The real God???

[NaturaLCalamity]

Ok, I'm currently talking to one of my girlfriend's friend who thinks he's the religious shit or something, and he's been rambling on and on about his God. I asked him, which God are you talking about? This is his reply..."I'm talking about the real God. Rith (my real name), I feel like this is a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions that you may have about the Christian faith. Let me know if you have any questions."

I can't stand, for the love of blah, talking to people like this. I literally want to cut off my own ears at the moment. Grrrr...

How would you reply to this?

Oh, this talk started on the topic of an all-loving God.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Thanks, but no thanks."

[NaturaLCalamity]

That's exactly what I said ^^

Here's more from him...

"Whether it be the "christian" God or not, many religions do revolve around the same God. The difference comes in practices and views (especially when concerning who Jesus truly was). Iif you were truly questioning if i was from a different religion, obviously that's not the case. We too have differing views of our faith and our position even though we may worship the same God. "

I then told him that I don't worship any God...He replies with...

"atheist? agnostic? you can't make a decision therefore you make the decision not to make a decision? or are you God? you're valuing your own opinions and choices as the supreme choice."

And he goes on about the Bible...

"Let me start with the legitimacy of the bible. We'll use ancient works to compare the legitimacy of the bible. Any person who studies older ancient works knows that a work is considered more legitimate based on an easy thing: how many of those manuscripts survived.
Plato: 7
Caesars Gallic War: 10
Aristotle: 49
Illiad: 700 (this one sounds a lot more legit)
Bible (only in greek, which is considered the most accurate of all languages of the bible because of its origins: 5,300
That's only in greek. Languages of latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian all had about 8,000 each."

"If you deny the legitimacy of the bible, i would recommend you throw out every University text book you have and possibly any ancient reading that you've done so far in your education. If you still believe the bible is not legitimate, i'll continue. Time gap is also used to tell whether or not an ancient writing is legitimate or not (obviously, the more sooner it's found after it's been written, the more legitimate it is).

Odessey: 2,200 years
Sophocles: 1,400 years
Plato: 1,200 years
Caesar: 900 years

The new testament of the bible: as early as 200 years (200 AD)
The earliest found to date is 130 AD which is part of John's Gospel."

He then asks me...

"Rith, i'm only 17 years old, so i have a question to ask you.
i've been wondering in life if love really exists. and i'm pretty sure you would say it does, you just stated that you love your life. so tell me, and prove to me, in either logic or mathematics (since that's how all of science and facts are proven through the scientific method): Prove to me that Love exists."

Here's my response...

" Love is an emotion. And it's something that can't be proven in terms of science. It's like happiness. I can't prove to you that I'm happy either. Or sad for that matter. Love is an act that abides by it's own. I may love cheese pizza, while you may not."

His reply...

"hmmm. you're telling me that the bible is fairy tales when it seems much more legitimate than Plato's writings (whom we consider one of the greatest minds to ever walk the earth)? yet you can't prove the existence of Love through mathematics and logic? if that can't be proven through the scientific method, we obviously have to take that out of our textbooks, stop using that word, because love doesn't exist.

the world cannot measure God. if we had a measurement that could measure God, i'd be pretty thankful. But the world tries to measure God through a measurement that God doesn't exist in.

i'll use physics: God is beyond space and time. He is not a part of our universe, yet people use things to measure space and time to disprove the existence of a God.

Try using meters and kilometers to measure how much you love cheese pizza. tell your friends. they obviously won't believe you. yet people in this world believe that God doesn't exist because they measure him in measurements within our confinement of space and time? doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous. i have a better answer. I believe it's pretty accurate. God is Love. God is beyond what we can comprehend within this world, yet he provided a way for us to know him because we're sinners. We are incapable of reaching God because of human imperfection. But he provided a way because of his love for us. Through the bible, Christ, your friends, churches, and even me, God is providing a way for you to know him because he loves you. Every moment you come in contact with something about God and his love for you, it truly his his love being poured out to you. He wants to let you know that his unconditional love is always waiting for you to take that love."

I didn't respond for a while, so he wrote...

" If you want me to prove God through logic, i will if i have to. But i don't think i should have to go down to that. Logic is human understanding. The concept of God's love for us is beyond what humans can measure through math and science.

