Why do Christians always flaunt John 3:16?

[QUOTE="3-Legged_Man"]I understand that, but what am I supposed to do? Do you want me to just take his abuse? All this little kid does is try to start wars with his immature comments. I'm going to give it right back to him. Why don't you ban him since he's always starting trouble? Did you see he started with me in this thread?GabuEx

I don't care who started what; I want him to stop, and I want you to stop, and I'm going to start moderating whoever doesn't. That argument is totally off-topic and is a quick trip to nowheresville, to boot.

[QUOTE="supa_badman"]:lol: whenever you see christians in a title, it an automatic troll topic 3-Legged_Man

:lol: so true

Exactly. Such reductionist thinking inevitably refutes itself: who told the first guy to make up a religion that God exists if someone has to be told that God exists in order to believe in God?

Theokhoth

Actually, the funny thing is that that reasoning actually might serve as a proof of God if its assertion is taken to be true. There had to be someone who first knew of God without being told that God exists, and if all humans had to be told that God exists, then the only thing that could have started the chain would have been God himself.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

Why? Because you got suckered into believing? That's one possible reason.

I don't intend to offend.

Personally I have seen no evidence, other than circumstantial, to prove that anything divine exists.

GabuEx

There are many people who believe for reasons all their own; it's not as if the only way to believe in God is to have someone else tell you he exists.

The first is probably parents, or society (Islamic I am thinking mostly), where it is most beneficial to believe what they beleive.

Another is the case of bad people turning good, or people converting or being "reborn" etc where they need guidance and the Bible or other religious text gives them answers and tells them it's okay to bad as long as you're sorry for your sins.

The last is people being "convinced" into believing. I think this is both conversion and something happening that seems unlikely and cannot be explained, and thus, "logically" it must be the work of god.

In all cases nowhere does the voice of god to speek to people, and if he does then they must be crazy because no-one else hears him, nor does he show himself to anyone. I've asked him to show himself to me, and I get nothing--and I'm one gullible fool.

So while it may come down to choice, there's never really any logical reasoning behind it, at least in my experience. (Try to look past my cynicism)

That said I think this is way off-topic and I should probably stop it.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly. Such reductionist thinking inevitably refutes itself: who told the first guy to make up a religion that God exists if someone has to be told that God exists in order to believe in God?

GabuEx

Actually, the funny thing is that that reasoning actually might serve as a proof of God if its assertion is taken to be true. There had to be someone who first knew of God without being told that God exists, and if all humans had to be told that God exists, then the only thing that could have started the chain would have been God himself.

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

Well you have a few main options.

The first is probably parents, or society (Islamic I am thinking mostly), where it is most beneficial to believe what they beleive.

Another is the case of bad people turning good, or people converting or being "reborn" etc where they need guidance and the Bible or other religious text gives them answers and tells them it's okay to bad as long as you're sorry for your sins.

The last is people being "convinced" into believing. I think this is both conversion and something happening that seems unlikely and cannot be explained, and thus, "logically" it must be the work of god.

In all cases nowhere does the voice of god to speek to people, and if he does then they must be crazy because no-one else hears him, nor does he show himself to anyone. I've asked him to show himself to me, and I get nothing--and I'm one gullible fool.

So while it may come down to choice, there's never really any logical reasoning behind it, at least in my experience. (Try to look past my cynicism)

That said I think this is way off-topic and I should probably stop it.

DigitalExile

Eh, religion topics tend to drift into the more general topic of religion itself. I've never considered that stuff to be off-topic.

Anyways, there's an entire term for people - deists - who come to a belief in God purely through logical means, through the attempt to answer such questions as "Why does anything exist?". I'm sure there are some who are Christians just out of fear or hope or whatever, but I don't exactly think that's true for everyone, and either way I don't think it really makes a difference - telling someone that they believe in something because of a reason that they don't think applies to them isn't going to make them stop believing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Actually, the funny thing is that that reasoning actually might serve as a proof of God if its assertion is taken to be true. There had to be someone who first knew of God without being told that God exists, and if all humans had to be told that God exists, then the only thing that could have started the chain would have been God himself.

DigitalExile

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

If someone rejects that conclusion, then they necessarily reject the idea that people can't arrive at a belief in God on their own.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly. Such reductionist thinking inevitably refutes itself: who told the first guy to make up a religion that God exists if someone has to be told that God exists in order to believe in God?

