So while she is working on the existence of God, we need your promise that you are working on his non-existence. Because, for him to exist is just as easy as not. So you have the burden of proof as well.
You also will need to do your part here and show us which source of knowledge eliminates the existence of God and how it does so.
Let us know when your part is complete so both sides of the argument can post simultaneously.
Right, but he is playing “devil’s advocate” to stir the pot and I find it annoying. Conversations get confusing when people start taking opposite sides and trying to be “crafty” in their argumen
ts. (hint hint) Just say what you think, God doesn’t need you to argue on His behalf…
His point 3.5 is a gross assumption in that it suggests knowing what God “thinks and feels” about humans, representing it as
something that he knows about God. Which he doesn’t, nor do I nor can anyone else.
The bible says that Jesus alone knew the Father, so when I hear other Christians talk about how they “know” God, or worse the “character” of God, I cringe. I have a relationship with Jesus, I interact with the Holy Spirit, but God is beyond my understanding and always will be.
Point taken.
I think the Bible is clear that we can know God as much as he makes himself known in the Bible. There’s still mystery in the Trinity and in the person of Jesus of course. And I think we will spend eternity knowing and learning about God. So I don’t think there’s anything to cringe about. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, so if you know them you know God. There’s nothing more mystical about the Father. At least I’d like you to support that from the Bible if you believe it to be so.
This is uncalled for and should be flagged. But I welcome the outburst because it only demonstrates that you have lost the argument.
I think the bible makes clear that we are incapable of knowing the fullness of God and the reasoning for His behavior. It is in the Socratic Paradox that we find God…“I know that I know nothing”.
Who are we to say that God does anything for any purpose?
Romans 9 :18-21 - Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it , “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
There are many descriptions of God in the bible, but when taken together, He is all things and we are incapable of understanding why. The more I know Him, the more I understand that He cannot be known. We see the tip of the iceberg, the other 90% is hidden.
The bible says God is Love and also says He is a jealous God of Wrath. He is both creator and destroyer, who are we to say which is better?
I bet you think we atheists hate God as well. But babies are born atheists. They have to be indoctrinated to believe. Atheism is the default condition.
Babies are born in the image of God. Logically, the “default” propensity is to believe in God from childhood. Children would have to be deliberately indoctrinated to disbelieve in God.
So where does that leave your argument? Nowhere. Nonsense.
We aren’t to say, but the Bible says. The passage you quoted is specifically talking about mercy, not all attributes of God.
God is creator, but where in the Bible does it say that God destroys?
Babies know nothing of God. Children absorb the beliefs they are taught by their family and the culture within which they are raised.
@thoughtful I would like to defer to you to answer this claim. I want to know how you would respond.
The classics.
In the name of both rationalism and pragamatism, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. If you claim a teapot is moving about the Sun in the orbit of Mars it is up to you to supply the evidence for the claim, not the skeptic. To quote The Hitch, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Google is my friend. 
Sorry @AlanFox science proves you wrong.
Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
• Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.
• Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities’ testimony didn’t carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.
Should start a new post just on this @r_speir
Go for it.
I see. So, IOW, creationists have the mentality a ten year old.
Well! You certainly put us in our place there!
Just read the article. It is an opinion piece. It would be more instructive perhaps to look at the evidence the op author bases his claims on.
ETA the author is talking about a propensity to believe. There’s no controversy about that.
See the end of the article.
That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children’s minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief.
See what Jesus had to say.
Luke 18
15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
I’ll post it. Two seconds on google.
Unfortunately, that’s not what the evidence shows. Children are sponges and soak up ideas, at first gullibly. The environment governs what they soak up.
I did.
Sorry, exactly how do you think that refutes what I said?
It’s cute how you YEC’s are suddenly all over science that you can interpret to support your beliefs.