Saying that God is the easy way out has two flaws.

1. you've chosen not to believe in him because he can't be proven. it's much easier for you to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist than to say that he does. which one is the easy way out?

2. it's based off of your own understanding, not based off of doctrine. i can't trust you. you don't have the credentials at this point compared to the bible. if you used the bible, you would have power because of how legitimate it is. but your own personal understandings don't have legitimacy.

even in the court of law, there are exhibits, to prove to the jury and judge that a statement is legitimate. but if it's a statement based off of your own opinions, then it's useless in the court of law.

of course, i respect you in all ways. but i can't necessarily respect your viewpoints. "



Yeah, I don't like this kid at all...

[NaturaLCalamity]

That's exactly what I said ^^

Here's more from him...

"Whether it be the "christian" God or not, many religions do revolve around the same God. The difference comes in practices and views (especially when concerning who Jesus truly was). Iif you were truly questioning if i was from a different religion, obviously that's not the case. We too have differing views of our faith and our position even though we may worship the same God. "

I then told him that I don't worship any God...He replies with...

"atheist? agnostic? you can't make a decision therefore you make the decision not to make a decision? or are you God? you're valuing your own opinions and choices as the supreme choice."

And he goes on about the Bible...

"Let me start with the legitimacy of the bible. We'll use ancient works to compare the legitimacy of the bible. Any person who studies older ancient works knows that a work is considered more legitimate based on an easy thing: how many of those manuscripts survived.
Plato: 7
Caesars Gallic War: 10
Aristotle: 49
Illiad: 700 (this one sounds a lot more legit)
Bible (only in greek, which is considered the most accurate of all languages of the bible because of its origins: 5,300
That's only in greek. Languages of latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian all had about 8,000 each."

"If you deny the legitimacy of the bible, i would recommend you throw out every University text book you have and possibly any ancient reading that you've done so far in your education. If you still believe the bible is not legitimate, i'll continue. Time gap is also used to tell whether or not an ancient writing is legitimate or not (obviously, the more sooner it's found after it's been written, the more legitimate it is).

Odessey: 2,200 years
Sophocles: 1,400 years
Plato: 1,200 years
Caesar: 900 years

The new testament of the bible: as early as 200 years (200 AD)
The earliest found to date is 130 AD which is part of John's Gospel."

He then asks me...

"Rith, i'm only 17 years old, so i have a question to ask you.
i've been wondering in life if love really exists. and i'm pretty sure you would say it does, you just stated that you love your life. so tell me, and prove to me, in either logic or mathematics (since that's how all of science and facts are proven through the scientific method): Prove to me that Love exists."

Here's my response...

" Love is an emotion. And it's something that can't be proven in terms of science. It's like happiness. I can't prove to you that I'm happy either. Or sad for that matter. Love is an act that abides by it's own. I may love cheese pizza, while you may not."

His reply...

"hmmm. you're telling me that the bible is fairy tales when it seems much more legitimate than Plato's writings (whom we consider one of the greatest minds to ever walk the earth)? yet you can't prove the existence of Love through mathematics and logic? if that can't be proven through the scientific method, we obviously have to take that out of our textbooks, stop using that word, because love doesn't exist.

the world cannot measure God. if we had a measurement that could measure God, i'd be pretty thankful. But the world tries to measure God through a measurement that God doesn't exist in.

i'll use physics: God is beyond space and time. He is not a part of our universe, yet people use things to measure space and time to disprove the existence of a God.

Try using meters and kilometers to measure how much you love cheese pizza. tell your friends. they obviously won't believe you. yet people in this world believe that God doesn't exist because they measure him in measurements within our confinement of space and time? doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous. i have a better answer. I believe it's pretty accurate. God is Love. God is beyond what we can comprehend within this world, yet he provided a way for us to know him because we're sinners. We are incapable of reaching God because of human imperfection. But he provided a way because of his love for us. Through the bible, Christ, your friends, churches, and even me, God is providing a way for you to know him because he loves you. Every moment you come in contact with something about God and his love for you, it truly his his love being poured out to you. He wants to let you know that his unconditional love is always waiting for you to take that love."

I didn't respond for a while, so he wrote...

" If you want me to prove God through logic, i will if i have to. But i don't think i should have to go down to that. Logic is human understanding. The concept of God's love for us is beyond what humans can measure through math and science.

