NationStates Jolt Archive

how do u no the goblin's green if its invisible?
its green on a quantum level(well some are, it depends on their spin)

Believing that God is sovereign and believing that God did not give human beings free will are two very different things. If God has decided who will sin and who will not, who will be saved and who will not - then there is no free will.


there is both free will and predestination, it only seems a paradox because you don't understand the math. you can do what you want but what will be done can be known. the choices are yours to make, but we've known what they would be from the beginning.

there is both free will and predestination, it only seems a paradox because you don't understand the math. you can do what you want but what will be done can be known. the choices are yours to make, but we've known what they would be from the beginning.

Preknowledge and predestination are not the same.

Preknowledge simply means you already know what a person will do, but allow them to make the choices for themselves in their own time. This is what you have just described.

Predestination means that God *makes* people do what has been predestined, thus implying that there is no free will.

Preknowledge and predestination are not the same.

Preknowledge simply means you already know what a person will do, but allow them to make the choices for themselves in their own time. This is what you have just described.

Predestination means that God *makes* people do what has been predestined, thus implying that there is no free will.
but by creating the universe and knowing the outcomes god has created the destiny. he hasn't choosen the course of each individual, but he has created the conditions that ineviably lead to the already understood outcomes.

Well, I'm just going to hope that someone hasn't made the joke yet (with apologies to Douglas Adams):

God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.

Man: "Ah, but the Bible proves that you exist, therefore you don't. QED."

God: "Oh, I hadn't thought of that."

<Poof! God disappears in a puff of logic.>

Yeah, so, that's pretty much where I stand. You can't prove it. It's completely nonsensical, and requires either a willing suspense of your rational mind, or a complete lack of said rational mind. In either case, belief in God is insane. See Julian Jaynes' work "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." What most closely resembles religious faith? Schizophrenia.

"Eyewitnesses are testing to events that they have physically witnessed"

Yeah, and I've seen a demon with my own eyes and my mother felt it and my litle brother still in the womb felt it and kicked right before I screamed, and my sister has seen angels, as for seeing God, He says we would be struck dead if we did, so that's kinda hard to do. But Jesus of Nazerith was a historical figure that did exist, there is no denying that fact, what He was is up to the person to decifer.

Wow. Sounds like schizophrenia runs in your family. Or congenital syphilis. A shot of penicillin will clear that shit right up, if it's the latter. If it's the former, my clients seem to like Haldol.

Well, I'm just going to hope that someone hasn't made the joke yet (with apologies to Douglas Adams):

God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.

Man: "Ah, but the Bible proves that you exist, therefore you don't. QED."

God: "Oh, I hadn't thought of that."

<Poof! God disappears in a puff of logic.>

Yeah, so, that's pretty much where I stand. You can't prove it. It's completely nonsensical, and requires either a willing suspense of your rational mind, or a complete lack of said rational mind. In either case, belief in God is insane. See Julian Jaynes' work "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." What most closely resembles religious faith? Schizophrenia.
I never was quite sane. It's a nice feeling, try it sometime.

For there to be an effect, there must be a cause, and vice versa.
Therefore, there can be no first cause, as an effect that was created by a preceding cause is required to make it.
God is sometimes referred to as the First Cause.
Since there can be no first cause, and the first cause is god, there can be no god.

If God did exist, no one would find out in some internet forum ;)

ok...maybe somebody's brought this up already or maybe somebody hasn't...but i lack both the desire and the time to read all of this so...

kant said that we couldn't understand the mysteries of the universe, because we are a part of it - our existence and our ability for abstract thought. we consider ourselves one of the great anomalies of nature in this respect, and this characteristic that makes us wonder why, should also make us wonder why we wonder why. but for us to ever fully and completely understand it would be absurd. it would be like a flea on a rabbit being pulled out of a hat comprehending the existence and purpose of the magician. we lack the ability to completely and objectively look back at ourselves in the cosmic picture, and so we are always missing a piece.

there is no proof for the existence of god. there is no proof against it either. there is proof against some claims made by organized religions, but that is hardly the same thing as to god's existence. we cannot decide nor prove it to others, religion is indeed a matter of faith, not reason.

so to sum up a needlessly lengthy and self-confusing post: you either decide to believe or not to believe, or you're like me and have absolutely no idea in the slightest. ah, the non-commital bliss of the uncertain agnositc ^^.

Yeah, so, that's pretty much where I stand. You can't prove it. It's completely nonsensical, and requires either a willing suspense of your rational mind, or a complete lack of said rational mind. In either case, belief in God is insane. See Julian Jaynes' work "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." What most closely resembles religious faith? Schizophrenia.
Thus, I must be insane because I BELIEVE man landed on the moon 4 decades ago and we haven't come close to another attempt since then?

but by creating the universe and knowing the outcomes god has created the destiny. he hasn't choosen the course of each individual, but he has created the conditions that ineviably lead to the already understood outcomes.

Free will introduces variables that do away with inevitability.

However, since God most likely exists outside of time and sees all time at once, God knows what will be done.

No one has seen it though and there is no PROOF to back it up


what about the testimony of 90 percent of humans on the planet earth. Nearly every society, every culture that has lived on earth have had a belief in a higher power. I think, in this day in age, if we would turn off our televisions, our computer games, and the relentless hum of modern civilization more people would feel the hand of god. I wish that people could believe in something greater than themselves. If people want to believe in god... let them... if people don't want to believe in god... let them. why the demand for proof? what ever happen to journeys, to quest? try and find god instead of disprove him and you might have as good a time as playing a simulation video game, and the rewards will be much higher!

Free will introduces variables that do away with inevitability.

However, since God most likely exists outside of time and sees all time at once, God knows what will be done.

but since he both created the universe and knows how what will be done, he effectively causes all that happens to happen even though free will exists.

Jesus, you're all a bunch of philosopher kings. Many better and smarter people have debated this for ages and will debate this until the end of time...

I just pity those with no faith. PBUY!

Also would have been nice if the person who started this spelled "Prove" correctly. Maybe he should worry about his English before debating subjects miles over his head.

For there to be an effect, there must be a cause, and vice versa.
Therefore, there can be no first cause, as an effect that was created by a preceding cause is required to make it.
God is sometimes referred to as the First Cause.
Since there can be no first cause, and the first cause is god, there can be no god.

its not so simple as that though...

i mean for what you say to be true, the universe has to have always existed, there can have been no begginning, no starting point, it just plain is and it was and it stands to reason that it always shall be.

but physics also tells us that for there to be an effect there has to have been a cause, the theory of eternal existence simply doesnt stand up. we are the effect. there had to be a cause. whether it was the first cause or not, there had to be one before it or one before it until there was a first one. but this also goes against logic - a cause is an effect in itself and must therefore have its own cause.

is time a cycle or is it linear? do things change or are they all essentially and forever the same? were we here yesterday, and will we be here tommorrow?

i have no friggin' clue, don't pretend that you do. nobody has all the answers, because the answers could be different for everybody, because in the end, does it really matter?

Bottom line: Doesn't matter.

Those who believe there is a God will experience one. This is not because they are special and have found the "truth.." it is because they want there to be one. I once saw a bumper sticker that said "I'm a militant agnostic- I don't know and neither do you."

I liked that. I believe that it is impossible to know anything. "Know" all you want, it's only a belief. Some people still "know" the world to be flat. And for them, that's ok! Somehow, they are living with what we "know" (or, actually, assume) to be false. If I were to believe in the old gods of Egypt or something, that would be fine. For all intents and purposes, for MY life, they would exist. They would then be quite real, because they are in my mind and projected onto what I see of the world. Many people have mentioned how it is folly to think of God as a concrete notion, as a guy sitting up somewhere calling all the shots. This probably makes sense. However, what then do we have, other than the words of believers, to sway us? I've known plenty of people who "found God." A majority of these people were looking for him though. It's a lot easier to see shapes in the mist if you're looking for orcs. or something. And what it boils down to is that there is no inherent need for religion. It makes it easier to create a system by which to live, and everyone wants to tell other people how to live, but if the god is not human, then stop claiming to know what he "wants." Why would an abstract notion care one whit if people believed it to exist? A notion will only exist IF people believe it, but it still is not an entity. If this God IS an entity, then still it wouldn't mind if people didn't think it existed... it's God. The hypothetical God has no failings such as codependency.

Many good people have been atheistic; many bad people have been extremely pious. The good people have had enemies and the bad people have had friends; good and bad are not concrete either. Moral systems do not require a belief in a higher being or entity or organization of life as we know it. All that is left in religion is this belief, and probably some social interaction that wouldn't be otherwise attained. Anyone can do missionary work. I respect those who do so for an organized church, as they are generally better equipped and often more effective, but I am wary of zealots forcing beliefs or ways of living upon others.

And still, if there is a universal truth, we don't know it. We probably can't know it. And it doesn't really matter, does it? Life goes on. It seems pretentious to believe that one is entitled to universal truth. There are members of every sect who will swear up and down that they got a real message from God or the equivalent, so this sort of arguing seems to be useless. Which isn't to say that they're all or partially wrong, but their arguments are invalid.

And for the love of all that is decent... Stop with the "We can't understand" with the undertones of "Well, except for me." If humans are incapable of understanding the concept we're arguing, then so be it, but stop trying to defend the Almighty, then.

And that's what this guy thinks at 11 PM.

Here is a little light reading for everyone. It is from the book Big Questions In Science.