DigitalExile

Actually, the funny thing is that that reasoning actually might serve as a proof of God if its assertion is taken to be true. There had to be someone who first knew of God without being told that God exists, and if all humans had to be told that God exists, then the only thing that could have started the chain would have been God himself.

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

You misunderstand: if a person has to be told that God exists in order for him to believe in God (as you claim), and if religion is purely made up (as you claim), then who told the first person to believe in God (and thus, make up religion) that God exists? The only way, by your argument, that it could have happened is if a non-human entity came to Earth, spoke his language and told him about an omnipotent entity that created the universe. God fits that scenario, but even if He didn't, your argument is still self-refuting.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]Actually, the funny thing is that that reasoning actually might serve as a proof of God if its assertion is taken to be true. There had to be someone who first knew of God without being told that God exists, and if all humans had to be told that God exists, then the only thing that could have started the chain would have been God himself.

GabuEx

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

If someone rejects that conclusion, then they necessarily reject the idea that people can't arrive at a belief in God on their own.

GabuEx, by your logic, dragons exist :o.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]That assumes that God exists.

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

chessmaster1989

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

If someone rejects that conclusion, then they necessarily reject the idea that people can't arrive at a belief in God on their own.

GabuEx, by your logic, dragons exist :o.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]That assumes that God exists.

But just because someone had to come up with the idea of a God or divine or other-worldy power doesn't mean he exists. It literally makes no difference.

chessmaster1989

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

If someone rejects that conclusion, then they necessarily reject the idea that people can't arrive at a belief in God on their own.

GabuEx, by your logic, dragons exist :o.

You're not understanding the argument at all.

GabuEx, by your logic, dragons exist :o.

chessmaster1989

If we take as our two premises that people believe dragons exist and that people cannot come to that conclusion without being told by someone else, then, yeah, that would follow. I think people would not exactly accept those premises, though. The argument is not a proof of God; it's a refutation of the assertion that forms the premise for the argument.

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

GabuEx

And there we have it. Ancient people not understanding life/nature the way we do, yet attributing it to a divine being.

You yourself conclude by saying "who else but God Himself?" when clearly that is assuming he exists. I gave at least one logcial explanation of an alternative.

Now, at the end of the day I'm not saying God doesn't exist, just that we have no reason to believe in the first place unless we want to believe in less than intelligent/logical means. At the end of the day it comes down to "just because." I have no problem with that, until you keep saying "just because" if i keep asking for a suitable answer.

And to explain myself, I am mostly athiest, but I'd totally accept science's findings as explaining God's divine work--I just have no reason to believe in Him, yet (and even if I did it wouldn't be the Abarahamic God).

Edit: To Theokhoth: your post, and Gabu's, both assume that the person who first thought of the idea of God, was told by God Himself. By that same logic if I think of a monkey riding a skateboard then a monkey riding a skateboard must of told me about it... itself. By that logic anything that didn't exist or was unknown to man was created by itself one someone thought of it.

A guy out in a field who wondered where rain came from if all the water was in the lakes and rivers. "How does it get to the sky? I know! A higher power!"

And there we have it. Ancient people not understanding life/nature the way we do, yet attributing it to a divine being.DigitalExile

What we have there is a person coming to a belief in a higher power without being told anything at all from anyone... which is precisely what I'm saying. People like to assert that the only reason anyone believes in God is because someone else induced that belief in them by telling them about God. That argument is subject to an extremely easy reductio ad absurdum refutation.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, it doesn't assume that God exists. It's just taking the argument of "people only believe in God because someone told them about God" to its logical conclusion: there must have been someone who was the "first teller", and who could that have been but God himself?

DigitalExile

And there we have it. Ancient people not understanding life/nature the way we do, yet attributing it to a divine being.

And thus, your argument is invalid. The man was not told that God exists; he arrived to the conclusion of God's existence based on his own logical reasoning. The fact that this happened, most likely more than once, proves that it can happen and has happened that a person can come to believe in God with absolutely no social pressure or religious text-pushing.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

GabuEx, by your logic, dragons exist :o.

