in exactyl the same manner.
 

Bob, I wonder how many of the atheists on your blog have ever seen a formal academic debate between two scholars with Ph.Ds in the related fields, and a stack of publications.

FYI, for you atheists, you can watch a debate between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey here on Youtube. The debate was held at Purdue University before an audience of over 3500 students and faculty.

Dr. Craig has also debated Anthony Flew, Paul Kurtz, Victor Stenger, Christopher Hitchens and a host of other prominent atheists. (The kind you buy books from).

Might be good to take a look at BOTH SIDES before you decide. Craig is the best.

More William Lane Craig debates here.
 

Formal debates are good entertainment, but of little educational value. Each side walks away convinced they have won.

Theists cannot answer the question of 'who created god' without resorting to sophisms and begging questions, and coming up with arguments that cut either way.

I have a hard time reading theistic apologies without either bowling over laughing, or being bored to tears.

It is probably not coincidental that the vast majority of elite scientists are atheists, while religious faith and lack of higher education correlate quite nicely.
 

Um,
God does not need a creator because he is eternal. Only things that are not eternal need a creator.
 

The Universe does not need a creator, because it is eternal. Only things that are not eternal need a creator.

Of course, that old theistic yarn begs a number of questions, such as:

1. Where is the evidence that god is eternal?
2. Where is the evidence that things need creators to exist?

And that's just for starters.

I told you, apart from question-begging syllogisms, there ain't much powder in the theistic horn.
 

James,

As a Christian it is sometimes difficult for me to understand the need of other Christians to "prove" that God exists. To me it is the lazy skeptic who comes to conclusion that anything is true. There is no higher order in choosing a materialistic universe over a God centered one. If meaningless nihilism provides greater utility than an intimate relationship with God, then by all means, revel in your preference.
 

Bob, the "reasoning" offered by Isaiah is as James describes:

19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land;

20 but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword."


"If meaningless nihilism provides greater utility than an intimate relationship with God, then by all means, revel in your preference."

Brian, why the assumption that the alternative to a loving God is meaningless nihilism?

Clearly man is an extremely social animal. Those who have a different faith/community than yours are hardly sentenced to empty lives.
 

TT asks: "Brian, why the assumption that the alternative to a loving God is meaningless nihilism?"

Exactly. Actually, I never understood why a universe with a deity would make life any more or less meaningful than one without.
 

TT and James,

It is not that everyone who fails to believe in God lives an empty life. All people experience some sort of meaning, but it's a logical house of cards, because they have chosen to leave their presuppositions unquestioned. Even the intellectual atheist believes in a wide array of fairy tales that they simply assert are true. If you are truly dedicated to only believing what is provable then you can believe in nothing. Out of nothing, there is no meaning.

I have been down that road and when I saw that there was nothing there, I chose to believe in God because of the beauty I saw in the possibility of an infinitely intimate and eternal relationship. Every atheist that I spoke with in my quest for "truth" gave some laughable drivel to justify meaning in his life that was as lame as anything that came out of the mouths of Christians.
 

So you admit that your belief in 'God' is no better than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

To be honest, I don't get this obsession with 'ultimate meaning', and I certainly don’t get how the existence of a deity makes life any more meaningful than it would be without a deity.

The one simply does not follow from the other. After all, what’s the ‘meaningfulness’ of the deity?

I love eating a good breakfast, and spending a nice day with my significant other. What more does one need?

To ask what is the ‘meaning’ of Life is about as sensible as to ask about the colour of sound. Dogs and Monkeys don’t seem to need ‘meaning’. So, obviously life without some greater meaning can be just fine.

So, the search for meaning is a purely human activity, and hence requires a purely human answer. If you think that believing in an imaginary deity gives your life more meaning then it would have otherwise, that’s fine by me. Just don’t pretend that it in fact makes your life – or you – any better. After all, you simply chose something at random. You chose to have Jahweh as your meaning, but it could just as well have been Ganesha or Vodan.
 

James,

"So you admit that your belief in 'God' is no better than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Yes.

God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a material universe. All chosen presuppositions having no more "proof" than any other.

"...and spending a nice day with my significant other."