'l am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God,' says Francis Collins, the man behind the US human genome programme. 'I am a geneticist, yet I believe in God.'
Collins is not alone. Over the past few decades, many acclaimed scientists have declared their belief in God and science. They include: Sir John Houghton, co-chair of the scientists' working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; John Polkinghorne, former president of Queens' College, Cambridge, and a particle physicist turned Anglican priest; Carl Feit, immunologist at Yeshiva University in New York and a Talmudic scholar; and Russell Stannard, a physics professor at the Open University and a reader in the Church of England.
Such views are not universally held. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's professor of the public understanding of science, and a vocal atheist, is quick to dismiss religious belief. He has called anyone advocating a creator God 'scientifically illiterate', while terming religion 'a virus'. Others see religion and science as different paradigms, both legitimate, but unrelated.
Yet some 3,000 years after a single creator God was first mooted, in an age when science is seeking to understand and control man's genetic make-up, and when powerful telescopes allow us to look to the very heart of me big-bang origin of the universe, the notion of God still persists. It is a notion that sells popular-science books, exercises theists and atheists alike, and is as plagued by division today as ever.
Belief in a single, perfectly good creator of the universe can probably be traced to ancient Israel around 1000 BC, says Richard Swinburne, Oxford University's professor of the philosophy of the Christian religion. Almost every society about which we have knowledge appears to have had faith in some divine force. It seems people have always looked to the divine for answers to questions that found no explanation in their society.
From the outset, there have been challenges. But, according to David Wilkinson, an astrophysicist turned minister and a fellow in Christian apologetics at St John's College, Durham University, questions about the existence, rather than the nature, of a creator have largely been a feature of more modem debate.
Until the mid nineteenth century, science and religion went, for the most part, hand in hand in Western society. Scientists typically explained their motivation in religious terms and many leading scientists were themselves clergy. Even the Church's persecution of Galileo, one of the most regularly cited examples of conflict between science and religion, did not involve his denial of the existence of God, although it did throw into question man's place at the centre of the universe.
The scientific revolution of the seventeenth century - with its development of instrumentation including microscopes – allowed scientists to marvel at the wonders of nature, and hence God. According to Wilkinson, design theory - the idea that nature is so well designed and so beautiful that it cannot be so by chance and must be the work of God - can be traced back to Greek literature, although, he says, its 'flourishing came with the scientific revolution'.
By the eighteenth century, some scientists were beginning to oppose religion, and by the early nineteenth century, the idea that the natural world was a simple mirror of God's work was under attack. It was Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, which presented, for some, the ultimate challenge to a creator God. Darwin undermined several traditional arguments for belief in God, including design theory and the unique status of humans.
Darwin at one time intended to join the clergy and was mindful not to use science to attack religion. Even at the time, some in the Church were open to his ideas and able to incorporate his work into their beliefs. However, some scientists were less accommodating. Thomas Huxley's legendary debate with the Bishop of Oxford in 1860 pitted evolutionary science firmly against belief in God. Two books of the time - William Draper's 1874 History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White's 1896 History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom - were instrumental in creating a confrontational image mat endures today.
According to John Brooke, professor of science and religion at Oxford University, the post-Darwin period was not a simple conflict between science and religion, but it did spark moves to professionalise and secularise science, separating the discipline and its practitioners - who until the 1850s had been required to be devout Christians - from theology.
By the early twentieth century, a large number of scientists no longer believed in God. A 1916 survey of US scientists found 60 percent did not believe in or doubted God - a figure that the author predicted would increase with the spread of education. But despite this, and despite significant advances in scientific understanding -particularly in the fields of genetics and quantum theory, which some believe obviate the need for a creator God - a 1996 survey still found 40 per cent of US scientists believed in God.
In a time when man has the power to play with life itself how can there be room for God? The fact that the universe exhibits just the right conditions to foster life is one pointer, says the pro-God corner. 'Recent scientific work on the fine-tuning of the universe has shown that the initial matter and the laws of nature have to have very special features indeed if organisms are to evolve,' says Swinburne The fact that our universe has just the right features may be chance or an indicator of the existence of a very large number of universes. Or it could be divine influence.
The existence of fundamental laws about the behaviour of matter is also mooted as evidence of a creator God. 'This is quite extraordinary', says Swinburne. 'I believe God has a reason. By matter behaving this way, it is not only beautiful, but allows finite beings like us to make a difference to the world and each other.'
Some say human cognitive abilities, which greatly exceed the demands imposed by evolutionary pressures and allow us to perceive the complexities of the universe, point to God. Others cite the inability of science, as yet, to account completely for the origin of life Though most scientists back ideas of biological evolution, there is less agreement on how natural selection began. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health in the United States, describes himself as a 'theistic evolutionist'. 'If God decided to create humans who he could have a relationship with, why should he not use the mechanism of evolution to do this?' he asks. 'It's an elegant idea.'
That no scientific proof of God has been forthcoming does not deter these theists, who also cite the scriptures and the wealth of human religious experiences as reasons for their belief. They suggest that science may well not be able to detect something as subtle as God.
Others go further. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in the US, says Darwinian evolution is incapable of explaining everything that exists in the living world. Rather, he says, God's handiwork can be seen in certain 'irreducibly complex' parts of organisms that could not have evolved from simpler components. His arguments for intelligent design have been attacked by many scientists, particularly in the US where scientific creationism - which takes a literal view of the biblical creation story - is still a major force.
Other scientists, including Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, though not dismissing the possibility of God, view science and religion as two different realms, logically distinct and fully separate in styles of enquiry and goals. He argues that science asks objective 'how' questions, while religion asks 'why'. Gould emphasises the need for the individual to use both to build a rich view of life. 'Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners, each the master of its own domain with each domain vital to human life in a different way,' he says.
Those with less faith in the divine argue that the space for God is shrinking as scientific understanding of the universe increases. Rather than accommodating science and God, they believe science to be the only reliable path to knowledge. Dawkins perceives irreconcilable differences between science and religion. Championing Darwinian evolution, he sees this alone as sufficient explanation for diversity of life. And his view of a universe without design or purpose dismisses those who seek answers to 'why are we are here' type questions.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg agrees that 'the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless'. He argues that the prevalence of evil and misery proves that there is no benevolent designer.

I love it how they weren't even talking to you.
Oh I though it was a bad spelling of comedian. sorry

It is self-refuting to try to disprove it. To disprove the statement "God does exist," you have to presuppose that "God does not exist."


No. Most logical arguments I see against God follow the form:
If God exists, x.
Not x.
Therefore God does not exist.

I don't see the presupposition here. The obvious problem is that we can only disprove individual god concepts this way, but that stems from the thiest's problem that no one really knows what God is.


So am I. An axiom is a statement that is assumed, but cannot be proven. It is then used in the rest of a given argument. A theist presupposes that there is a god because they feel that there is one. An atheist presupposes that there is not a god because they believe there is not one. However, both statements are equally unprovable.


Wikipeda saves the day:

This is the role of non-logical axioms, they simply constitute a starting point in a logical system. Since they are so fundamental in the development of a theory, it is often the case that they are simply referred to as axioms in the mathematical discourse, but again, not in the sense that they are true propositions nor as if they were assumptions claimed to be true. For example, in some groups, the operation of multiplication is commutative; in others it is not.



You are throwing a lot of terms out, but you are ignoring the point. The existence of an omnipotent god can, by definition, be neither proven nor disproven (unless said deity decides to make itself undoubtedly known).


Due to the reason we don't know God is.


With no proof either way, one must assume one or the other. I assume that there is a god and that is a presupposition for any theological arguments I make. You assume that there is not and that is a presupposition for your argument here.

Ah. It is a conclusion based on my inductive reasoning. I do not claim to make a statement of absolute certainity that God does not exist, I can however make a statement of knowledge that God does not exist just as I can say "North Dakota exists."

----

Now, let us all get this straight:
Theism / Atheism = Belief in god, lack of belief in god
Gnostic / Agnostic = Having knowledge, lacking knowledge

There is no fence-sitter! If you claim to be a fence-sitter agnostic and do not actively believe in a god, then you are an agnostic athiest (also known as a weak atheist.)
The grass over here is quite nice.

No. Most logical arguments I see against God follow the form:
If God exists, x.
Not x.
Therefore God does not exist.

I don't see the presupposition here. The obvious problem is that we can only disprove individual god concepts this way, but that stems from the thiest's problem that no one really knows what God is.

And that is the problem - any argument like that assumes something about God in order to try and disprove it. It is like saying "Assume if there was a North Dakota, it would be under water. North Dakota is not under water. Therefore, North Dakota does not exist." You still start with an unprovable assumption.

Ah. It is a conclusion based on my inductive reasoning. I do not claim to make a statement of absolute certainity that God does not exist, I can however make a statement of knowledge that God does not exist just as I can say "North Dakota exists."

That sounds pretty certain to me.

Now, let us all get this straight:
Theism / Atheism = Belief in god, lack of belief in god
Gnostic / Agnostic = Having knowledge, lacking knowledge

There is no fence-sitter! If you claim to be a fence-sitter agnostic and do not actively believe in a god, then you are an agnostic athiest (also known as a weak atheist.)
The grass over here is quite nice.

How about an agnostic theist trying to figure out the gnostic part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The God King Eru-sama
No. Most logical arguments I see against God follow the form:
If God exists, x.
Not x.
Therefore God does not exist.

I don't see the presupposition here. The obvious problem is that we can only disprove individual god concepts this way, but that stems from the thiest's problem that no one really knows what God is.


And that is the problem - any argument like that assumes something about God in order to try and disprove it. It is like saying "Assume if there was a North Dakota, it would be under water. North Dakota is not under water. Therefore, North Dakota does not exist." You still start with an unprovable assumption.