GabuEx

If we take as our two premises that people believe dragons exist and that people cannot come to that conclusion without being told by someone else, then, yeah, that would follow. I think people would not exactly accept those premises, though. The argument is not a proof of God; it's a refutation of the assertion that forms the premise for the argument.

My argument doesn't become invalid because you can't apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

At the very first thought of God nothing like it would have been imagined. But today it's easy enough to say "God" and know what it means and ideas behind it. by the same logic my example of the monkey does become invalid because I have preexisting knowledge about monkeys and skateboards to imagine them.

However, if we went to a hypothetical world where monkeys and skateboards did not exist, and I had the same thought, then this is where your argument comes in and why I think it is invalid.

Essentially, the people of today are being influenced by pre-existing ideas where-as the first idea of God/Gods there wasn't anything pre-existing.

Also, even if He did exist, someone may have dreamt up the concept BEFORE God spoke to anyone, sicne we have Egyptian and Roman and Greek gods that predate the Abrahamic god by thousands of years. So unless they're all the same God, your argument has a hole in it.

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

DigitalExile

Yes, you can. A person can come to believe in God based on their own reasons. It happens every day.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

Theokhoth

Yes, you can. A person can come to believe in God based on their own reasons. It happens every day.

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

At the very first thought of God nothing like it would have been imagined. But today it's easy enough to say "God" and know what it means and ideas behind it. by the same logic by example of the monkey does become invalid because I have preexisting knowledge about monkeys and skateboards to imagine them.

However, if we went to a hypothetical world where monkeys and skateboards did not exist, and I had the same thought, then this is where your argument comes in and why I think it is invalid.

Essentially, the people of today arew being influenced by pre-existing ideas where-as the first idea of God/Gods there wasn't anything pre-existing.

Also, even if He did exist, someone may have dreamt up the concept BEFORE God spoke to anyoje, sicne we have Egyptian and Roman and Greek gods that predate the Abrahamic god by thousands of years. So unless they're all the same God, your argument has a hole in it.

DigitalExile

Regardless of whether it was something thought up today or something thought up a long time ago, the fact of the matter is that at some point in time, someone came into a belief in God external to any human influence... so it can't be said that every human who believes in God necessarily did so just because of other people's influence. Hence, it cannot be argued that anyone believes in God purely because of that influence, as this clearly shows that people are quite capable of coming to their own conclusions. There may be people out there who do believe through no thought of their own, but good luck proving that.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

Whicker89

Yes, you can. A person can come to believe in God based on their own reasons. It happens every day.

We were talking about Deism. However, a person can come to believe in God based on researching an existing religion. They don't have to be told that God exists to believe God exists.

sp everyday a person comes to believe in the christian god without any knowledge of christianity?Whicker89

This isn't saying that people's impression of God isn't influenced by other people's impressions, but the idea that people's belief in God itself is not due at least in part to their own thought processes is just a flat-out self-refuting argument, as has been shown.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

Theokhoth

Yes, you can. A person can come to believe in God based on their own reasons. It happens every day.

I forgot what the heck my orignal statement was so I don't know what I'm arguing anymore.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

DigitalExile

Yes, you can. A person can come to believe in God based on their own reasons. It happens every day.

I forgot what the heck my orignal statement was so I don't know what I'm arguing anymore.

You're arguing for the statement: "One must know be influenced to believe in God in order to believe in God."

Widely accepted today or not, the fact is, the first theist to ever exist was NOT told about God, and thus, by this reasoning, should never have made up a religion. Since religion is here, that means one of two things: either religion in some form is correct, or the statement is self-defeating and inherently false.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

My argument doesn;t become invalid because you can;t apply that same logic to todays widespread knowledge of God/the idea thereof.

At the very first thought of God nothing like it would have been imagined. But today it's easy enough to say "God" and know what it means and ideas behind it. by the same logic by example of the monkey does become invalid because I have preexisting knowledge about monkeys and skateboards to imagine them.

However, if we went to a hypothetical world where monkeys and skateboards did not exist, and I had the same thought, then this is where your argument comes in and why I think it is invalid.

Essentially, the people of today arew being influenced by pre-existing ideas where-as the first idea of God/Gods there wasn't anything pre-existing.

Also, even if He did exist, someone may have dreamt up the concept BEFORE God spoke to anyoje, sicne we have Egyptian and Roman and Greek gods that predate the Abrahamic god by thousands of years. So unless they're all the same God, your argument has a hole in it.

