Those two arguments are very biased. The first one is only a problem in Christianity, and like you said it’s a silly argument, God can be malicious and that solves that issue.
The second one is a bit trickier, because you’re making the same mistake you accuse others of making. There are two possibilities, either something can come from nothing, or it can’t. If stuff can come from nothing God is not needed to create the Universe (and while physics have been able to prove this, let’s look at the other possibility just in case). On the other hand if stuff can’t come from nothing then stuff must have always existed, otherwise you will get the problem of where the stuff that did that came from, and that applies to God too, so of you can ask “where did the Big Bang came from if there was nothing” you can also ask “where did God came from if there was nothing”, so in this scenario you also don’t need God, because if it can come from nothing then other stuff can also come from nothing so we’re in the other scenario.
Also those are two of the weakest arguments against God, and they specifically go after the Christian God of the gaps. Better arguments against the existence of God are usually about pointing at contradictions in the definition, similarly to how you said nothing can come from nothing but made an exception for God, another example is omniscience vs free will (if someone knows what you will do then you’re not free to do different), or omnipotence in itself (can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it?), and if we’re talking about the specific Christian deity the fact that he needs an innocent blood sacrifice to forgive people should be a clear indicator of the type of being you’re dealing with, and it’s not an all loving entity.
Eventually you’ll reach a stopping point. The believers go a step behind the nonbelievers, a step into the unseen, that’s all. Up until the beginning of the universe we’re all in agreement because things exist, lol. And there’s no contradiction in the definitions I’m using, that’s just semantics and often due to the Frankenstein monster of inconsistencies that’s Roman Catholicism and everything that came from it. You have to think about it without labels, the way the Greek philosophers did, and assume corruption in much of the remaining scriptures. And blood sacrifices? Are you referring to Abraham? God doesn’t require blood, just faith and acts, we’re not Aztecs! But if you believe in the unseen and in a judgment post death, you believe in life after death, and if you do and God Himself asks you to sacrifice your child, is it even a negative or are you, with 100% certainty, sending your kid to Heaven? Not that it’s an easy pill to swallow, there’s a reason Abraham’s name is known today, but that’s not because BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, but it fits as an acknowledgement of our ephemeral nature and ‘meaningless existence’ and a test of faith (everyone dies in the end too…).
If you ever wanna talk about it in earnest, I’m up for a call. These convos are not very productive in this format, lol.
Yup, eventually believers reach the same stopping point but instead of saying “I don’t know” they go “God did it”, until science explains how that happened, so believers go to the next thing and say “well I don’t know how this happened, therefore God”. That is called “the God of the gaps” and it’s a terrible argument, it’s okay to admit we don’t know something.
And no, I’m not talking about Abraham, I’m talking about Jesus, the whole reason why Jesus is crucified is so that his blood can clean the sin of mankind. The basics of Christianism are the following tenets:
God can’t (or doesn’t want to) coexist with Sin
God requires blood sacrifices, usually animals, to purify Sin
God offered a loophole, by sacrificing an innocent person anyone can point at that sacrifice and say “I’m using this sacrifice to purify my sins”.
Because there are no Sinless humans he had to come down in human form to sacrifice himself so that he could charge the innocent blood price for the Sins of mankind
Otherwise why would God need to offer himself as sacrifice to purify sins? Couldn’t he just say “all sins are gone”? However you look at it he asks for a blood sacrifice, however he allows you to cash in his own blood sacrifice in its place, and if you don’t he sends you to Hell, very loving fellow.
I understand the concept of the “God of the gaps” but this is not about that. Our origins before the start of the universe is not something we can ever study or know anything about! Of course it’s a ‘gap in our knowledge’, but it’s a fundamental one, not one that can ever be filled. You make a decision to be on one of two camps: “things exist” or “things exist, and that implies a Creator”. That’s all. And like I said, I don’t think there’s a ‘final irrefutable argument’ after that to make anyone believe in the Creator. It’s just a personal decision.
And I don’t believe in Christianity, it’s a mixture of European paganism (including the winter’s solstice now called Christmas) and some Abrahamic/Mosaic superficial aspects and tenets besides the most important one: don’t equate anything/one to God. God is no man. I mean, if you’ve read the Bible (heavily ‘corrupted’, but the whole Roman Catholic religion was based in corruption and the co opting of a ‘Jewish’ religion movement), you’ll see that Jesus doesn’t even want you to call him ‘good’ (let alone God!), telling us that “only the Father is good”. Disregard everything you know about God that comes from whatever Western understanding you have of Him. Disregard anything Paulian (the actual founding figure of Christianity, and to a great extent why it’s a fucked up thing). If you’re really interested: read Ecclesiastes, read at least the Sermon of the Mount, read the Qur’an and make your own conclusions. The wise and inspired said all the same things in the end (“fear God and keep His commandments”, “Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who hurt you and persecute you, so that you may be the children of your Father, Who is in Heaven.”…) just with different accents. Nothing that’s nonsensical belongs to God’s system nor are they words inspired by Him!