Ah. It is a conclusion based on my inductive reasoning. I do not claim to make a statement of absolute certainity that God does not exist, I can however make a statement of knowledge that God does not exist just as I can say "North Dakota exists."

That sounds pretty certain to me.

Now, let us all get this straight:
Theism / Atheism = Belief in god, lack of belief in god
Gnostic / Agnostic = Having knowledge, lacking knowledge

There is no fence-sitter! If you claim to be a fence-sitter agnostic and do not actively believe in a god, then you are an agnostic athiest (also known as a weak atheist.)
The grass over here is quite nice.

How about an agnostic theist trying to figure out the gnostic part?

.."How about an agnostic theist trying to figure out the gnostic part?"..

That would be a precocious 6 year-old.

:D

And that is the problem - any argument like that assumes something about God in order to try and disprove it. It is like saying "Assume if there was a North Dakota, it would be under water. North Dakota is not under water. Therefore, North Dakota does not exist." You still start with an unprovable assumption.

Where do I get these assumptions from? The thiest. Where do they get them from? Damned if I know.

As soon you start giving your God defined attributes, you open yourself up to refutation.


Ah. It is a conclusion based on my inductive reasoning. I do not claim to make a statement of absolute certainity that God does not exist, I can however make a statement of knowledge that God does not exist just as I can say "North Dakota exists."

That sounds pretty certain to me.


It is, based on my knowledge. I'm not omniscient though and could be wrong.


Now, let us all get this straight:
Theism / Atheism = Belief in god, lack of belief in god
Gnostic / Agnostic = Having knowledge, lacking knowledge

There is no fence-sitter! If you claim to be a fence-sitter agnostic and do not actively believe in a god, then you are an agnostic athiest (also known as a weak atheist.)
The grass over here is quite nice.

How about an agnostic theist trying to figure out the gnostic part?


Call me when if it happens. Hopefully, eternal life and paradise will still be a part of the deal.
-----

On heaven:
Is evil required for free will?
If so, is there evil in heaven?

What if you die on go to heaven but someone you love goes to hell? How can you be happy in heaven knowing this?

Have you even considered what "god" is, Camdean? Could it be, POSSIBLY, that god isn't a literal figure sitting on throne up in the clouds? Could it be POSSIBLE that god is a concept -- a feeling of love -- and that heaven is a state of mind.. a feeling? Could it be possible that god is only what you shape him to be? Does it need to be a literal concept?

if this is so, then why is it a sin to be gay, if god created us in his own image explain why its a sin?

On heaven:
Is evil required for free will?
If so, is there evil in heaven?

What if you die on go to heaven but someone you love goes to hell? How can you be happy in heaven knowing this?


Oooooo,.. very good..! :)

Evil is the consequence of free will.

So,.. what does this have to do with "heaven"..?

...AND...

If you go to heaven without your love, you are in hell.

Quote:
Have you even considered what "god" is, Camdean? Could it be, POSSIBLY, that god isn't a literal figure sitting on throne up in the clouds? Could it be POSSIBLE that god is a concept -- a feeling of love -- and that heaven is a state of mind.. a feeling? Could it be possible that god is only what you shape him to be? Does it need to be a literal concept?

if this is so, then why is it a sin to be gay, if god created us in his own image explain why its a sin?

It is a sin to be gay because if you hold that your god thinks it to be a sin, then it is a sin for you.

But it is only a sin to you, as the representative of your god.

If my god doesn't think it's a sin,.. and someone else's god does think it's a sin,... then we're not speaking for the same god.

And if we're not speaking for the same god,.. then how can any of us claim that their god is THE god..?

They would og been a pretty horrible person to go to hell. I dont believe in God but i believe that there was some bloke called jesus who did some pretty cool stuff and therefore was named the son of God. There is Proof that jesus exists. Im not sure what it is but iv heard that somewhere. But what i dont understand is if there was a God, why would he make bad things happen to good people? Surely if he exisited and was so great, he wouldnt let Good people feel upset and there lives go to waste. Unless there sadness was to lead to them having happiness (e.g being sad and then because of the upset, becoming a fantstic author) But that cannot happen to every sad fab person.

Camdean I feel sorry for you. When someone in your family dies you cry right? Don't you ever think about where he/she has gone? The fact is you have no one to turn to because you don't believe in a higher power. Call me naive for believing in something such as God, but at least I will have the security of knowing that someone close to me is in a better place now, contrary to your beliefs of them ceasing to exist.

Good point Rydor.

But referring to the previous posting - for all the difficulty of pinning something down - Kant was still a Christian - and a thinker who developed the foundation for most of modern philosophy.

Perhaps the question of 'proof' is the wrong question. Can someone prove the existance of love in a relationship? Is there a quantifiable, verifiable measurement for love? - No? Well then, does love exist?

I find it interesting that some much of current science has become so speculative - even to the point of discussing the 'God particle' - a piece of something that no one knows where or what it is, but if they could find it - it would make all sorts of other scientific theories and problems make sense. - Apparantly some smart people think its there. (I don' know that they actually believe in God, that's just the name of it <although, why did they choose that name?>) - But no one knows what it is. So what are they believing in or looking for?

I can't help respond to the repeated comment all the way through this thread of "This has been discussed for x years, no one has solved it, why discuss it?"

- First, I'm curious why those individuals felt motivated to read and respond to this if it so much doesn't matter.

- Secondly, discussion is important - no, God won't be 'proved' in this forum and more then you can't prove that I'm not a butterfly thinking I'm typing this. But the fact that this issue: The Existance and the Nature of the Divine has perpetually compelled so much interest and so much searching and thinking and consideration should say something to us about the continuos need in individuals to arrive at an aswer to this question. - Where does that need come from? There is no logical explanation for it to have evolved - that is a completely irrational hypothesis. - So then, where is it from?

On the same token, why is it that so many feel the need to combat the idea of 'God?' - Most people don't feel a need to argue against the existance of the Tooth Fairy, or Jack and the Giant Beanstalk.

If it doesn't matter what people believe, or how they understand reality then why even enter the conversation and present an opinion? From their own line of reasoning their own opinion doesn't matter or have value. Tough to understand where the motivation to voice it comes from.

Lastly - I'm currently writing from Africa - and while my exposure to this isn't limited to Africa - I have to say - the concept of 'spiritual otherness' interacting with humans being a myth can't explain the very hard realities that many people experience. - Quite a lot can be explained away by ignorance or the power of superstition over perspective or suggestive hypnosis or so on. But not all of it. Not by any means. No one may be able to prove what caused something to happen - but no one can deny that something did happen. And in enough cases - there is no 'scientific' process that is able to answer the question.

Camdean I feel sorry for you. When someone in your family dies you cry right? Don't you ever think about where he/she has gone? The fact is you have no one to turn to because you don't believe in a higher power. Call me naive for believing in something such as God, but at least I will have the security of knowing that someone close to me is in a better place now, contrary to your beliefs of them ceasing to exist.
and i feel sorry for you, that you cannot handle the loss of a loved one without making up an imaginary friend with an imaginary house in the clouds for your dead loved one to live in forever. i believe you do both yourself and your loved one a horrible disservice by failing to fully face and understand death, and that you will never be able to mourn as completely and honestly as a person who understands the finality of death and the finite character of life.

remember, just because something makes you feel better doesn't mean it is good, wise, or right. many people turn to heroine to deal with loss, and they feel a whole lot better...

One and only one comment from me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camdean I feel sorry for you. When someone in your family dies you cry right? Don't you ever think about where he/she has gone? The fact is you have no one to turn to because you don't believe in a higher power. Call me naive for believing in something such as God, but at least I will have the security of knowing that someone close to me is in a better place now, contrary to your beliefs of them ceasing to exist.

There are MANY reasons to feel sorry for Camy, but that's probably NOT one of them.

Camy simply wants everybody to "love each other and teach what they know of love".

He seems to think that "good" is a universally understood, perfectly fungible commodity that we can imbue one and other with via osmosis.

I imagine (MY OPINION!!!!) that when a beloved relative of Camy dies, Camy remembers that relative as they were in life, and feels sorry for Camy for no longer having them with Camy.

(( I'm using Camy so much because I don't want to do the he/her thing. ))

Camy thinks that the relative is simply "erased" as a personality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfenstein Castle
Camdean I feel sorry for you. When someone in your family dies you cry right? Don't you ever think about where he/she has gone? The fact is you have no one to turn to because you don't believe in a higher power. Call me naive for believing in something such as God, but at least I will have the security of knowing that someone close to me is in a better place now, contrary to your beliefs of them ceasing to exist.


and i feel sorry for you, that you cannot handle the loss of a loved one without making up an imaginary friend with an imaginary house in the clouds for your dead loved one to live in forever. i believe you do both yourself and your loved one a horrible disservice by failing to fully face and understand death, and that you will never be able to mourn as completely and honestly as a person who understands the finality of death and the finite character of life.

remember, just because something makes you feel better doesn't mean it is good, wise, or right. many people turn to heroine to deal with loss, and they feel a whole lot better...

Well put,.... though the lack of capital letters makes you less credible,... which is a shame as your thoughts were quite valuable.

But you also suffer from the same syndrome as Wolf.

"My way is the only way..!"

You bring an enormous amount of baggage with you when you equate religious belief with drug addiction.

(( Rather sounds like the "opiate of the masses" thing. Bottle is perhaps one of those adolescent communists..!? :) ))

But then again,... it's interesting to know the baggage of those you're speaking with.

Oooooo,.. very good..! :)

Evil is the consequence of free will.

So,.. what does this have to do with "heaven"..?


