Atheism vs Christianity: Does God Exist?

Question

Cliffe Knechtle and Dr. Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience continue this important debate.
Does God Exist? Click here

http://www.givemeananswer.org/main/frames/GDvideoframe.html

to watch the recording of the debate and decide for yourself
Thanks from:
http://www.ministryofgrace.multiply.com

Answer 1

Simple answer to a simple question... YES God exists.

Besides, I wouldn't waste my time looking at or reading anything by that ignorant moron for a fool, Newdow!

Answer 2

Cliffe Knechtle was quite interesting and Dr. Michael Newdow was a considerable let down, he seemed uncomfortable, ill prepaired and didn't make a very convincing argument at all.

The big thing I got out of this was the goofy questions asked by what are supposed to be college students. Not one of them could form a coherent question.

It strikes me there are better atheist answers here at Y/A from people with a lot less than a Medical degree!

If Newdow is as unconvincing on his quest to remove Under God then I can see why he's failing in that matter.

Answer 3

I'm not going to watch either video, because I have an idea that it's a lot of rhetoric tossed in both directions.

I'll give you my one strongest reason for my belief that there is a God:
Science has not yet provided a concrete explanation for the unique nature of humankind. Consider all that is human - both good and bad. War. Architecture. Philosophy. The very existence and debate over religions. Memory. Literacy and written speech. We are not like any other living creature currently on the face of the earth. The most intelligent animals on record are still vastly behind the least sophisticated human cultures. If we all originated in the same "primordial soup" and evolved side by side on this planet, how did one species come so much farther than the rest? How did one species develop the brains needed to be the fittest survivors? I can accept that the rest of life on Earth evolved, but I don't see how humans fit in the picture. The very fact that we struggle with these questions marks us as seperate beings - something special. Now, I'm not sure I know what God is - I grew up Christian, but I've come to see much of organized religion as other peoples' interpretations. I'd just assume develop my own ideas. But I cannot write off the existence of a God when the very fact that I am answering this question thoughtfully implies that I have been intelligently designed, and not accidentally evolved.

That's it. I know it's not much for the Atheist crowd, nor do I seek to change minds. I'm just trying to garner a little understanding and (eek, dare I ask?) respect. Good night, all!

Answer 4

I could only get as far as the opening arguments from both sides and then I couldn't take any more. In my opinion, they were both presenting their sides horribly.

Knechtle gave the typical arguments I've seen for God, starting with assumptions made in the Bible and by self-righteous and asserting them as facts to prove his side. His arguments about absolute morality were especially unconvincing for me. He basically was polling a group of like minded, similarly cultured people about tragedies and, when they all agreed it was wrong, called it a moral absolute. What I want to know is if morals are absolute, why do we have so many situations that fall into grey area?

Newdow was nearly as bad. He did exactly what I hoped he wouldn't do; he presented his points defensively, at times almost like an impudent child. I was appalled at his hypocrisy, criticizing his opponent for giving reasons instead of evidence and doing the exact same thing himself. I know that it's impossible to prove a negative in this sense, but his presentation was pretty bad in this area. Also, his little 'experiment' was shameful. I couldn't believe he actually did that. It was so childish.

I was an atheist before watching the videos and continue to be afterward, but I seriously hope there are better representatives from both sides out there.

Answer 5

Your screed is so rife with mistakes and straw adult males that is that is too a lot to take you to job on all and distinct so enable me purely say that you're thoroughly incorrect. Like maximum uninformed human beings you conflate atheism and evolution, which misses the point. Atheism isn't something better than the shortcoming of believe in a god or gods. It implies no longer something about evolution, no matter if that is genuine that maximum atheists settle for evolution as a actuality. because the putting forward is going, outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. so a approaches there's no evidence - outstanding or otherwise - for the existence of a god or gods. In that absence then the in straight forward words lifelike position to take is that god does no longer exist. experience free to (attempt to) teach otherwise, despite the indisputable fact that.

Answer 6

To say that matter has always existed would mean rewriting science. The very foundation of science as it currently exists is the assumption that nothing within the purview of science happens without a cause, and nothing exists without an origin. Can you imagine a new disease being identified, and a group of scientists getting together to determine IF the disease has a cause? No, they immediately start experiments to IDENITIFY the cause. Since the disease exists, the immediate assumption is that is has a cause. Therefore, logic dictates that if the natural universe, which constitutes the total purview of science, is a series of causes and effects, then obviously this series itself also had to have an origin and a cause. And, just as logically, that cause must lie outside the natural universe, and therefore outside the purview of science. And, just as logically, that cause must be an uncaused cause, the primordial cause, the effect of which is the series of causes and effects we know as the natural universe. We know that uncaused cause, that origin and cause of all other causes and effects, as God.

Answer 7

I'd support them taking "Under God" out of the pledge, and I am a Christian.... Yet I think it should be done delicately and not bitterly and when it is taken down atheists shouldn't mockingly taunt "haha we won" etc. First they should have something to replace it with, because just cutting it out seems improper. They should add "under Truth" or something of such.

Answer 8

One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always “been” than it is to say that matter has always “been”?

Answer 9

It is so refreshing, and it gives me hope for humanity, when I see someone who has the courage , honesty, and the intelligence to stand up and say "Their is no God. Now stand up and be a decent, moral person for no other reason than just wanting to do the right thing".
I'm so sick of these self-righteous people who think only in terms of punishment and reward.

Answer 10

if God exists how could he let us stuff up the world so badly ?

I understand about free will etc but God does seem a bit uncaring and we could use some guidance from time to time. EG Iraq.
20,000,000 Russians killed in WW2
6,000,000 Jews killed in WW2.

If we are his children he sure has a funny way of showing his love for us.

Answer 11

God exist in the soul (art, mind and belief). But I do belive "under god" should be replaced with "under freedom" since it should apply to ALL philosophies wheather they belive in many gods/goddesses, one god, or no god at all.This is because America is a melting pot and should respect ALL of the diverse religions and beliefs.However, I don't believe god exists literally.