Lack of evidence or too much evidence against?

Originally posted by Darfius
Why do each of you reject God and Christianity?

Is it due to a lack of evidence for either's veracity or because there is too much evidence to the contrary?

Most people who reject God or Christianity do so not on the basis of evidence for or against, but rather on their experience with people of faith.

Originally posted by Darfius
Why do each of you reject God and Christianity?

Is it due to a lack of evidence for either's veracity or because there is too much evidence to the contrary?

I do not see any good evidence to indicate there is a god and much evidence to suggest there probably isn't one.

Before I address posts in particular, I just want to thank everyone who answered. I know we go round and round with this, and I thank you for the patience.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
I think I have answered this question extensively as well as the others who are non-Christian but what the heck, I will do it again:

For me, I don't necessarily reject God or Christianity. I don't subscribe to it either. I feel the same towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, as well as all beliefs/non-beliefs.

All of them are incomplete for me. All ...[text shortened]... h an atheist, however because they have never had any desire to convert me to what they believe.

First I'd like to say that bad things happen to good people because of other men, not God. You might say "Well allowing it is just as bad as doing it, if you can stop it." but I would argue that if God didn't give us complete free will, He'd be more of a monster than anything you misunderstand in the OT.

Secondly, if God were to communicate with His creation, presupposing that He wanted to, what would be the best way to do that that: preserved their free will, made sense to the most people, was most effective, in your opinion, Joe?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
God - too little evidence

Christianity - both

Are you aware that one cell's DNA contains more information than all of the Encyclopedia Brittanica's combined?

Are you aware that Jupiter is the only gas giant we have found not closest to its star? If Jupiter were closer to the sun, earth would have been flung out into deep space. If it were further away, it would not fling away as many meteors and asteroids from earth as it does. Jupiter is nicknamed our "Great Protector" because without it, the Earth would suffer catastrophic impacts every 10,000 years.

How do you explain the moon? The best theory is that a planet the size of Mars hit Earth near its formation and ejected a lot of the Earth into space, which later formed the moon. The planet that smashed into earth also forms the core of the earth, producing our magnetic shield. If the impact had been only slightly different, the matter flung out into space would have fallen back to the earth or have been gravitated away from Earth. Without the moon, life on earth wouldn't be possible, and eventually Mercury and Venus would have collided, throwing our orbit off fatally.

There is no acceptable theory on the origin of life. Abiogenesis has been studied for 3 decades and no answer has been produced. It is laughable, at any rate, to think Nature could have randomly (in only a few hundred million years, because the earth was still cooling for the first few billion) made DNA. To say "we will find a theory eventually, until then 'I don't know' is fine" is anti-scientific. As much as bias scientists do not want to admit, God is the best answer we have right now.

As far as Christianity, have you studied the evidence for the Resurrection? I suggest you read William Lane Craig. If you believe it's possible for God to exist, he will show you why it's impossible for anything but God to account for the empty tomb and the birth of Christianity.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not reject God. I welcome Him in my heart and hope I am welcome in His. I reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God. It is a collection of opinions and exaggerated stories and brilliant metaphors that should never be taken literally. Period.

... --- ...

Are you a Deist?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
There is no evidence for the existence of God.

False. Their is evidence, you just don't consider it viable.

Originally posted by rwingett
...and much evidence to suggest there probably isn't one.

What does this mean?

Nemesio

Originally posted by metal man
I believe in God and I do not need evidence to prove he exists I only need the Bible to prove he is real.

Well, you're one step ahead of Doofius. I think this is the only tenable position. Admit that it is irrational and move on. Hopefully, you temper your faith with a bit of compassion.

Discuss.

Originally posted by telerion
Well, you're one step ahead of Doofius. I think this is the only tenable position. Admit that it is irrational and move on. Hopefully, you temper your faith with a bit of compassion.

Discuss.

Your militant stance against Christians is disturbing. Christianity is leaps and bounds more rational than atheism, that is for sure.

Originally posted by Darfius
False. Their is evidence, you just don't consider it viable.

Quite right. A very fine summary of my position. There is no evidence that is even vaguely compelling.

Originally posted by Darfius
First I'd like to say that bad things happen to good people because of other men, not God. You might say "Well allowing it is just as bad as doing it, if you can stop it." but I would argue that if God didn't give us [b]complete free will, He'd be more of a monster than anything you misunderstand in the OT.

Secondly, if God were to communicate w ...[text shortened]... served their free will, made sense to the most people, was most effective, in your opinion, Joe?[/b]

How can you tell the difference between someone with complete free will and one without complete free will? I have a hard time buying the concept that we have complete free will now.

I would argue that if God didn't give us [b]complete free will, He'd be more of a monster than anything you misunderstand in the OT.[/b]

I disagree. Free will is valueless in and of itself.

Originally posted by Darfius
First I'd like to say that bad things happen to good people because of other men, not God. You might say "Well allowing it is just as bad as doing it, if you can stop it." but I would argue that if God didn't give us [b]complete free will, He'd be more of a monster than anything you misunderstand in the OT.

Secondly, if God were to communicate w ...[text shortened]... served their free will, made sense to the most people, was most effective, in your opinion, Joe?[/b]

Interesting. So, other men cause infants to die of herpes encephalitis? Other men cause infants to drown in tsunamis? Hmmm. We should find these nefarious men and lock them up. 🙄

Originally posted by bbarr
Interesting. So, other men cause infants to die of herpes encephalitis? Other men cause infants to drown in tsunamis? Hmmm. We should find these nefarious men and lock them up. 🙄

No, occasionally God allows nature to harm "good" people, but this serves a larger purpose. Aside from the infants automatically making it to Heaven, the suffering that the parents and others endure leaves a hole in them that only God can fill, which is most often the case.

Originally posted by Darfius
No, occasionally God allows nature to harm "good" people, but this serves a larger purpose. Aside from the infants automatically making it to Heaven, the suffering that the parents and others endure leaves a hole in them that only God can fill, which is most often the case.

Infants automatically make it to heaven? Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

Also, it is not always the case that the death of infants leaves a hole in the survivors, for there are times where there are no survivors. Whole families were killed in the recent tsunami.

Further, you have just claimed that one of God's purposes in allowing infants to die may be to create a hole in people that God can then fill. But if God is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then He could find ways to create and fill holes in people that do not require the deaths of infants, couldn't he?

EDIT: Why the scare-quotes around the term 'good'? Are you claiming that God doesn't allow truly good people to be harmed by natural forces?