This is nice and I enjoy it as well, but imagine a relationship of perfect intimacy.

That you choose not to entertain this does not make me better. I just feel that you are missing out.
 

It's the 'eternal' part that bothers me. What makes beautiful things beautiful is their inevitable transience. The more things are permanent, the less we tend to appreciate them.

I think 'eternal intimacy' with somebody or something would result in nothing but eternal boredom. I can't imagine anything more terrifying.

While life on earth is too short, eternity is certainly too long.
 

"eternity is certainly too long."

I'll report back when I'm done.
 

Brian,

I once read a short-story based on the idea that after death, we experience what we believe to experience after death.

So, the atheist gets his nothingness, the Buddhist his reincarnation, and Christians get heaven/hell.

In other words, its a kind of eternal 'be careful what you wish for'.

As an atheist, at the very least I'll never regret anything in this scenario.

But, on a more serious note: the existence of a deity has no ipso facto implication for the question of after life. After all, the deity may have just arranged the world in such a way that there is no afterlife.

What then?
 

Re: Afterlife.

The short story is an interesting concept in which there is intuitive appeal. If hell is simply separation from God, it could be that most will live in the hell of their own making. It would make the exclusivity of Christianity a little more palatable, but I don't know if it's scriptural. (I assume scripture is true, but I do put some topics on the shelf until they make sense to me).

On eternity: Because I believe that the material world is simply a platform within the spiritual, my default assumption is that death is merely a transition. The existance of an afterlife is not a deal breaker as I see my current pursuit of God to be valuable in its own right. Heaven, being a place free of suffering does sound pretty sweet though.
 

"Because I believe that the material world is simply a platform within the spiritual, my default assumption is that death is merely a transition."

Ok, so why not stick to just one random belief - such as this one - and not bother about the deity? After all, nothing about the existence of a deity necessitates the existence of a spiritual world, nor does the existence of a spiritual world necessitate the existence of a deity.

I don't understand why people want to link all these completely independent concepts.

Or is it that we just try to accept whatever general faith seems to dominate our social environment?
 

James,

You are correct. The concept of God does not necessitate other things that I believe. However, I will go back to "meaning" as a desirable attribute.

If there is an impersonal spiritual world, a la "The Force", wherein the physical world resides? It might as well not exist at all. What meaning does it give me? Good vibes, and psychadelic experiences? So what?

I was a "clock-maker observer" theist for a few years, but when Christianity started to become internally consistent in my mind, I made a second choice of faith. Like the "platform" idea, some things I believe are of the form, "Well, if C is true, then A and B can both be true at the same time." I've rejected other religions I've read on because they have issues that are impossible for me to reconcile.
 

Interesting, your last point.

Give examples. What about Islam is it you don't particularly can reconcile with?

I personally find Zaraostranism rather intriguing. What about that is it you find more difficult to reconcile than Christianity?
 

My main problem with Islam is the problem I have with most Western religious thinking. Namely, that God brought a random set of laws to earth for people to follow or you go to hell.

The common response is, "these laws are good for us. They aren't random." Then why would God need to punish us for our inability to avoid suffering?

For Islam my questions are: "Why did God need to send yet another set of laws if you already embrace the ten commandments, and other laws of the Torah?"

For some forms of Christianity my question is: "Why did he send his son to die, if all that really changed was the set of rules to get to heaven?"

It seems to be human nature to chafe against restraints and rules. God would have to know this would produce a curiosity to test the limits and break the rules. The rules themselves would induce people to break them. Paul mentions this in Romans 7:8-10. Why would God rely on a mechanism that seems self-defeating in a way?

For me, Jesus rejects rule following in its entirety. I would even go so far as to say that he rejects our basic notion of morality. His ultimate rule is "Love God", which is categorically different then "Don't do x,y,z..."

All sin is a function of endowing ourselves with Godlike powers and thinking that we can calculate what is best for ourselves out of an infinitely complex universe. Reading Hayek's Fatal Conceit by viewing the ideas of tyrants through the lens of the sinful nature, really honed this in my mind. This fatal conceit is the fountainhead of all sinful behavior.

I have a big ego, but I've recognized the limitations of my faculties.