Saying that God is the easy way out has two flaws.

1. you've chosen not to believe in him because he can't be proven. it's much easier for you to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist than to say that he does. which one is the easy way out?

2. it's based off of your own understanding, not based off of doctrine. i can't trust you. you don't have the credentials at this point compared to the bible. if you used the bible, you would have power because of how legitimate it is. but your own personal understandings don't have legitimacy.

even in the court of law, there are exhibits, to prove to the jury and judge that a statement is legitimate. but if it's a statement based off of your own opinions, then it's useless in the court of law.

of course, i respect you in all ways. but i can't necessarily respect your viewpoints. "

I plan on replying to this kid, I just don't know how to go about it. Any help would be, helpful."

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Let me start with the legitimacy of the bible. We'll use ancient works to compare the legitimacy of the bible. Any person who studies older ancient works knows that a work is considered more legitimate based on an easy thing: how many of those manuscripts survived.

Actually, as Ehrman clearly shows in Misquoting Jesus, the more copies were made of a text, the more likely error was introduced.

Plato: 7
Caesars Gallic War: 10
Aristotle: 49
Illiad: 700 (this one sounds a lot more legit)
Bible (only in greek, which is considered the most accurate of all languages of the bible because of its origins: 5,300
That's only in greek. Languages of latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian all had about 8,000 each."

This is really just a gussied-up ad populum argument.

"If you deny the legitimacy of the bible, i would recommend you throw out every University text book you have and possibly any ancient reading that you've done so far in your education.

Non sequitur.

If you still believe the bible is not legitimate, i'll continue. Time gap is also used to tell whether or not an ancient writing is legitimate or not (obviously, the more sooner it's found after it's been written, the more legitimate it is).

Odessey: 2,200 years
Sophocles: 1,400 years
Plato: 1,200 years
Caesar: 900 years

The new testament of the bible: as early as 200 years (200 AD)
The earliest found to date is 130 AD which is part of John's Gospel."

By this logic, he should be worshiping Tolkien's Ea and combating Morgoth/Melkor.  After all, The Silmarillion was written in the 20th century.  It must be more legitimate.

"hmmm. you're telling me that the bible is fairy tales when it seems much more legitimate than Plato's writings (whom we consider one of the greatest minds to ever walk the earth)? yet you can't prove the existence of Love through mathematics and logic? if that can't be proven through the scientific method, we obviously have to take that out of our textbooks, stop using that word, because love doesn't exist.

Perhaps he thinks mathematics and logic solve every problem.  He obviously doesn't get the concept of "use the right tool for the job," at least in this case.

the world cannot measure God. if we had a measurement that could measure God, i'd be pretty thankful. But the world tries to measure God through a measurement that God doesn't exist in.

i'll use physics: God is beyond space and time. He is not a part of our universe, yet people use things to measure space and time to disprove the existence of a God.

If his god answers prayers, his god can be measured.  If his god doesn't answer prayers, that's one facet this kid has wrong.

Try using meters and kilometers to measure how much you love cheese pizza. tell your friends. they obviously won't believe you. yet people in this world believe that God doesn't exist because they measure him in measurements within our confinement of space and time? doesn't it sound a bit ridiculous. i have a better answer. I believe it's pretty accurate. God is Love. God is beyond what we can comprehend within this world, yet he provided a way for us to know him because we're sinners. We are incapable of reaching God because of human imperfection. But he provided a way because of his love for us. Through the bible, Christ, your friends, churches, and even me, God is providing a way for you to know him because he loves you. Every moment you come in contact with something about God and his love for you, it truly his his love being poured out to you. He wants to let you know that his unconditional love is always waiting for you to take that love."

Bald assertions, bereft of any evidence.

" If you want me to prove God through logic, i will if i have to. But i don't think i should have to go down to that. Logic is human understanding. The concept of God's love for us is beyond what humans can measure through math and science.

Better minds than his, such as Aquinas and Anselm, have attempted this very task.  The refutations are even older than the arguments.

Saying that God is the easy way out has two flaws.

1. you've chosen not to believe in him because he can't be proven. it's much easier for you to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist than to say that he does. which one is the easy way out?