Seems like Heaven's been taken down a few notches from the idealistic paraside that some people believe it to be, if there's free will there.


If you go to heaven without your love, you are in hell.

So will God decieve you and make you think they are there?

If your flavour of God is all-good then these are problems.

Well put,.... though the lack of capital letters makes you less credible,... which is a shame as your thoughts were quite valuable.


i am really sick of explaining the medical reason why i don't capitalize unless necessary. if people can't get past my capitalization to read what i post then it's their loss :).


But you also suffer from the same syndrome as Wolf.

"My way is the only way..!"

not at all. i don't care how he views his life/death or that of his family. of course i believe my way is BETTER than his, because if i didn't then i would believe whatever the best way is, but that doesn't mean i think it is the ONLY way. that would be silly.


You bring an enormous amount of baggage with you when you equate religious belief with drug addiction.

that's an assumption on your part. i think there are many similarities between religious belief and drug abuse, and the fact that i see them doesn't mean i have baggage...it means i have eyes. i'm not saying they are the same, as that would also be silly, but i have had enough experience with both addictions to know that they have many parallels.


(( Rather sounds like the "opiate of the masses" thing. Bottle is perhaps one of those adolescent communists..!? :) ))

you're really losing what remained of my respect for you. if that's the best psychoanalysis you can do from my posts then you really need to get a new hobby. i'm not adolescent, i loath communism, and i don't carry any of the baggage you seem to expect. perhaps if you let go of your expectations and stereotypes you would be better able to relate to those who don't conform.

But then again,... it's interesting to know the baggage of those you're speaking with.
yes, it certainly is. unfortunately, you don't.

I got a different question prove to me there is not a God.

I got a different question prove to me there is not a God.

If you claim something is true it's YOUR job to prove it, not our job to disprove it. I'll prove to you that there is not a God if you prove to me that a green elf isn't sitting on my shoulder yelling obscenities and masturbating to midget pr0n.

It's pretty simple... God has to exist ... why?

We can notice that everything that is neccessary has always and will always exist. So now we bring ourselves to two cases.

1: God exists
In this case God is neccessary. He always existed/always exists. Through his actuality things move toward existance. (only something that is actual can move things) He is the first cause. To ask ... ok God did A, but what came before God is nill, because we already established his quality of being neccessary.

2: God doesn't exist
In this case nothing is neccessary. The problem with this is even if everything was caused by the Big Bang (doesn't bother me) or something else, one can always ask, "What came before that?" And we know something did come before that because it is not neccessary. Why is it not neccessary? Because it doesn't exist now.

One cannot say that the cause of things is neccessary and that God doesn't exist, because we define God as the neccessary cause of things. The First Mover, etc.

But I must say that this point is not self-evident as: "The fool tells himself there is no God."
Read Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa
on that site you can go to the encyclopedia for a more thorough examination of God's existance. Remeber, these points are not "proving" God's existance, as nothing can be truly proven, but merely showing that God's existance is more reasonable than God not existing.

Also understand that most disbelief is God etc is caused by the actions of those who do believe in God or a personal desire to be unique etc. Very rarely are the full arguments for both sides weighed before making the decision, otherwise people would come to understand believing in God is the more conservative platform.

Yep thats because its all based on fantasy (look up the meaning if you disagree) and people beleiving this fantasy.
Some advice for those dealing with Camdean; he's a retard and will never back up any reason to not believe in God. I suggest ignoring him, but I prefer reading his replies because they have no justification whatsoever, proving quite humourous. He also appears to have a deficiency in language skills.

I cannot justify God. It is my own personal belief God exists, just as it is an Atheist's personal belief that He does not (and, for Agnostics, remember that Atheist means "without God," and if you have no faith simply because you have not seen it yet [no matter how retarded it is to believe that nothing can exist if it is not seen], you are without God). We'd not persecute Atheists if they'd not started it (IE this topic was, most likely, begun by an Atheist). So why can't we just keep to ourselves?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oooooo,.. very good..!

Evil is the consequence of free will.

So,.. what does this have to do with "heaven"..?


Seems like Heaven's been taken down a few notches from the idealistic paraside that some people believe it to be, if there's free will there.


Quote:
If you go to heaven without your love, you are in hell.


So will God decieve you and make you think they are there?

If your flavour of God is all-good then these are problems.

That would be accurate. :)

That's why "the big guy in the sky" makes a nice metaphor, but a lousy "supreme being".

Anybody wanna vote for an actual "big gray-bearded guy in the sky" as a physical thingy perched somewhere in space...?

Anyone,... anyone,... Bueller,... anyone...!?

If you claim something is true it's YOUR job to prove it, not our job to disprove it. I'll prove to you that there is not a God if you prove to me that a green elf isn't sitting on my shoulder yelling obscenities and masturbating to midget pr0n.
I'll prove you that there is a God if you prove to me that a green elf IS sitting on your shoulder yelling obscenities and masturbating to midget pr0n.

..."Pr0n"?

If you claim something is true it's YOUR job to prove it, not our job to disprove it. I'll prove to you that there is not a God if you prove to me that a green elf isn't sitting on my shoulder yelling obscenities and masturbating to midget pr0n.

No your avoiding the question

You misspelled "prove."

Btw,

evolution = proove it
big bang = proove it

That would be accurate. :)

That's why "the big guy in the sky" makes a nice metaphor, but a lousy "supreme being".

Anybody wanna vote for an actual "big gray-bearded guy in the sky" as a physical thingy perched somewhere in space...?

Anyone,... anyone,... Bueller,... anyone...!?
Woah... There IS a big grey-bearded guy in the sky!? Where!? I wanna see!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Well put,.... though the lack of capital letters makes you less credible,... which is a shame as your thoughts were quite valuable.


i am really sick of explaining the medical reason why i don't capitalize unless necessary. if people can't get past my capitalization to read what i post then it's their loss .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But you also suffer from the same syndrome as Wolf.

"My way is the only way..!"


not at all. i don't care how he views his life/death or that of his family. of course i believe my way is BETTER than his, because if i didn't then i would believe whatever the best way is, but that doesn't mean i think it is the ONLY way. that would be silly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You bring an enormous amount of baggage with you when you equate religious belief with drug addiction.


that's an assumption on your part. i think there are many similarities between religious belief and drug abuse, and the fact that i see them doesn't mean i have baggage...it means i have eyes. i'm not saying they are the same, as that would also be silly, but i have had enough experience with both addictions to know that they have many parallels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
(( Rather sounds like the "opiate of the masses" thing. Bottle is perhaps one of those adolescent communists..!? ))


you're really losing what remained of my respect for you. if that's the best psychoanalysis you can do from my posts then you really need to get a new hobby. i'm not adolescent, i loath communism, and i don't carry any of the baggage you seem to expect. perhaps if you let go of your expectations and stereotypes you would be better able to relate to those who don't conform.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
But then again,... it's interesting to know the baggage of those you're speaking with.


yes, it certainly is. unfortunately, you don't.

I agree with you entirely. :)

Every judgement I've made about you is essentially petty in nature.

And now you know more about me,... and I know more about you..!

Excellent..! :D

"The best friends are those you've played sand-in-the-face with." <old Iakeokeoian proverb>

You misspelled "prove."

Btw,

evolution = proove it
big bang = proove it

Are you thinking of Proof and not prove.

You misspelled "prove."

Btw,

evolution = proove it
big bang = proove it
I can't respect someone who just knows how to spell "prove" if he resorts to using retarded acronyms like "btw" and "lol."

Evolution, I support, the Big Bang, I cannot begin to understand. After all, the Big Bang implies that all this matter and energy came from somewhere, and as we all know, you cannot simply create or destroy matter or energy. For the Big Bang to work, there'd need to be a God to work it somehow. And then everything just goes down the drain there.

Here's a bit of logic to consider when contemplating if God exists or not.

The universe can be one of two ways. Either it has infinite possibilities or it has finite possibilities.

A universe of infinite possibilities, or chaos, means that anything can happen. If anything can happen and this state continues forever and ever, then God's existance is inevitable. (if it can happen, it will happen)

If a universe is finite, then it must have limited possibilities. If it has limited possibilities then some force must act to prevent some things from happening. (ie Gravity, Mass, etc..) Assuming there is no God, then these forces themselves are a result of sercumstance, or chance and thus themselves are a product of chaos, or a universe of infinite possibility.

Given these two possibilities, it is clear that any universal state of infinite possibilities quickly turns it'self into a universe of limited possibilities because of the fact that one possibility would conflict another. Given the concept of God, who is all powerfull, sentient and intelligent, it would mean God would be able to limit the universe according to his own design. If God did'nt exist, then the limitatons and laws of physics themselves are a result of chance. If they are a result of chance then there is no reason why other parts of the universe, or even our own world, would have a diffrent set of laws of physics. But science has shown that the laws of nature are uniform on our planet, and in distant systems and galaxys. It seems very unlikely that sercumstance would create such a uniform, neat set of rules everywhere. Order of the universe happend accidently and by chance? I find that prospect harder to belive in than God.

Are you thinking of Proof and not prove.

proof = noun
prove = verb
you = crappy grammar

if Jesus 's resurrection story was fabricated, then why would the first witness of him after coming back to life have been a woman? Remember the society we're talking about when that was written.

Here's a bit of logic to consider when contemplating if God exists or not.

The universe can be one of two ways. Either it has infinite possibilities or it has finite possibilities.