GabuEx

Regardless of whether it was something thought up today or something thought up a long time ago, the fact of the matter is that at some point in time, someone came into a belief in God external to any human influence... so it can't be said that every human who believes in God necessarily did so just because of other people's influence. Hence, it cannot be argued that anyone believes in God purely because of that influence, as this clearly shows that people are quite capable of coming to their own conclusions. There may be people out there who do believe through no thought of their own, but good luck proving that.

So give me a reason why, without any proof (and without proof we must assume he does not exist), everyone who believes in god wasn't "suckered" into it (so to speak)?

Editr: Sorry for all the typos. I can't type for ****.

Again, unless I am seeing this wrong, you're still saying that at the very least the first person was told about God/god by God Himself, or at least not by another human? That still, to some extant, assumes god exists.

DigitalExile

It's your argument taken to it's logical conclusion, and no, it does not assume God exists; if it did, his reasoning would have nothing to do with the discussion we're having. His reasoning is this:

X (your position) is true.

Therefore, God exists.

That is not an assumption; that is a logical argument. But his argument is more like this:

If x is true, y is also true.

If y is true, x is false.

X cannnot be true and false at the same time.

Therefore, x is false.

You're arguing for the statement: "One must know be influenced to believe in God in order to believe in God."

Widely accepted today or not, the fact is, the first theist to ever exist was NOT told about God, and thus, by this reasoning, should never have made up a religion. Since religion is here, that means one of two things: either religion in some form is correct, or the statement is self-defeating and inherently false.

Theokhoth

The first theist is the only one who has any right to say what is right and wrong. He's the only one who can tell us whether he heard a voice or came to the conclusion because he didn't understand precipataton (sp?)(in my example). He then told others, and they followed him without any proof--and we still do that today.

Essentially, yes. As whicker said, not every christian created the concept of god on their own or was told that he exists by God himself. They're going off what other people say, or what society says, or what they read. Their ultimate decision might be their own, and this is what I am arguing. How do you make that decision when all you have to go off is human interpretation and nothing divine at all?

DigitalExile

Is this not reasonable? After all, you yourself said that if anyone sees or hears something of the divine, he must be insane, so wouldn't that lead a person to rely only on human experiences?

He then told others, and they followed him without any proof--and we still do that today.

DigitalExile

We went over proof in my philosophy cIass the other day. We all eventually concluded--teacher included--that proof in the way I think you are defining it does not exist.

I always thought Ezekiel 25:17 was way more badass.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I always thought Ezekiel 25:17 was way more badass.m1993

We aren't in a flame war (anymore). It's just a discussion.

religions are started becasue people dont understand things. the first religions were polytheisits. they believed that gods made the sun rise, made plants grow, and all of that. nowadays people say those beliefs are foolish because "there is only one God" whose power continually diminishes as science discovers explanations. in 1000 years people will look back at monotheists as we do to polytheists, as fools.curtkobain

Science doesn't touch God's power.

Is this not reasonable? After all, you yourself said that if anyone sees or hears something of the divine, he must be insane, so wouldn't that lead a person to rely only on human experiences?

Theokhoth

We went over proof in my philosophy cIass the other day. We all eventually concluded--teacher included--that proof in the way I think you are defining it does not exist.

Theokhoth

So, as a non-believer, and without any proof, why should I believe in God?

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]religions are started becasue people dont understand things. the first religions were polytheisits. they believed that gods made the sun rise, made plants grow, and all of that. nowadays people say those beliefs are foolish because "there is only one God" whose power continually diminishes as science discovers explanations. in 1000 years people will look back at monotheists as we do to polytheists, as fools.Theokhoth

Science doesn't touch God's power.

[QUOTE="curtkobain"]Agree. I think if the two coexisted then science would explain Gods work. But I agree with curt. The ancient Romans first gods were spirits, then they gave them names, and then they became Mars and ... uhh... I only know Greek gods, but you get the point.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="m1993"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I always thought Ezekiel 25:17 was way more badass.Theokhoth

We aren't in a flame war (anymore). It's just a discussion.

I say they must be insane because the general population doesn't hear voices. I'd assume being God he'd know how silly it was so He'd send his next podcast out to everyone. But to clarify, without PROOF that it's divine.

