Best argument FOR God that you've heard....

A God...any God, usually requires certain behavior from its followers. It is kind of "baked in".

 

Jesus absolutely did "put himself" on something each time he spoke. Obviously he didn't write the Gospels. But when he opened his mouth he made certain claims.

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."
Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?" John 14:8-9

And there are many more examples. There is a reason why Christians believe Jesus was God and it comes from Scripture.

 

Parallel Verses
New International Version
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

And there would be many more like this.

 

I do not understand how or why [fill in the blank].
Therefore, goddidit.

 

John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”

Now you find some translation that says something else. I don't deny the complexity and the problems with translations. I could find you one that says Jesus claimed to be gay. Which is more likely? That the 100 translations that agree are wrong, or the 1 you can find that says something completely at odds with the 100 is correct?

- - - Updated - - -

God of the gaps argument. A horrible one indeed. Nice choice.

 

As I type comments, my mind formulates arguments I expect will arrive by post. So frankly, no surprises. You still think in multiple but diverse gods. I do not. Diverse gods may work at cross purposes. Seems a lot of God on God arguments would break out.

 

Pascal's Wager. Seems like everyone stumbles upon the notion sooner or later, at least if they're a theist attempting to stay that way.

 

In der Tat. This is because gods serve a social function as part of an organised religious tradition. They're used to lend false authority to dictates and rules and laws, and of course lend false legitimacy to despotic rulers.

 

One would do better to wonder whether the correlation between the abundance of sin and the overwhelming preponderance of despotism in human history can really be nothing more than coincidence.

If He is God, He was never tempted, and the Passion of Christ is nothing but stage fire. You OK with that?

 

If gods are, "used to lend false authority.." what comes first? The god or the law that the god is used for to uphold the law? there is a little problem here. for instance....the god of the hebrew bible was around first and then laws were handed down. by your logic...if im reading you right, man uses gods to uphold laws...what if the god came first and then the law?

- - - Updated - - -

Im not quite sure what you mean? He was never tempted? christians believe jesus was fully god and fully man...man can be tempted. this is common knowledge.

 

Humans invent "laws" by nature. It's vital to any kind of social existence. But, that said, I couldn't tell you whether humans came up with gods or laws first. Both would have happened long, long before the time of surviving historical records, and probably before modern homo sapiens even existed as such.

 

If He is God, that would of course be correct.

So you'd have us believe He is both temptable and untemptable. Have I got that right?

 

The Jesus character is written as a psychopath. He's not the best role model.

 

Yes of course. Not that they're actually conscious but part of the universe consciousness creates.

 

Given that Jesus was on trial and never claimed to be God. You tell us.
Given Jesus never claims directly, but in a sort of double speak manner, that he is or equivalent to God, you tell us.

 

I don't think in multiple or diverse gods. Those are just the facts. Each area has their own creator, their own rules give by said creator.
There are a lot of God on God arguments. Even those with the same God, see 1000s of versions of christianity. See different sects of muslims. See christians and muslims fighting for 1000+ years.
Why? Mostly because God can't make itself clear enough for the creation to understand.
Heck, mormons appear to have the same god as the rest of the christians, but most christians don't give mormons the light of day. Most call them a cult. Even though most every, if not all, religions are technically a cult.

 

That's because there are no valid arguments that "a god(s) exist."

Just like there are no valid arguments that "no gods exist."

On the question of whether a god exists...or no gods exist...all one can do is to make a guess.

 

"Despotism" has nothing whatever to do with a guy yanking his tool. But "yanking one's tool" seems to offend almost all the gods. Despotism has nothing to do with shagging someone else's spouse...or stealing...or giving the finger to any gods...but almost every god is offended by those things.

Wonder why that is.

 

As someone who has never 'sinned' I am also confused by the concept.

 

False Frank. As I have said before you can lack belief which is a response to the question of existence that does not require a guess. That is why it is the rational position to take.

 

I agree William. One CAN lack belief.

But what is being discussed here are the arguments FOR a god existing...which logically expand to arguments AGAINST gods existing.

I am talking about the arguments FOR and AGAINST.

If one decides NOT to make an argument for or against gods existing...fine. But if one does...it is going to be, at its base, A GUESS.

I agree with that also. That is why I lack a belief that there are gods...and that there are no gods.

 

Who 'recorded' his 37 'miracles'.?

I have no problem with your UFO. I quite believe there is life out there in the Universe. UFO's? Why not? We are just at the start of our 'universal' journey. Others may be far ahead of us.

 

True, but you can be saved without bothering to actually follow the recommended behaviors.

 

Saved??? From what?

And why should any god, except a human invented god, want "followers" or expect "certain behavior" from them?

 

Did He. We have only the life of Jesus written by those who were biased. All Jews believed they were sons of god. It doesn't take much to turn 'a son of god' into 'the Son of God'.
The reason they were angry with him is in Matthew 23. He undermined their position in the eyes of the people by showing them up.
In the letters of Herod and Pilate we have the statues bowing to Jesus when he was led before them. Impossible? But we are expected to believe a host of miracles of Jesus? Just because they are written in the Bible. External references depend on reports by Jesus followers.
Jesus confession in the Sanhedrin. We have to assume they were telling the truth. They had to find a reason to convict him in the Sanhedrin, to put before the people, with whom they wsere unpopular.

Agreed. That doesn't make him divine. Many had come before. They weren't made divine.

Baptism. Water was used widely in Judaism for ritual cleansing. John was using the same in baptising people. Namaan was cleansed by bathing in the Jordan. So Jesus simply followed Jewish teaching.
Temptation. Jews believed that HaSatan was a messenger of Jahweh and one who was given the task of testing men's faith. So Jesus 'supposed' temptation by the Christian Satan - enemy of god - was simply following Jewish form.
He went to the synagogue. He didn't refuse the scroll when it was handed to him, but read from it, as a Jew was expected to do. In one case he also spoke from it.
Several times he ignored things, like the washing of hands before eating, as just being traditional 'laws'. Although the Pharisees expected it.
As a Jew Jesus would not have accepted a vicarious sacrifice. Men were responsible for their own sins. As a Jew he would not have accepted that he was a Messiah. He did not fulfil those requirements.
Nothing in the OT refers to Jesus when taken in context.