A universe of infinite possibilities, or chaos, means that anything can happen. If anything can happen and this state continues forever and ever, then God's existance is inevitable. (if it can happen, it will happen)

If a universe is finite, then it must have limited possibilities. If it has limited possibilities then some force must act to prevent some things from happening. (ie Gravity, Mass, etc..) Assuming there is no God, then these forces themselves are a result of sercumstance, or chance and thus themselves are a product of chaos, or a universe of infinite possibility.

Given these two possibilities, it is clear that any universal state of infinite possibilities quickly turns it'self into a universe of limited possibilities because of the fact that one possibility would conflict another. Given the concept of God, who is all powerfull, sentient and intelligent, it would mean God would be able to limit the universe according to his own design. If God did'nt exist, then the limitatons and laws of physics themselves are a result of chance. If they are a result of chance then there is no reason why other parts of the universe, or even our own world, would have a diffrent set of laws of physics. But science has shown that the laws of nature are uniform on our planet, and in distant systems and galaxys. It seems very unlikely that sercumstance would create such a uniform, neat set of rules everywhere. Order of the universe happend accidently and by chance? I find that prospect harder to belive in than God.
Very nice. One of my personal (and almost impossible to prove false) beliefs is that our thoughts and actions are simply in reaction to various brain processes and chain reactions (EDIT: Which is true, so it'll be even harder to debunk) and, despite that we are, in fact, sentient, we have no control over what we think or do, only the illusion that we do. This'd really piss me off for knowing that I had no control over my life if I did not know "I think, therefore I am."

Now let's see an Atheist debunk BOTH of those using half-decent logic; it'll be tough, but they've managed to fake it before; as we have, too, though.

God is real. It cannot be scientifically proven but look at history. Every society has believed in some kind of God. It could have been many Gods or one God or maybe the society believes that God is found within humans. The Gods all have different names but the fact is that they are all the same God. The different names and beliefs have branched off of how the story of God was interpreted over the years. I Can't understand how EVERY culture could have made the same mistake for thousands of years.

I personally couldn't give a damn whether your god/s exist or not, as long as religious people stop trying to force their beliefs onto other people. I've seen way too many cases, where censorship has been applied to movies, games, products of all different origins, solely because it didn't conform to one religious beleif. (This is mainly true of CHRISTIANS in AMERICA)

Hell, i'm even willing to bet money that religion set back scientific development by at least 200 years since the start of the 'Crusades'. Why can't people believe what they want to believe, without having some a$$hole trying to forcefeed them their way of life?

Neways, back from my tangent.

2: God doesn't exist
In this case nothing is neccessary. The problem with this is even if everything was caused by the Big Bang (doesn't bother me) or something else, one can always ask, "What came before that?" And we know something did come before that because it is not neccessary. Why is it not neccessary? Because it doesn't exist now.

Simple. The big bang is an ongoing cycle of existance, time, and space itself. All that is, was once one, and verily will be one again.

Or in other words: Gravity will suck us all back to that central point in the cosmos. When all matter in the universe is once again at a singularity, it's instability with cause it to ignite, and start all over again.

1: God exists
In this case God is neccessary. He always existed/always exists. Through his actuality things move toward existance. (only something that is actual can move things) He is the first cause. To ask ... ok God did A, but what came before God is nill, because we already established his quality of being neccessary.

Somewhat harder to answer, but here goes:

'God', is fictional, in every sense of the word. He is a belief created to stabilise the minds of those who cannot bear the thought of eternal oblivion upon their inevitable deaths at the end of their trivial lives.

The fact is, that he has become distorted over the centuries, and has become some omnipotent being, that lords over us all up there in the sky on his golden futton.

No matter how distorted hisoriginal context is now, he has, and will always be, a fictional character. Unless his divine wrath can suddenly strike me down as I post this message, this is my opinion. Like it or lump it, no-ones forcing you to read but yourselves.

I personally couldn't give a damn whether your god/s exist or not, as long as religious people stop trying to force their beliefs onto other people. I've seen way too many cases, where censorship has been applied to movies, games, products of all different origins, solely because it didn't conform to one religious beleif. (This is mainly true of CHRISTIANS in AMERICA)
Hell, i'm even willing to bet money that religion set back scientific development by at least 200 years since the start of the 'Crusades'. Why can't people believe what they want to believe, without having some a$$hole trying to forcefeed them their way of life?
Sorry, but it's not really religion's fault. It's the desire to abuse religion. Most of all, religion has mostly been an excuse to divide different classes apart. Ever wonder why the Jews were so rich that Hitler decided to place them in camps? It's because they have been rich ever since they decided to become Jews. Religion is only a sick cover-up when it comes to this.

As well, I have never tried to force my religion on others. I have tried to justify my own religion, but only because people on this message board have a tendency to freak out and start saying your religion is pointless; which happens all of the time.

And it's not just CHRISTIANS in AMERICA. If you remember from back when The Passion of the Christ came out, Mel Gibson had to deal with lawsuits because the Jews were depicted as being guilty of wrong-doing, and they were, regardless of whether they still are; regardless of whether Jesus was the Son of God, he did exist, and he was crucified.
No matter how distorted hisoriginal context is now, he has, and will always be, a fictional character. Unless his divine wrath can suddenly strike me down as I post this message, this is my opinion. Like it or lump it, no-ones forcing you to read but yourselves.
Understood, that is your opinion, but you've said it as if it is undisputed fact, and it is not; it is an opinion. Also, don't expect God to do something just because that would prove his existence. Would I trace your IP, find you and kill you just to prove that I exist? That seems kind of silly. Furthermore, why would He do exactly what you want Him to do to prove himself, even if He was to?

And don't tell me something like you have a way to bypass IP tracing, that was just a pointless example. I don't even have anything to trace with right now.

Does it ever seem like there are only really two groups on this board? Atheist and Christian?

*snip*

It seems we're delving into the realm of Quantum Mechanics and other theoretical areas.

It is possible that our universe is not all of existance. The "Many Worlds" theory of QM predicts parallel universes with every possible action taken. Though, you'll have to explain to me how the natural can give rise to the supernatural before I accept "God is inevitable."

If QM is as random as we percieve it to be, then the common universe as you percieve it is ample evidence of choas giving rise to order.

As to your finite universe, natural law as the force. You must realize that after the Big Bang, the formation of the universe was clearly guided by physics that we already have a good understanding of. The laws of physics could simply be set at the moment of beginning and then the rest of the universe follows from that, accounting for the uniformity. Remember, the universe expanded from a small point, but it did not expand into "something."

However, this is theoretical, so it's all up in the air. I note that it seems you are taking the attitude that if science cannot explain something, then it must be God. I need merely point to Zeus to show that that's fallicious reasoning.

Miratha: I believe compatabilism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) is what you're looking for. Of course, that is if our universe is deterministic.

I am god, and I am writing this existentially, so you can all stop discussing it get some sleep.

regardless of whether Jesus was the Son of God, he did exist, and he was crucified.

Actually, the contemporary and extra-biblical evidence seems to be lacking.

Miratha: I believe compatabilism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) is what you're looking for. Of course, that is if our universe is deterministic.
Interesting. I hold people responsible for their actions for several reasons...

1. "I think, therefore I am."
2. There is a danger of whatever they did happening again.
3. The Human brain can not make its own thoughts, it can learn. While they may not be responsible for their own actions, they must be punished to make sure that they will not think of doing whatever they did again, due to the possibility of punishment. They have learned from past experience.

But I must ask, to what reason have you shown me this? I haven't read it entirely, yet, so I have yet to draw a conclusion from whatever you are implying.

You claimed if determinism is the order of the day, then without Jesus magic, free will gets the shaft. I merely pointed out this is not necessarily the case.

Actually, the contemporary and extra-biblical evidence seems to be lacking.
I do not have any evidence with me at the current time, but I do believe that there is some scientific evidence towards it. And I'm too lazy to find it. I'm pretty sure, though, that there is some evidence. If you are asking me for evidence, I think it'd be a wise idea if, for once, those who listen to claims would go and find out for themselves whether or not it is true. If you are actively saying there is no evidence whatsoever, then that's a downer. Ah well. I was pretty sure there was something. Wouldn't the Romans keep records of executions, for one?

You claimed if determinism is the order of the day, then free will gets the shaft. I merely pointed out this is not necessarily the case.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a simpleton. How is it not necessarily the case?

The fact that indeed every known civilization has believed in a higher power or powers only proves that there is a lot more going on in this reality then our puny minds can easily comprehend. It does not prove, however that there is an actual being (let alone a human male) sitting around somewhere watching and regulating everything. There must someTHING, but as for what... wait til you die and see for yourself!

I do not have any evidence with me at the current time, but I do believe that there is some scientific evidence towards it. And I'm too lazy to find it. I'm pretty sure, though, that there is some evidence. If you are asking me for evidence, I think it'd be a wise idea if, for once, those who listen to claims would go and find out for themselves whether or not it is true. If you are actively saying there is no evidence whatsoever, then that's a downer. Ah well. I was pretty sure there was something. Wouldn't the Romans keep records of executions, for one?

I have a class, but I will get back to you on this in a few hours.

Just quickly:
Haven't seen any records of the Jesus' execution for one.

... and slightly off topic, but the Eygptians don't have any records of the Exodus either.

The fact that indeed every known civilization has believed in a higher power or powers only proves that there is a lot more going on in this reality then our puny minds can easily comprehend. It does not prove, however that there is an actual being (let alone a human male) sitting around somewhere watching and regulating everything. There must someTHING, but as for what... wait til you die and see for yourself!
That, unfortunately, is assuming that we get to go to Heaven and see God when we die. This is not consistent with all religions and, since it's a good idea to avoid bias towards a single religion, is not necessarily true, even if I personally hold the belief of a Heaven.