So, without proof, why do people believe? Because they choose to (faith) or are brought up to believe as such (as I said earlier somewhere). So in a sense, people get suckered into believing. Suckered means "tricked," but it's probably not the best word for the way this argument has gone.

So, as a non-believer, and without any proof, why should I believe in God?

DigitalExile

You've kinda mistaken me. I said proof as you're defining it doesn't exist. What is proof?

Here is your argument in a nutshell:

I will believe in the existence of God when I see evidence.

Humans cannot claim to have experienced the divine because, since other humans did not experience the divine, the humans that claimed to have are therefore insane.

Humans cannot rely on any arguments of their own or of other humans since humans cannot possibly conceive of God.

No evidence has been presented to me that doesn't fall into one of the aforementioned categories.

Therefore, no evidence exists.

Therefore, I do not believe in God.

Your argument not only begs several questions in its premises, it is circular. No matter what anyone, anywhere, at any time, says or does, evidence cannot be provided to you by any human being because there is none that will meet your impossible standards. A person can say he saw God, but if you didn't, then the other person must be insane. You could see God, but if someone else doesn't, YOU must be insane. If everyone sees God, what makes you think you won't claim that everyone is insane? There is such a thing as mass hallucinations, one of those scientific discoveries that apparently limits God's power, and as long as there's something like that to fall back on (if not delusions, culture; if not culture, science) then you will NEVER feel that there is any proof for God or anything else you apply this method to.

Now, I have to go to bed. Good night.

Were we ever? o.O Despite religion being a personal matter I never made it personal. I assume you didn't.

DigitalExile

Nah.

[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]

I say they must be insane because the general population doesn't hear voices. I'd assume being God he'd know how silly it was so He'd send his next podcast out to everyone. But to clarify, without PROOF that it's divine.

So, without proof, why do people believe? Because they choose to (faith) or are brought up to believe as such (as I said earlier somewhere). So in a sense, people get suckered into believing. Suckered means "tricked," but it's probably not the best word for the way this argument has gone.

So, as a non-believer, and without any proof, why should I believe in God?

Theokhoth

You've kinda mistaken me. I said proof as you're defining it doesn't exist. What is proof?

Here is your argument in a nutshell:

I will believe in the existence of God when I see evidence.

Humans cannot claim to have experienced the divine because, since other humans did not experience the divine, the humans that claimed to have are therefore insane.

Humans cannot rely on any arguments of their own or of other humans since humans cannot possibly conceive of God.

No evidence has been presented to me that doesn't fall into one of the aforementioned categories.

Therefore, no evidence exists.

Therefore, I do not believe in God.

Your argument not only begs several questions in its premises, it is circular. No matter what anyone, anywhere, at any time, says or does, evidence cannot be provided to you by any human being because there is none that will meet your impossible standards. A person can say he saw God, but if you didn't, then the other person must be insane. You could see God, but if someone else doesn't, YOU must be insane. If everyone sees God, what makes you think you won't claim that everyone is insane? There is such a thing as mass hallucinations, one of those scientific discoveries that apparently limits God's power, and as long as there's something like that to fall back on (if not delusions, culture; if not culture, science) then you will NEVER feel that there is any proof for God or anything else you apply this method to.

Now, I have to go to bed. Good night.

[QUOTE="Nickelback4Life"]Especially atheletes.vStone Cold Steve Austin. Tim Tebow.

John 3:16 (New International Version)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

How is this even an inspirational quote? So some uber-powerful dude kills his own son, and I am supposed to find this enlightening somehow?3-Legged_Man

I know man. God is a freakin coward.

"I sacrificed my son for you!"

Wow I bet Jesus feels great that his purpose in life was to be thrown under the bus. I bet he loves his dad. :lol:

[QUOTE="Nickelback4Life"]Especially atheletes.vStone Cold Steve Austin. Tim Tebow.

John 3:16 (New International Version)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

How is this even an inspirational quote? So some uber-powerful dude kills his own son, and I am supposed to find this enlightening somehow?hiphops_savior

If I had kids, I wouldn't determine wherther or not I saved them based on whether or not they believed in me.

But hey, that's just me. You can do things the way you want to, and god can do things the way he wants to. But don't expect me to have any respect for that.