If God Doesn’t Exist

[Bruce Daniels]

Man, you are one ignoramus on all topics.
A. The Jewish leadership wanted Jesus dead because he was a threat to their power. The Romans crucified Jesus. Who willingly let it happen.

Jesus never existed, and the Gospels are Roman- approved propaganda. A real tell, the Gospels- especially John's - make Pontius Pilate seem like a good guy... but every other history indicates he was kind of a bastard who Tiberius had to recall because he almost lost control of the province.

B. The use of the Christian faith by the NAZI’s to control the masses is no different how the American Left uses accusations of racism to control the masses. It’s all about fear and manipulation. Not one NAZI leader was a devout Christian.

Here's the problem with that. Not one Christian Leader got up on a pulpit and said, "The Nazis are totally not what Jesus was about!!!" The Pope never denounced Hitler.

Just like way too many "Christians" look at Trump throwing kids into concentration camps and think he's right with Jesus.

Nice thing about having an Imaginary Friend in the sky, he'll always agree with you.

I have to disagree with you about whether or not Jesus existed. I think he probably was a real person, but he was just one of many mystics wandering around the Mediterranean back then. The Gospels were compiled years after Jesus died, but they were hardly "Roman-approved." The Romans persecuted Christians sporadically from the 1st to the early 4th centuries, and by the time of the Edict of Toleration (311 A.D.), the Bible had pretty much reached its final form. As far as Pontius Pilate goes, lots of Roman bureaucrats were corrupt, or inept, or both.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Man, you are one ignoramus on all topics.
A. The Jewish leadership wanted Jesus dead because he was a threat to their power. The Romans crucified Jesus. Who willingly let it happen.

Jesus never existed, and the Gospels are Roman- approved propaganda. A real tell, the Gospels- especially John's - make Pontius Pilate seem like a good guy... but every other history indicates he was kind of a bastard who Tiberius had to recall because he almost lost control of the province.

B. The use of the Christian faith by the NAZI’s to control the masses is no different how the American Left uses accusations of racism to control the masses. It’s all about fear and manipulation. Not one NAZI leader was a devout Christian.

Here's the problem with that. Not one Christian Leader got up on a pulpit and said, "The Nazis are totally not what Jesus was about!!!" The Pope never denounced Hitler.

Just like way too many "Christians" look at Trump throwing kids into concentration camps and think he's right with Jesus.

Nice thing about having an Imaginary Friend in the sky, he'll always agree with you.

Good one! Historian Josephus just made up stuff and Mohammed wrote about the existence of Jesus because he was a closet Christian!

Your desperation is hilarious.

What's your evidence for Josephus just making up stuff? He was a bastard, no argument there, but I don't know that he made up stuff any more than any other ancient historian. In fact, The Jewish War portrays Josephus as a traitor and a coward -- and HE wrote it!

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Pastor, Spy, Martyr.
Educate yourself.

Who? Who cares? Was he a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope? Nope. He was the leader of a splinter group within Lutheranism... one that maybe had a few dozen members before the Nazis took them all out.

Hitler only became "Bad" when he lost...

NO, Hitler was bad, period. Do you dispute that?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

No linky?
Of course not. You know it’s BS.
Tell us why they fabricated Jesus just so they could all be tortured to death.

There was a link.

They fabricated Jesus from multiple sources, but when they made it the "official" religion in the fourth century, they had to get their story straight. So 200 or so Gospels were rejected, and only the four that told the Story Constantine wanted to tell were kept.

Also- the stories about Christians getting thrown to lions. All myths. There's just nothing sporting about watching a person getting eaten by a lion.

The Annals of Tacitus, written in the early 2nd century A.D., when the events described would still have been within human memory, is the earliest non-Christian mention of Jesus. It has a passage (15.44) which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis. It follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD. The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. (In Latin: Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.)

Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians:

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Tacitus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JoeB131]

I have to disagree with you about whether or not Jesus existed. I think he probably was a real person, but he was just one of many mystics wandering around the Mediterranean back then. The Gospels were compiled years after Jesus died, but they were hardly "Roman-approved." The Romans persecuted Christians sporadically from the 1st to the early 4th centuries, and by the time of the Edict of Toleration (311 A.D.), the Bible had pretty much reached its final form. As far as Pontius Pilate goes, lots of Roman bureaucrats were corrupt, or inept, or both.