Did anyone really think that clicking on this thread and reading what people have to say that there would be some sort of proof? That through the entire existence of the human race, and with all of the intelligent people, in all the world ever, that the real, true solid answer would show up in a website forum for an obscure internet game in the off-topic section. There really is no point to this in my opinion, and everyone who clicked on this thread is an idiot. Including me. I mean look how much I just wrote, I could have been playing Solitaire or Walking somewhere. Damn this thread, it is like the very fabric of evil itself.

Wouldn't the Romans keep records of executions, for one?
The Roman Catholic Church claims that they have the only existing records of christ's existence... locked away for no one to see. :p

I am god, and I am writing this existentially, so you can all stop discussing it get some sleep.
Yay! Our Lord came down from his cloud and told us he existed! I think this is enough proof to anyone who says seeing is believing.

The God King Eru-sama: Thank you for (soon) clearing this up for me.

Wow, I didn't even think God was a material being.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that they have the only existing records of christ's existence... locked away for no one to see. :p
Awesome. I've never seen such blatant proof that there is no proof to see. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I can safely say that there's a reason why I'm not Catholic.

Did anyone really think that clicking on this thread and reading what people have to say that there would be some sort of proof? That through the entire existence of the human race, and with all of the intelligent people, in all the world ever, that the real, true solid answer would show up in a website forum for an obscure internet game in the off-topic section. There really is no point to this in my opinion, and everyone who clicked on this thread is an idiot. Including me. I mean look how much I just wrote, I could have been playing Solitaire or Walking somewhere. Damn this thread, it is like the very fabric of evil itself.
Of course not. Some people just need to be told that, at least. Hey, since I joined, I've been arguing that people are free to their own opinions, not that there is actual proof.

Very nice. One of my personal (and almost impossible to prove false) beliefs is that our thoughts and actions are simply in reaction to various brain processes and chain reactions (EDIT: Which is true, so it'll be even harder to debunk) and, despite that we are, in fact, sentient, we have no control over what we think or do, only the illusion that we do. This'd really piss me off for knowing that I had no control over my life if I did not know "I think, therefore I am."

Now let's see an Atheist debunk BOTH of those using half-decent logic; it'll be tough, but they've managed to fake it before; as we have, too, though.

Miratha - not sure what point your comming to, but thanks for the complement. But let me pose a question to your theory, are our thoughts and actions dictated by chemical reactions, chain reactions. Or are these reactions a byproduct of our own entity's decisions, thoughts, etc. It kind of creates a chicken & egg delema does'nt it?

you cannot prove the existance of god, nor disprove him, that's what faith is, believing without seeing. now there is evidence to support the existance of god, but that doesn't count. if you'd like the evidence i can give you that, but as for proof, well, then it's not really faith then, is it?

I agree, god refuses to prove his existance because proof denies faith and without faith what is god?

so if anyone has concrete proof of god then that proof will destroy faith and therefore destroy god

you might as well call this post god = don't prove it


f***ing atheists :upyours:

I agree, god refuses to prove his existance because proof denies faith and without faith what is god?

so if anyone has concrete proof of god then that proof will destroy faith and therefore destroy god

you might as well call this post god = don't prove it


f***ing atheists :upyours:

Faith in my opinion is not related to the question of the existance of god. It is however a state of mind after the fact that his existance has been proven to you personally. Faith means, you don't dispute his existance, but trust in him to lead you down the right path. Faith is actually more like trust. It says in scriptures that the proof of God is apparent in all things. Many will be convinced he exists, but still will refuse to follow Christ because of their own problems. Even Satan knows God exists, but he is far from saved, and he does not have Faith in God.

Just some general thoughts:


1.
"god does not exist"

Really? So then you must be god since you appear to know everything.


2.
It takes intelligence to put together a city, a computer, a car, a....
So you're telling me the human body happened to form by accident?
Much less a cell, which has the complication of a well-oiled city.


3.
Case for Faith
Case for Christ
Case for Creator
~Lee Strobel

In 6 Days
~edited by John F. Ashton PhD

4.
The unknowable isn't knowable, yet we can know to at least the benefit of doubt.

5.
Evidence:
Logical
Emperical
Faith

You drive (I assume) a car or some type of automobile to work or school during the course of your life, or you walk along a sidewalk.

How do you know your car is going to work properly and not just arbitrarily stop working?
Or even more important, how do you function with the possibility that your car might blow up at any moment?

How do you function with the very real danger that not 12-36 inches away, there are countless automobiles (all the way from 2000lbs to 20,000lbs or more) speeding anywhere from 4x to 15x faster than you can speed walk?

I'll prove you that there is a God if you prove to me that a green elf IS sitting on your shoulder yelling obscenities and masturbating to midget pr0n.

..."Pr0n"?

So you agreed with what I was implying, huh? If I make a claim, I need to prove. It's not YOUR job to disprove it, right?

No your avoiding the question

I avoided nothing. If you claim there's a God, show me some evidence to support that statement. In court, if someone's accused of murder, they're innocent until PROVEN guilty. In other words, the prosecution has made a claim and they need to PROVE it's true.

I can't respect someone who just knows how to spell "prove" if he resorts to using retarded acronyms like "btw" and "lol."

Evolution, I support, the Big Bang, I cannot begin to understand. After all, the Big Bang implies that all this matter and energy came from somewhere, and as we all know, you cannot simply create or destroy matter or energy. For the Big Bang to work, there'd need to be a God to work it somehow. And then everything just goes down the drain there.

Quantum mechanics has shown that something can come from nothing in a vacuum and that it's happening to this day. As far as I know, it's not claimed that the Big Bang originated with something or that it was even caused, it just happened. The problem is that the basic principles of scientific law did not exist until something like .00001 seconds after the first instance, so it's hard to say exactly what happened, at this point. Science seems to have a way of eventually figuring everything out.

How the hell does thinking for oneself make one a "sheep"?

hmm well i don't know if it's thinking for one's self, because many before and current are atheist because they wanna be different, and million are like that, kinda sheepish.

Quantum mechanics has shown that something can come from nothing in a vacuum and that it's happening to this day. As far as I know, it's not claimed that the Big Bang originated with something or that it was even caused, it just happened. The problem is that the basic principles of scientific law did not exist until something like .00001 seconds after the first instance, so it's hard to say exactly what happened, at this point. Science seems to have a way of eventually figuring everything out.

Yeah but, where'd the vaccum come from?

hmm well i don't know if it's thinking for one's self, because many before and current are atheist because they wanna be different, and million are like that, kinda sheepish.
You could say the exact same thing about believers.

Yeah but, where'd the vaccum come from?My arse.

"To them that ask, 'Where have you seen the gods, or how do you know for certain there are gods, that you are so devout in their worship?' I answer, 'Neither have I ever seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it.'" -Marcus Aurelius Antonius

For proof of God, check out St. Thomas Aquinas' great proofs.

EDIT: Come to think of it, though, it's a bit ludicris to think that we could sovle a question that philosophers have been pondering for a good 7000 years. ;)

fantasy shmantasy. do you realise man invented every other god but the god of the christians and jews? i mean, seriously. think about it. my god does not follow the conventional patterns of any other religion or any other diety. my god offers forgiveness. does any other?




Actually, you're quite wrong. THere is quite a bit of evidence pointing that the Judeo-Christian ideologies were actually derived from more than one ancient culture. For example, Eve is considered a later version of Pandora from Greek Mythology; also, the Genesis that we read in modern times is actually a compilation of two very different versions; and i think some of it was taken from the Babylonians. As a matter of fact, much of Christianity's customs come from the Ancient Roman's "heathenist" traditions. If you want more examples, just let me know. I'll even give you sources.

I think one can believe in whatever he/she wants, just know what you're talking about. Also, keep in mind that we don't know the "Absolute Truth" on this, no matter what one believes; they're all just postulations.

"To them that ask, 'Where have you seen the gods, or how do you know for certain there are gods, that you are so devout in their worship?' I answer, 'Neither have I ever seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it.'" -Marcus Aurelius Antonius

For proof of God, check out St. Thomas Aquinas' great proofs.So. Because Earth moves, that there must have been a first "cause", (equally easily re-namable as the Big Bang), "Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.", (good luck. I'll leave that one to you guys), varying degrees of "Good" and "Evil", therefore, there must be a pure "Good", and because the laws of Physics apply to "unintelligent" objects, we should believe in God.

Those "Great" proofs are a big load of fluff that might have been acceptable back when Aquinas was around, but not anymore.

To research/read the proofs yourselves, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

hmm well i don't know if it's thinking for one's self, because many before and current are atheist because they wanna be different, and million are like that, kinda sheepish.


Nooooooooo... as a matter of fact, I have to agree with someone and say that one can say the same about believers. Personally, it seems to me that believing in religion is like believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, except that religion is more widely accepted by the majorit I think that people can not stand the thought that there is no reason for their pain, anguish, cheated dreams or of their inevitable death. The REAL Truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW. NOR MAY WE EVER KNOW. so one cannot judge another person for believing or NOT believing in a god or gods.

