First of all… You all say there is no proof that God exists.
That is a lie. There is indeed a lot of evidence that clearly reveals to us that God is truly existing.

Every day when you walk out of your home, or drive in your car, you see the mountains and the trees. During this season, they are absolutely stunningly beautiful. They’re a combination of yellow and red and orange. It takes your breath away when you stare at it. Or, it takes mine away. How is that not ABSOLUTE truth that there is a God. He reveals Himself in nature. Who else made all these beautiful and stunning sights? No one, because it was Him, and Him alone. When someone asks me to prove to them that my God is real and my God is existing, I tell them I see him everyday. And I do… it begins when I cross my threshold of my door, going outside.

The reason why you don’t believe in Him, think Christians are crazy and delusional is simply because God did not open your eyes. He hardened your heart. That is why you are willing to sit for hours, thinking of how to tell us how ridiculous we are.

I read earlier that someone had said, “there five billion people in this world and only one billion are Christians.”
First of all, there are 6.4 billion people in this world. I learned that my sixth grade year.
And second of all, that does not show how WE are clearly delusional, the only thing that it shows is that we are the only ones who truly see and understand why we are placed on this earth. That is the chief end of man, to worship and glorify God.

By making a statement like that, it does not make me want to be like the rest of the world. It simply forces me to get down on my knees and thank my God Almighty that I am one of the few who truly believes in Him. It makes me pray for the ones who are lost, asking Him to open their hearts too.

You have not truly lived, unless you know my Awesome God.

Well, YOU can’t. But I can, because I have evidence and a Reason for morality whereas the atheistic worldview does not. Heck, there is not even a good reason for an Atheist to use logic. How, in a naturalistic worldview, can you use something non-physical like logic to prove your argumentation? In your worldview, you can’t prove morality and you can’t even make an argument without borrowing from a Theistic worldview.

Moral relativism is about the lack of objectivity that a member of one set of morals has when criticising or observing a member of another set of morals.

Often relativism of this sort is explained by pointing to Europeans who studied the native inhabitants of some other land (America and Africa come to mind). The Europeans described the inhabitants through the eyes of a European, so a tribe of people living in mud huts (as opposed to a home of bricks and mortar and 2×4’s) and wearing animal skins (instead of leggings and shirts with buttons) would be deemed uncivilized. A more objective observer might look at the native tribe in the context of their surroundings.

Moral relativism does not tell me, is that I am unable to look at the moral norms of another society and think that what they are doing is wrong. Moral relativism only tells me that I probably cannot objectively judge the norms of another society without my own norms biasing my opinion.

I can and I do say that genocide wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong. What you are defending is moral relativism. Either there is right and wrong or there is not.

Probably about half of the world during WWII disagreed with what the Nazi’s were doing before it became common knowledge (ie, more than just a rumor) that the Nazi party did some pretty sick stuff during the war. So one group of people had an opinion while another group had another opinion, I can agree with either of these opinions, but what makes my opinion or the opinion of the other two groups correct?

I may personally find slavery bad, genocide bad, religion bad but what makes my opinion THE CORRECT one? Going back to Nazi Germany, there were lots of people who didn’t like the way the Nazi’s were doing things. Some tried to do something about it like the White Rose (students who tried to circulate some anti-Nazi propaganda and were all executed) and there were several attempts by Nazi officers to kill Hitler (all of which failed and resulted in the execution of the conspirators). My opinion is that the failed attempts at fighting the Nazis instantly qualify the conspirators as bono fide bad assed mamma jamma’s but do you agree with my opinion because we share the same opinion or because of something else? If its something else, how can we be sure that there really is “something else” besides wanting things to be a certain way?

Its not a matter of judging one group by the standards of another group, I’m not defending moral relativism. I just don’t have a way to proving to other people that the things that I want to be moral absolutes are actually morally absolute.

Slavery in the Americas was not wrong in 1776 because it was the opinion of that day, it was the morality of that era so to say that slavery was wrong would not be correct. Also, we can not judge the Nazis as war criminals, they were acting off the opinion of what out to be done in Germany in 1940. To call the situation in Darfur genocide would be reckless in you example. How dare we compare the Sudan to the values of the Western world and use our opinions and era to judge them.

Personally I think that what can be considered moral law is something that comes about when a group of people are forced to live in close proximity, with limited resources, in a hazardous environment. Without some base ground rules the group won’t survive as well or will completely fail.

@Carlos: I thought that God could not be limited in any way?

Your presumption that atheism is about proving that something came from nothing is pretty new to me. It violates what we mere mortals call Physics. It seems that theism advocates that something came from nothing more than non-theism. At least by my understanding of religious texts and pro-creationist arguments.

If one of the fundamental laws of physics is the conservation of energy/matter then is it not possible that everything always existed (just not in the same form as it does at this very second?) Energy changes to matter and matter changes back to energy, some of the energy changes to matter but the rest stays as energy, forever and ever.

Mainly my point is simple: Assume god is a being that is a limited being, in that it relies on some sort of law / dictated principle that neccessitates the creation of the perameters that is God.

If this were true, then the nothing that created God would have rules that neccesarilly dictate God’s existence, but the problem is that if there were no laws that dictated the created of God, then No God (or anything that relies on the existence of God for its own existence) would therefore exist.

The point is until an athiest can prove that the laws they assert that something can come from nothing in the laws of physics, then their argument lacks evidence to support the claim that something c (including their laws of physics) could “always have existed to dictate the existence of everything in existence.” More or less their evidence for “god not existensing” is an assumption that they can explain something coming from nothing. After all, if the “laws of physics” were alwasy there, then we could alwasy state the same statement often asserted by the atheist argument of “and what about the nothing that came before god” by saying “and what about the more powerful nothing that came before the laws of physics?”

It also brings up another good argument for the cosmological argument: Until humans can prove that something can come from nothing, then humans cannot deny the neccesity that something that is limited in power must rely on something else to create its existence. While one may have trouble graspoing of something with no beginning, what can be grasped is that as limited creatures, we are reliant upon other things in order to exist, and any limited creature requires these laws to exist, or else it cannot exist. If nothing existed, then by the laws of physics, nothing should have been created, AKA this universe that we currently exist within.

SOmething does exist, so one cannot say that nothing came before something. That alone gives great power to the cosmological argument.

Well now, you seem to be agreeing with my reasoning. It seems that we both believe in the things that we believe in for roughly the same reasons now. Interesting that we’ve come to different conclusions.

Now to Santa, if we could explain 99% of the universe then I would agree with you. Heck, if we could explain 50% of the universe then I might agree with you. I would venture to guess that we can not explain even 1% of all there is to know in this huge known universe let alone the Super Natural if it does exist. Now, someday you maybe able to be like Hon Solo and say, “Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe that there’s one all powerful Force controlling everything. Cause no mystical energy field controls my destiny. It’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.”

You keep telling me that no matter how many times I DON”T see a God in the universe, I am physically unable to see every part of the universe at the same time so that I have no grounds in saying that a God/s/etc does not exist (or that I don’t believe in God/s/ect) because there is always doubt about my claim/belief. Now unless you can physically see every present given to every child at every time during human history/present/future, your claim that Santa does not exist is just as lacking in veracity as your claim is invalidated if at least ONE child sometime in human history/present/future gets a present from Santa. So you saying that Santa is not real because 99.999999…% of the time when a child gets presents its not from Santa is wrong.

Any ways, I’m thinking that your last paragraph means that I’ve worn out my welcome. Its been good chatting with you, thanks for your time and take care.