2. it's based off of your own understanding, not based off of doctrine. i can't trust you. you don't have the credentials at this point compared to the bible. if you used the bible, you would have power because of how legitimate it is. but your own personal understandings don't have legitimacy.

What he's saying here is, "If you disagree with my faith, I shall ignore what you say."  At this point, you a fairly within your rights to end this conversation decisively by telling him:  "If you refuse to consider my 'personal understandings', I shall refuse to consider yours."

even in the court of law, there are exhibits, to prove to the jury and judge that a statement is legitimate. but if it's a statement based off of your own opinions, then it's useless in the court of law.

Obviously false; expert opinion is regularly sought in cases both civil and criminal.

of course, i respect you in all ways. but i can't necessarily respect your viewpoints. "

Were it my conversation, I would make plain my disregard for his opinion, either good or bad.

[Whitney]

"atheist? agnostic? you can't make a decision therefore you make the decision not to make a decision? or are you God? you're valuing your own opinions and choices as the supreme choice."

That's bs christian canned apologist response #247

People like that really aren't worth the effort...just let him have his pretend time.

[pinkocommie]

If he's 17, and these are his arguments, I highly doubt he's given these arguments much thought.  These seem like pretty standard arguments you'd find on any-apologist-site.com  That in and of itself makes it difficult for me to address his points sincerely, since I'm afraid all I would hear in response in more copy pasta nonsense.  Good luck to you, regardless.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Ok, I'm currently talking to one of my girlfriend's friend who thinks he's the religious shit or something, and he's been rambling on and on about his God. I asked him, which God are you talking about? This is his reply..."I'm talking about the real God. Rith (my real name), I feel like this is a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions that you may have about the Christian faith. Let me know if you have any questions."

I can't stand, for the love of blah, talking to people like this. I literally want to cut off my own ears at the moment. Grrrr...

How would you reply to this?

How about pointing out to him that if he had been born in Iran or Pakistan he would be worshipping an entirely different "real" god, and he would be just as certain about the correctness of that opinion as he is about his current opinion.

[Jac3510]

He's clearly read the standard apologetic works, or at least has been under the tutelage of someone who has. From the perspective of someone on his side of the fence, I would suggest taking his arguments one point at a time. Don't try to respond to the whole mass of them, because if I'm right about him having read the standards, that's only the tip of the iceberg. When you offer a response to one, he will use that as an opportunity to present two or three more. Within a short period of time, you will have dozens of issues to deal with. Nobody can keep all of those straight.

Now, that's good debate tactic on his part, assuming we are thinking only in terms of "winning an argument." I'll assume, though, that you are more interested in truth. I'll also assume that so is he (no reason to assume the worst in anyone. That doesn't get us anywhere). Point out that all of his points are fair (whether your believe it or not -- it's just being cordial) but that a shotgun approach won't help. It's better look at one issue at a time.

There are benefits on both sides of that approach. First, it keeps you from getting annoyed by hearing the same cliches that aspiring apologists have picked up either rightly or wrongly. Second, it's the only way you have any chance of making real headway in the discussion (otherwise, the tl;dr's will be unbearable). Third, it will force him to think more deeply about any one of these. As a Christian, that is exactly what I want for a guy like him. It's all fine and dandy that he has taken the time to learn some basic facts. Can he go deeper? Can he contextualize them in their broader fields of study?

The bottom line is that if you want to have the discussion with him at all, there's nothing to be gained by talking about everything at once except a lot of frustration. There is plenty to be gained, by both sides, by focusing on one issue in particular.

My $.02. If you continue to convo, let us know how it goes. Thanks

[Godlessons]

"atheist? agnostic? you can't make a decision therefore you make the decision not to make a decision? or are you God? you're valuing your own opinions and choices as the supreme choice."

The "you can't make a decision" part is just plain misunderstanding of what he's talking about.  He really needs a "What atheism is" 101 course.

Agnostic is speaking about knowledge, atheist speaks to belief.  While belief and knowledge do overlap, when we say we "know" something, what we are really saying is that we strongly believe something.  One can certainly be an atheist and still not believe absolute knowledge is possible.