"There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth." -Maya Angelou

I think what it boils down to is, belief is unprovable. You can call people stupid or sheep or whatever you want for believing in the supernatural, but they will continue to do it. Whether or not they have "evidence" to back it up is quite irrelevent. Perception dominates empiricism, and if a God is percieved, then it exists.

free will
n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Compatabilistic free will basically says that free will is caused. Your experiences, beliefs, desires and genes are the internal factors that affect the choices you make. This is a choice that is unique to yourself in the situation.

i do not need proof to believe in god i have faith in jesus because i believe he is the son of god and he came to save everyone from their sins if only you would have faith "Blessed is he who believes but does not see" that is the essence of faith it is believing without proof without seeing it is knowing god exists and having faith that he will lead you down the right path you guys can argue about no-proof all you want but i believe and millions and millions of people around the world believe that is all that matters

I think it really depends on a person - some people are "wired" to accept the concept of Godhood and some just can't get beyond the physical manifestations. It is just a matter of semantics when some ascribe events to "dumb luck" whereas others see the will of their Gods or God. But I will always remember what my grandfather said - "there are no atheists in the trenches".

[QUOTE="there are no atheists in the trenches".[/QUOTE]



amen to that

*snip*
You fail it for not reading the thread where many of the points you raised were addressed.

"There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth." -Maya Angelou

I think what it boils down to is, belief is unprovable. You can call people stupid or sheep or whatever you want for believing in the supernatural, but they will continue to do it. Whether or not they have "evidence" to back it up is quite irrelevent. Perception dominates empiricism, and if a God is percieved, then it exists.

Senses are fallible, 'nuff said.

i do not need proof to believe in god i have faith in jesus because i believe he is the son of god and he came to save everyone from their sins if only you would have faith "Blessed is he who believes but does not see" that is the essence of faith it is believing without proof without seeing it is knowing god exists and having faith that he will lead you down the right path you guys can argue about no-proof all you want but i believe and millions and millions of people around the world believe that is all that matters

Way to teach ignorance and uncritical thinking. No wonder people get suckered in by psychics and astrology.


"there are no atheists in the trenches".


"There are no athiests in foxholes -- they're the ones fighting!"

Thus, I must be insane because I BELIEVE man landed on the moon 4 decades ago and we haven't come close to another attempt since then?

Only if you contend that the only proof for it is fabricated. In which case, you must contend with telemetry, moon rocks, witness testimony, and video. Indeed, all of which could have been faked. JUST LIKE THE COBBLED TOGETHER WRITINGS OF SOME OLD MEN 2000 YEARS AGO. Faith, by its very nature, is belief in an unprovable. Therefore, all faiths are equal. Either all are correct or none are. Therefore there is no more TANGIBLE fact to the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, or Jews than there are to the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, worshippers of the Greek gods, the Hale-Bopp comet cult, or to my belief that when I die I will be reincarnated as the God of the planet Mookiton 12 and reign as god-king of the Mooks for all eternity. They're all EQUALLY VALID because they are all equally unprovable.

Now, there are tangible, societal benefits to faith that leads to a religious community just as there are positives to secular government, existential thought, and so on. But you're being asked to prove something for which the evidence is, at best, a 2000 year old book cobbled together by a cult that the Romans failed to stamp out and given legitimacy by being adopted by the leader of the most powerful military of the times (the Romans). You can't CLAIM any more that with a factual basis. You must therefore base it on your FAITH, which is an unquantifiable, unknowable, and finally, non-epistemological belief. You COULD be right. But then again, so might I, in which case, you will refer to me as Your Holiness

free will
n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Compatabilistic free will basically says that free will is caused. Your experiences, beliefs, desires and genes are the internal factors that affect the choices you make. This is a choice that is unique to yourself in the situation.
Then I am an incompatibilist. 'Course, I haven't read the entire thing yet, so...

And I think we're starting to come to a consensus. Religion or no religion, no one really knows and no one should judge another. Who seconds?

"There are no athiests in foxholes -- they're the ones fighting!"

lol man dont you know anything about ww2 fighting? being in the foxholes wasnt hiding it gave you cover yeah foxholes are a great place to fight from that is one of the stupidest things i.ve ever heard in ww2 they fought from foxholes man.....

If there is a God he must have seriously dropped the fucking ball or fell asleep or something several thousand years ago, this place SUCKS for a world created by a perfect being. But be good or that infinitely forgiving being will send you right to hell!

"There are no athiests in foxholes -- they're the ones fighting!"

lol man dont you know anything about ww2 fighting? being in the foxholes wasnt hiding it gave you cover yeah foxholes are a great place to fight from that is one of the stupidest things i.ve ever heard in ww2 they fought from foxholes man.....

Hey, that's how the quote goes.

[Grammar nazi]
Parse your sentences correctly with periods, dummkopf! It's hard to tell exactly what you're trying to say. I think I guessed correctly though.
[/Grammar nazi]

There is no more TANGIBLE fact to the beliefs of...or to my belief that when I die I will be reincarnated as the God of the planet Mookiton 12 and reign as god-king of the Mooks for all eternity...you will refer to me as Your Holiness
Fool. When I die, I- and only I; will become undeniable ruler of the universe. I will rule the world with an Iron Fist. Nations will crumble before me. I create, I destroy. Bow to your king, miserable slobs. I will rule all.

yes the world was created by a perfect being but theirs evil out there there is a spiritual war going on between good and evil

On another note, what is the supporting argument, summarised, for Compatibilism?

Hey, that's how the quote goes. Not my damned fault.

yes it is your fault your the one who quoted such a stupid thing

yes the world was created by a perfect being but theirs evil out there there is a spiritual war going on between good and evil
What is all this about "Good and Evil"? There is no "Good and Evil." There are those who work for the profit of others and those who work for the profit of themselves. No one but a madman would truly view themselves evil.

yes it is your fault your the one who quoted such a stupid thing

You fail it (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=no+atheists+in+foxholes&spell=1).

im not talking about our world im talking about god and the devil

im sick of arguing with idiots later dudes

On another note, what is the supporting argument, summarised, for Compatibilism?
I would say the summation of it all is that you cannot prove the unprovable, and something that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue.

Sound about right?

im not talking about our world im talking about god and the devil
I'm talking about God, the Devil, heaven, hell! Do you understand? Finally!? (goes into Cephalic Carnage riff)

I would say the summation of it all is that you cannot prove the unprovable, and something that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue.

Sound about right?
Well, yeah, there's that too. But if a universe is pre-determined, there is no way to change it with Free Will. You have none. Doesn't make sense.

In terms of God and the Devil, the Devil is not technically evil, rather he is symbolic of the giving in to temptation; this can be considered evil, though I do not.

At school I used to sort of believe in God.Only because as a child it was drilled into me and my other classmates.And all this malarky about evil and stuff was enough to frighten any child.I found that smart people quickly stop believing.The ones that don't are generally stupid and do not want to think for themselves.They feel safe knowing that if they follow the code of their religon that they will be saved.Some smart people believe in God too,cause when young if they did not believe they got a beating.
No one has any real faith.Its all based on hearsay and conjecture.No one believes because its natural to do so.People believe because they were told.From the womb it is drilled in.People tell you that you need God.Yet all you need is love and affection.Thats what gets you through life.No one can be sure of anything in this life but if you believe in God,don't pray or worship,show love and affection to your fellow man.If everybody does this we are all saved(unless of course there is no God in which case your reward will have been a happy life).God if he is there will not reward a bad man who believes in him but he will reward a good man whether he believes or not.

Meh. This (http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/courses/intro/notes/compatibilism.html) is pretty easy to follow. There is more than one flavour of Compatabilism however and the Stanford article goes into detail about them.

I'd like to point out that at this point I am agnostic about free will and not necessarily a proponent of compatibilism.

Some of you posters think because one belives that that person is stupid. This is a false assumption. Now since i know none of you who said that can look on this issue with faith, then look at it in a pratical way. Do any of you ever take risks? Gamble? In your mind what you see in faith does'nt make sence, an impossibility. But since it remains unprovable either way, it will continue to bug you hear and then.
What then is the consequences of non belief? You know according to the Christian faith it's going to hell. But hey you don't belive in that so it's ok. But none of you would be posting in there if somewhere back in your mind there is a 'what if'...
If one looks at the prospects of no god, then the out come is as bad as if there is one, but you did not belive. Eternity in hell or oblivion both of which i think most people would not like.
Given the outcomes, even if there is a .0000000000000000001% chance god exists, it's worth consideration. If you belive and we're all wrong, then your no worse off than any of us. But 'what if' there is a God? Then you lose.
You have nothing to lose by beliving, but everything to gain. Any resonable and rational person would see that.

Ugh. Pascal's Wager? Don't you thiests get sick of rehasing the same old crap?

I see a lack of specificity here. Which God is it? Shouldn't you be worrying if it's Allah or Mithra? Should I believe all religions, just in case?

Let's also get this straight, I'm supposed to resort to intellectual dishonesty and violate my own integrity just to have save my own skin? Not to mention, your God will be stupid enough to fall for it?

Theists have nothing to lose? All that time you invested in church, prayer or missionary work for nothing? All those beliefs you had and held so dearly turn out to be nothing but a lie? The fact you were played for a fool? You won't be conscious of it, but that's the fact of the matter.

Yeah but, where'd the vaccum come from?

Here's a good explanation of it. (http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html) Although I'm sure you won't read it.

Here's a good explanation of it. (http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html) Although I'm sure you won't read it.

This goes with what I was about to say. The idea of preknowledge does not negate the idea of free will. Pudding Pies surmised that we wouldn't read his/her link. In my case, he guessed correctly. Has he got some element of control over me? Has he circumvented my free will?

It's a load of bollocks: It's just like someone guessing I won't eat pork any time in the near future, there's no element of coercion, they just know what I'm like. If you accept the idea that God is omniscient, he knows all variables on all levels and how they interact, so he can guess the often quite simple and predictable choices humans make.