The thing was, there were over 200 Gospels floating around until the Council of Nicea decided on the four they picked. (And they still contradict each other on key points). There were also lots of rejected Acts, Epistles and Revelations. The Romans got the Bible they wanted, one that represented a unified faith.

 

[JoeB131]

The Annals of Tacitus, written in the early 2nd century A.D., when the events described would still have been within human memory, is the earliest non-Christian mention of Jesus. It has a passage (15.44) which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis. It follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD. The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):

Actually, the part about Jesus in Tacitus was probably inserted by later Christian Scribes.

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The record is clear. There is no independent historical evidence of the existence of Jesus in the ancient world.

www.worldfuturefund.org

There is widespread belief that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians; however, there are many holes in this theory.

This belief comes from the account of the Roman historian Tacitus (56-120 CE) about how Emperor Nero (37 - 68 CE) blamed the burning of Rome on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." The passage then states that the fire agitators were followers of "Christus" who "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage then also states that Christians constituted a "vast multitude at Rome" and goes on to discuss the ghastly ways in which they were persecuted.

However, there are many troubling details about the historical accuracy of this passage. Some critics call into question whether Tacitus wrote this account at all, or if it was yet another forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way.

This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes

Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

I'll go one further. Pliny the Younger asks Emperor Trajan in 110 CE what should be done with Christians in his province. NOW, if Christians were indeed blamed for the fire of Rome in 64 CE, do you think that Pliny and Trajan would be so blaise about them? Emperor Hadrian visits Alexandria and say that followers of Christ and Sarapis (the Greek version of Osiris) are interchangeable...

Hardly an attitude of a learned man if the cult was so well known at the time.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

I have to disagree with you about whether or not Jesus existed. I think he probably was a real person, but he was just one of many mystics wandering around the Mediterranean back then. The Gospels were compiled years after Jesus died, but they were hardly "Roman-approved." The Romans persecuted Christians sporadically from the 1st to the early 4th centuries, and by the time of the Edict of Toleration (311 A.D.), the Bible had pretty much reached its final form. As far as Pontius Pilate goes, lots of Roman bureaucrats were corrupt, or inept, or both.

The thing was, there were over 200 Gospels floating around until the Council of Nicea decided on the four they picked. (And they still contradict each other on key points). There were also lots of rejected Acts, Epistles and Revelations. The Romans got the Bible they wanted, one that represented a unified faith.

Well, I still take issue with the idea that the Gospels were "Roman-approved." The driving force of the Council of Nicea was religious, not secular. It wasn't until the close of the 4th century that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, so I doubt that at the time of the Council there was a lot of pressure from the state to make things turn out a certain way. I think it was more a desire to simply come to an agreement about what orthodoxy was, so they could stop arguing about issues like what the shoe size of Jesus was. But yes, they (whoever "they" were) did want a unified faith. That's why they persecuted pagans, heretics, and apostates.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I still take issue with the idea that the Gospels were "Roman-approved." The driving force of the Council of Nicea was religious, not secular. It wasn't until the close of the 4th century that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, so I doubt that at the time of the Council there was a lot of pressure from the state to make things turn out a certain way. I think it was more a desire to simply come to an agreement about what orthodoxy was, so they could stop arguing about issues like what the shoe size of Jesus was. But yes, they (whoever "they" were) did want a unified faith. That's why they persecuted pagans, heretics, and apostates.

You can take issue all you want, but Constantine was the one who called the council of Nicaea.

The problem the early church is that there was a dispute between the Arians and the Orthodoxy, and Constantine was putting his finger on the scale... Orthodoxy served state interests.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

The Annals of Tacitus, written in the early 2nd century A.D., when the events described would still have been within human memory, is the earliest non-Christian mention of Jesus. It has a passage (15.44) which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis. It follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD. The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):

Actually, the part about Jesus in Tacitus was probably inserted by later Christian Scribes.

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The record is clear. There is no independent historical evidence of the existence of Jesus in the ancient world.

www.worldfuturefund.org

There is widespread belief that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians; however, there are many holes in this theory.

This belief comes from the account of the Roman historian Tacitus (56-120 CE) about how Emperor Nero (37 - 68 CE) blamed the burning of Rome on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." The passage then states that the fire agitators were followers of "Christus" who "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage then also states that Christians constituted a "vast multitude at Rome" and goes on to discuss the ghastly ways in which they were persecuted.