Those two arguments are very biased. The first one is only a problem in Christianity, and like you said it’s a silly argument, God can be malicious and that solves that issue.
The second one is a bit trickier, because you’re making the same mistake you accuse others of making. There are two possibilities, either something can come from nothing, or it can’t. If stuff can come from nothing God is not needed to create the Universe (and while physics have been able to prove this, let’s look at the other possibility just in case). On the other hand if stuff can’t come from nothing then stuff must have always existed, otherwise you will get the problem of where the stuff that did that came from, and that applies to God too, so of you can ask “where did the Big Bang came from if there was nothing” you can also ask “where did God came from if there was nothing”, so in this scenario you also don’t need God, because if it can come from nothing then other stuff can also come from nothing so we’re in the other scenario.
Also those are two of the weakest arguments against God, and they specifically go after the Christian God of the gaps. Better arguments against the existence of God are usually about pointing at contradictions in the definition, similarly to how you said nothing can come from nothing but made an exception for God, another example is omniscience vs free will (if someone knows what you will do then you’re not free to do different), or omnipotence in itself (can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it?), and if we’re talking about the specific Christian deity the fact that he needs an innocent blood sacrifice to forgive people should be a clear indicator of the type of being you’re dealing with, and it’s not an all loving entity.
Eventually you’ll reach a stopping point. The believers go a step behind the nonbelievers, a step into the unseen, that’s all. Up until the beginning of the universe we’re all in agreement because things exist, lol. And there’s no contradiction in the definitions I’m using, that’s just semantics and often due to the Frankenstein monster of inconsistencies that’s Roman Catholicism and everything that came from it. You have to think about it without labels, the way the Greek philosophers did, and assume corruption in much of the remaining scriptures. And blood sacrifices? Are you referring to Abraham? God doesn’t require blood, just faith and acts, we’re not Aztecs! But if you believe in the unseen and in a judgment post death, you believe in life after death, and if you do and God Himself asks you to sacrifice your child, is it even a negative or are you, with 100% certainty, sending your kid to Heaven? Not that it’s an easy pill to swallow, there’s a reason Abraham’s name is known today, but that’s not because BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, but it fits as an acknowledgement of our ephemeral nature and ‘meaningless existence’ and a test of faith (everyone dies in the end too…).
If you ever wanna talk about it in earnest, I’m up for a call. These convos are not very productive in this format, lol.
Yup, eventually believers reach the same stopping point but instead of saying “I don’t know” they go “God did it”, until science explains how that happened, so believers go to the next thing and say “well I don’t know how this happened, therefore God”. That is called “the God of the gaps” and it’s a terrible argument, it’s okay to admit we don’t know something.
And no, I’m not talking about Abraham, I’m talking about Jesus, the whole reason why Jesus is crucified is so that his blood can clean the sin of mankind. The basics of Christianism are the following tenets:
Otherwise why would God need to offer himself as sacrifice to purify sins? Couldn’t he just say “all sins are gone”? However you look at it he asks for a blood sacrifice, however he allows you to cash in his own blood sacrifice in its place, and if you don’t he sends you to Hell, very loving fellow.
I understand the concept of the “God of the gaps” but this is not about that. Our origins before the start of the universe is not something we can ever study or know anything about! Of course it’s a ‘gap in our knowledge’, but it’s a fundamental one, not one that can ever be filled. You make a decision to be on one of two camps: “things exist” or “things exist, and that implies a Creator”. That’s all. And like I said, I don’t think there’s a ‘final irrefutable argument’ after that to make anyone believe in the Creator. It’s just a personal decision.
And I don’t believe in Christianity, it’s a mixture of European paganism (including the winter’s solstice now called Christmas) and some Abrahamic/Mosaic superficial aspects and tenets besides the most important one: don’t equate anything/one to God. God is no man. I mean, if you’ve read the Bible (heavily ‘corrupted’, but the whole Roman Catholic religion was based in corruption and the co opting of a ‘Jewish’ religion movement), you’ll see that Jesus doesn’t even want you to call him ‘good’ (let alone God!), telling us that “only the Father is good”. Disregard everything you know about God that comes from whatever Western understanding you have of Him. Disregard anything Paulian (the actual founding figure of Christianity, and to a great extent why it’s a fucked up thing). If you’re really interested: read Ecclesiastes, read at least the Sermon of the Mount, read the Qur’an and make your own conclusions. The wise and inspired said all the same things in the end (“fear God and keep His commandments”, “Love your enemies. Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who hurt you and persecute you, so that you may be the children of your Father, Who is in Heaven.”…) just with different accents. Nothing that’s nonsensical belongs to God’s system nor are they words inspired by Him!