"Let me start with the legitimacy of the bible. We'll use ancient works to compare the legitimacy of the bible. Any person who studies older ancient works knows that a work is considered more legitimate based on an easy thing: how many of those manuscripts survived.
Plato: 7
Caesars Gallic War: 10
Aristotle: 49
Illiad: 700 (this one sounds a lot more legit)
Bible (only in greek, which is considered the most accurate of all languages of the bible because of its origins: 5,300
That's only in greek. Languages of latin, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian all had about 8,000 each."

How many manuscripts survived is certainly not a measure of voracity of the claims in it.  It is only a measurement of the authenticity of the actual text, since it can be compared to other early copies.

If he is going to say that the book is relating to actual events, that requires much more than a bunch of early copies of Beowulf.  

Are the Grimm fairy tales more true because there are many surviving manuscripts?  Are they more true than a modern book that only sold 1000 copies, because it didn't get much press?

Essentially he's arguing that it is popular, so it must be true.

"If you deny the legitimacy of the bible, i would recommend you throw out every University text book you have and possibly any ancient reading that you've done so far in your education. If you still believe the bible is not legitimate, i'll continue. Time gap is also used to tell whether or not an ancient writing is legitimate or not (obviously, the more sooner it's found after it's been written, the more legitimate it is).

Legitimacy as compared to what?  The bible isn't even internally legitimate.  The last chapter of Mark for instance.

Odessey: 2,200 years
Sophocles: 1,400 years
Plato: 1,200 years
Caesar: 900 years

The new testament of the bible: as early as 200 years (200 AD)
The earliest found to date is 130 AD which is part of John's Gospel."

Is he saying that the older a text is, the less its contents can be trusted as a true recreation of the original?  I would agree there.

"Rith, i'm only 17 years old, so i have a question to ask you.
i've been wondering in life if love really exists. and i'm pretty sure you would say it does, you just stated that you love your life. so tell me, and prove to me, in either logic or mathematics (since that's how all of science and facts are proven through the scientific method): Prove to me that Love exists."

Love has an effect on brain activity and chemistry, both of which can be tested scientifically.

"hmmm. you're telling me that the bible is fairy tales when it seems much more legitimate than Plato's writings (whom we consider one of the greatest minds to ever walk the earth)? yet you can't prove the existence of Love through mathematics and logic? if that can't be proven through the scientific method, we obviously have to take that out of our textbooks, stop using that word, because love doesn't exist.

As I showed, love can be measured.  On the other hand, how is the bible more legitimate than Plato?

the world cannot measure God. if we had a measurement that could measure God, i'd be pretty thankful. But the world tries to measure God through a measurement that God doesn't exist in.

Anything that has an effect on the real world can be measured.

i'll use physics: God is beyond space and time. He is not a part of our universe, yet people use things to measure space and time to disprove the existence of a God.

He's right.  God doesn't exist, and being outside of space and time is tantamount to saying the same thing, unless he can show that there is anything that exists in such a place.

We are incapable of reaching God because of human imperfection.

If God created us, and we are imperfect, doesn't that mean that God is imperfect?  God is either imperfect for creating imperfect humans, or he is evil because he perfectly created beings that acted as though they were imperfect.  Either way, doesn't sound much like a god.

" If you want me to prove God through logic, i will if i have to. But i don't think i should have to go down to that. Logic is human understanding. The concept of God's love for us is beyond what humans can measure through math and science.

I can only guess that he would pull out some Plantinga for this, and even Plantinga admits that his arguments aren't proof, merely argument.  Considering his ontological argument and his dualism argument, I am not even slightly convinced. (only two arguments I've seen from him.)

Saying that God is the easy way out has two flaws.

1. you've chosen not to believe in him because he can't be proven. it's much easier for you to believe that Santa Clause doesn't exist than to say that he does. which one is the easy way out?

2. it's based off of your own understanding, not based off of doctrine. i can't trust you. you don't have the credentials at this point compared to the bible. if you used the bible, you would have power because of how legitimate it is. but your own personal understandings don't have legitimacy.

He has yet to show that the bible has any credentials whatsoever, other than saying it is old, so therefore it is accurate.

even in the court of law, there are exhibits, to prove to the jury and judge that a statement is legitimate. but if it's a statement based off of your own opinions, then it's useless in the court of law.

In a court of law, there is rarely "proof", just argument.  All that is necessary is for the jury to lose reasonable doubt, which is not the same as removing all doubt.