However, there are many troubling details about the historical accuracy of this passage. Some critics call into question whether Tacitus wrote this account at all, or if it was yet another forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way.

This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes

Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

I'll go one further. Pliny the Younger asks Emperor Trajan in 110 CE what should be done with Christians in his province. NOW, if Christians were indeed blamed for the fire of Rome in 64 CE, do you think that Pliny and Trajan would be so blaise about them? Emperor Hadrian visits Alexandria and say that followers of Christ and Sarapis (the Greek version of Osiris) are interchangeable...

Hardly an attitude of a learned man if the cult was so well known at the time.

First of all, a lot of Tacitus's writings have been lost. Both The Annals and The Histories are missing large sections. So you don't know whether or not Tacitus made other references to Christians in other parts of his works. But even if he didn't, so what? Christians were a small, obnoxious cult at the time. The fact that Tacitus even noticed them is what's noteworthy.

The reference to a "multitude of Christians" may have been hyperbole, or fear-mongering. It doesn't really prove anything.

You claim that Nero's persecution of Christians wasn't mentioned by any other historian of Nero's time. Name those historians. The only ones I can think of are Suetonius and (maybe) Plutarch, and they were writing moral biography, not history, so any episode that didn't fit their preconceived point would be omitted. So that proves nothing. Plus, historians writing long after the fact are not reliable, anyway.

I disagree that Pliny and Trajan were "blaise" about Christians. They were seriously trying to decide what to do about a troublesome group of people. My reading of it is that neither wanted to engage in wholesale executions, but they felt that something had to be done.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Well, I still take issue with the idea that the Gospels were "Roman-approved." The driving force of the Council of Nicea was religious, not secular. It wasn't until the close of the 4th century that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, so I doubt that at the time of the Council there was a lot of pressure from the state to make things turn out a certain way. I think it was more a desire to simply come to an agreement about what orthodoxy was, so they could stop arguing about issues like what the shoe size of Jesus was. But yes, they (whoever "they" were) did want a unified faith. That's why they persecuted pagans, heretics, and apostates.

You can take issue all you want, but Constantine was the one who called the council of Nicaea.

The problem the early church is that there was a dispute between the Arians and the Orthodoxy, and Constantine was putting his finger on the scale... Orthodoxy served state interests.

Yes, Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. And yes, there were various disputes within the church that the Council tried to resolve. But it was a religious issue, not a political one (at that time - later it was very political). I don't think that Constantine cared much about the result. He wasn't even baptised until he was on his deathbed and he could "sin no more."

 

[JoeB131]

First of all, a lot of Tacitus's writings have been lost. Both The Annals and The Histories are missing large sections. So you don't know whether or not Tacitus made other references to Christians in other parts of his works. But even if he didn't, so what? Christians were a small, obnoxious cult at the time. The fact that Tacitus even noticed them is what's noteworthy.

The reference to a "multitude of Christians" may have been hyperbole, or fear-mongering. It doesn't really prove anything.

First point. Tacitus' history of Domitian has survived, and he makes no mention of Christians there, even though according to Christian Tradition, Domitian led the second great persecution of Christians. Tacitus really hated Domitian, so any opportunity to slander him would have been taken.

Second, keep in mind, Christians were blamed for the Great Fire. The one where Nero supposedly played his lyre (Fiddling while Rome Burned). It would be a big deal who was actually blamed for this, yet Suteonius and Dio Cassius (our other two main sources for this time period) make no mention of Christians. It would be like if modern historians talked about how Bush read "My Pet Goat" during 9/11, but made no mention of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden.

You claim that Nero's persecution of Christians wasn't mentioned by any other historian of Nero's time. Name those historians. The only ones I can think of are Suetonius and (maybe) Plutarch, and they were writing moral biography, not history, so any episode that didn't fit their preconceived point would be omitted. So that proves nothing. Plus, historians writing long after the fact are not reliable, anyway.

The problem is Tacitus wrote after the fact as well. In addition to Suetonius, you have Dio Cassius, who wrote at a time when Christians were becoming a big deal. No mention of Christians burning Rome...

I disagree that Pliny and Trajan were "blaise" about Christians. They were seriously trying to decide what to do about a troublesome group of people. My reading of it is that neither wanted to engage in wholesale executions, but they felt that something had to be done.

Which would make no sense if the Christians had been the cult responsible for burning Rome 46 years before.

Yes, Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. And yes, there were various disputes within the church that the Council tried to resolve. But it was a religious issue, not a political one (at that time - later it was very political). I don't think that Constantine cared much about the result. He wasn't even baptised until he was on his deathbed and he could "sin no more."

People of that time didn't separate politics and religion as clearly as we do now. You have to put the issue in context. At the time, there were a lot of versions of Christianity running around. Orthodoxy, Arian, Monophysite, Gnostic. Most of them built around the whole nature of Jesus. Did he exist before he was born?Was he God or a separate entity? Constantine didn't indulge, but the goal of his regime was to make Christianity the state religion, and if you want a state religion, you need for it to be theologically consistent.

Constantine, bless his heart, was a political creature. Everything he did was political. And to give him credit, he probably extended the life of the Roman Empire. We'd all be worshiping Mithras today if they had a better PR system.

 

[Taz]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

That's why being agnostic is the thinking person's position. We don't know either way whether a god exists or not but leave the door open in case someone finds real proof either way.

 

[esalla]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

That's why being agnostic is the thinking person's position. We don't know either way whether a god exists or not but leave the door open in case someone finds real proof either way.

Actually thinking people see that DNA is a molecular computer code of unimaginable ability that could not from itself by itself in a dead pond because nothing does not write code

 

[harmonica]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

 

[esalla]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

The moment humans walk on Mars God is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt

 

[harmonica]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

The moment humans walk on Mars God is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt

ok...........................??????????

 

[esalla]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

The moment humans walk on Mars God is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt

ok...........................??????????

Really if you believe that God brought life to Earth why are we not God when we bring life to another World? Mars is actually a poor example because life as we know would be different there, however there are trillions of other dead planets that are more or less just like Earth where life would flourish. So why are we not God when we move there and set up ecosystems to grow food?

 

[harmonica]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

The moment humans walk on Mars God is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt

ok...........................??????????

Really if you believe that God brought life to Earth why are we not God when we bring life to another World? Mars is actually a poor example because life as we know would be different there, however there are trillions of other dead planets that are more or less just like Earth where life would flourish. So why are we not God when we move there and set up ecosystems to grow food?

you tell me......
..but there is no god--plain and simple

 

[esalla]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

that doesn't prove god exists

The moment humans walk on Mars God is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt

ok...........................??????????

Really if you believe that God brought life to Earth why are we not God when we bring life to another World? Mars is actually a poor example because life as we know would be different there, however there are trillions of other dead planets that are more or less just like Earth where life would flourish. So why are we not God when we move there and set up ecosystems to grow food?

you tell me......
..but there is no god--plain and simple

Again God brought life to Earth, when this was written there was no universe of planets or stars. That said the moment humans colonize another planet God is proved

It's happening now, it has been happening from the moment life began learning

 

[Taz]

If God doesn’t exist, the universe came into existence by chance, the first living cell developed from non-living matter by chance, and all living things are the eventual product of the blind, undirected process of evolution. In such a case, human life is no more valuable than dust, and there is no basis for saying that any life matters. Only if there is an author of life who creates and imbues us with a meaning greater than our physical parts can lives actually matter, and in an equal way.

If God doesn’t exist, there’s also no objective standard for labeling an action—such as murder—wrong. If we’re all just the product of blind, purposeless forces, morality is just an opinion. Unless there is a higher-than-human moral authority, no one has a basis for claiming that murder is objectively wrong.

And finally, if God doesn’t exist, the concept of justice is meaningless because there can be no right or wrong in the first place to require justice. As C.S. Lewis famously said about his conversion to Christianity, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Justice requires a standard, and there is no objective standard in a purposeless universe.

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment

Culture is influencing the church's response more than the church is influencing culture.

christianmomthoughts.com

That's why being agnostic is the thinking person's position. We don't know either way whether a god exists or not but leave the door open in case someone finds real proof either way.

Actually thinking people see that DNA is a molecular computer code of unimaginable ability that could not from itself by itself in a dead pond because nothing does not write code

No proof that's it's your preferred invisible dude. Only a possibility.