Looking through this, I see one thing comes up repeatedly: Theists dodging the question by referring to the brain in a jar idea, and how to prove the world around us exists. This is childish, and doesn't even try to prove God exists to the same level of surety that we have proof for the world around us.
They then go on to religious experience, which has had more than enough doubt shed on it by modern neuroscience, and doesn't even account for the tendency for Americans and Europeans to see Jesus and such, Arabs to see Muhammed and Japanese to see Buddha.
Either all these experiences are legitimate proof, or none are.
This is either accepted, or they talk about Satan fooling non-believers- which 5000 years of history has shown to be a favourite bolthole of any religion, which sort of proves the point.

So, proof for God(Any God), as 10000 years of bitching has shown, is not forthcoming.

At school I used to sort of believe in God.Only because as a child it was drilled into me and my other classmates.And all this malarky about evil and stuff was enough to frighten any child.I found that smart people quickly stop believing.The ones that don't are generally stupid and do not want to think for themselves.They feel safe knowing that if they follow the code of their religon that they will be saved.Some smart people believe in God too,cause when young if they did not believe they got a beating.
No one has any real faith.Its all based on hearsay and conjecture.No one believes because its natural to do so.People believe because they were told.From the womb it is drilled in.People tell you that you need God.Yet all you need is love and affection.Thats what gets you through life.No one can be sure of anything in this life but if you believe in God,don't pray or worship,show love and affection to your fellow man.If everybody does this we are all saved(unless of course there is no God in which case your reward will have been a happy life).God if he is there will not reward a bad man who believes in him but he will reward a good man whether he believes or not.
Hah, smart people become atheists quickly? Right now, I'm in special classes designed for smart people. I'm finding them ridiculously slow right now. That means I'm smart or lying, your choice. I'm religious, and I have always asked questions and was, surprisingly, not beaten by my parents for it. Even now, I still ask myself; does it actually make sense? I still conclude that it does, even if I am not completely blindly faithful.

...This is childish, and doesn't even try to prove God exists to the same level of surety that we have proof for the world around us.
They then go on to religious experience, which has had more than enough doubt shed on it by modern neuroscience, and doesn't even account for the tendency for...Japanese to see Buddha...
Idiot. Most Japanese are Shinto. You're thinking of the Chinese. Furthermore, to divide by culture and not religion is uncalled for.

Faith in my opinion is not related to the question of the existance of god. It is however a state of mind after the fact that his existance has been proven to you personally. Faith means, you don't dispute his existance, but trust in him to lead you down the right path. Faith is actually more like trust. It says in scriptures that the proof of God is apparent in all things. Many will be convinced he exists, but still will refuse to follow Christ because of their own problems. Even Satan knows God exists, but he is far from saved, and he does not have Faith in God.

listen kid, do not screw with me.:mp5: Your argument is that faith is belief in god and through faith you will be saved(this part is correct) but satan knows of god's existanceand he will remain in hell for all eternity. you have failed to notice the subtle difference between knowing somthing to be fact because you have proof and just believing. Satan was sent to hell by god himself so he has his own concrete evidence but we as human beings have no proof at all but Christians choose to believe because we know in our hearts that god has unconditional love for all of us and this is how we wil be saved by believing and loving god. Ah I feel better now :)

god can't be proven true anymore than than evolution or the big bang theory. however...he is true to millions and milions of people because of a thing called faith, and another thing called a soul.

god can't be proven true anymore than than evolution or the big bang theory. however...he is true to millions and milions of people because of a thing called faith, and another thing called a soul.
Actually, evolution has been proved. The Big Bang theory has not.

To me, there was a God that created us. To me God is a woman. To me people don't need a God, because we don't need some diety to come from the sky and save us, when we're prefectly capable of doing that ourselves. Even though, I still have faith in God, because it seems like the right thing to do. Before you go off shouting, "What you think is right, is just a bunch of chemicals going through your brain telling you its right!," think, your just as guilty of something natural as I am. It's just those chemicals, are telling you, I'm a fool, and your smart, because you have a different faith. I could care less what someone believes, it's what I believe that matters to me. Really, I see no reason to pray to God. I just have faith, that she exists. My fellow christians, point out one verse in the bible that says it's madatory to pray, all it says, is to be a good person, and to have faith.

In summary, there is not proof of a "God," but there's nothing disproving it either. So I'll go on believing what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. It's called an opinion.

To me, there was a God that created us. To me God is a woman. To me people don't need a God, because we don't need some diety to come from the sky and save us, when we're prefectly capable of doing that ourselves. Even though, I still have faith in God, because it seems like the right thing to do. Before you go off shouting, "What you think is right, is just a bunch of chemicals going through your brain telling you its right!," think, your just as guilty of something natural as I am. It's just those chemicals, are telling you, I'm a fool, and your smart, because you have a different faith. I could care less what someone believes, it's what I believe that matters to me. Really, I see no reason to pray to God. I just have faith, that she exists. My fellow christians, point out one verse in the bible that says it's madatory to pray, all it says, is to be a good person, and to have faith.

In summary, there is not proof of a "God," but there's nothing disproving it either. So I'll go on believing what I want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe. It's called an opinion.
I think you've argued the wrong, regardless of whether that point is right, point. I do agree with what you're saying, but I was the one arguing about a determined Universe, Incompatibalism (there's no way free will can exist in a determined Universe; doesn't make sense) and that meaned there had to be a God.

but I was the one arguing about a determined Universe, Incompatibalism (there's no way free will can exist in a determined Universe; doesn't make sense) and that meaned there had to be a God.

Unless your concept of free will is an idealistic fantasy. :D
Do you proport that free will is acasual? What is your definition?

Unless your concept of free will is an idealistic fantasy. :D
Do you proport that free will is acasual? What is your definition?
My definition of free will is that every (yes, every) person has the ability to choose one event over the other, whether by changing the action, time, execution or any other variable involved.

I'm not too sure about causal. That implies that it has a direct cause, correct? If so, then free will would imply that not everything necessarily has a cause.

You will never know that God exists until you cross a few event horizons. I have had moments when it seemed like the whole universe was filled with God's presence.

I Corinthians 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.


I have had experiences that were so powerful that it felt like a nuke was detonating inside my head. It was like I was overcome by my Father's glory. I couldn't put it into any words. The English language does not have words to describe it. It's uncomprehendable unless it is in your mind at that moment. When that moment passes, I can only remember what happened. Not what was going through my mind. It also seemed like I picked up some unknown language with definite words, but no idea what most of the meanings were. I know one of the words "Elokim" was an ancient word for God. It kind of sounds like LOTR elvish. I have the suspicion that J.R. Tolkien had the same experiences that I did.

I can't write this to draw attention to myself, just to show you my personal experiences and maybe direct you down the VERY personal path toward a more closer relationship with God. Which always begins by confessing the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and believing that he died on the cross for your sins and resurrected. Without Him, I am truly nothing. With Him I can face any raging torrents, disasters, calamities, principalities, fallen angels, meteors hitting earth, nuclear devastation, and of course death. If any Christian has any intellectual integrity, his only fear is God. I cannot take you to this relationship, I can only show you the direction. It is a very long hard road.

Idiot. Most Japanese are Shinto. You're thinking of the Chinese. Furthermore, to divide by culture and not religion is uncalled for.

Wait, where was the rebuttal of the points made?

You will never know that God exists until you cross a few event horizons. I have had moments when it seemed like the whole universe was filled with God's presence.

I Corinthians 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.


I have had experiences that were so powerful that it felt like a nuke was detonating inside my head. It was like I was overcome by my Father's glory. I couldn't put it into any words. The English language does not have words to describe it. It's uncomprehendable unless it is in your mind at that moment. When that moment passes, I can only remember what happened. Not what was going through my mind. It also seemed like I picked up some unknown language with definite words, but no idea what most of the meanings were. I know one of the words "Elokim" was an ancient word for God. It kind of sounds like LOTR elvish. I have the suspicion that J.R. Tolkien had the same experiences that I did.

I can't write this to draw attention to myself, just to show you my personal experiences and maybe direct you down the VERY personal path toward a more closer relationship with God. Which always begins by confessing the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and believing that he died on the cross for your sins and resurrected. Without Him, I am truly nothing. With Him I can face any raging torrents, disasters, calamities, principalities, fallen angels, meteors hitting earth, nuclear devastation, and of course death. If any Christian has any intellectual integrity, his only fear is God. I cannot take you to this relationship, I can only show you the direction. It is a very long hard road.
OMG. If you're high on drugs you need not wonder about "experiences". :D
And Corinthians was written by someone completely irrelevant to any information about any deity.
And El (biblical only as plural: Elohim, derived from Akkadian Ellil/Sumerian Enlil) is the name of a West-Semitic deity who was merged with Yah into the concept of god that is cuurently worshipped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

You had an amazing experience. You and the muslim, you and the buddhist, you and the alien abductee, you and the faith healer,
you and John Edward... ho-hum.

I already mentioned Michael Persinger's research involving mystical experiences.

I do hope you'll start petitioning the insane asylum to release the man who thinks blue trolls are coming to kill him or who thinks he's Napoleon Bonaparte. After all, we can trust their experiences, right?

Hah, smart people become atheists quickly? Right now, I'm in special classes designed for smart people. I'm finding them ridiculously slow right now. That means I'm smart or lying, your choice. I'm religious, and I have always asked questions and was, surprisingly, not beaten by my parents for it. Even now, I still ask myself; does it actually make sense? I still conclude that it does, even if I am not completely blindly faithful.

Jajajajajajajajajajajaj!!!!!!! I was in specially designed classes for smart people too.Strange that in those classes I met some of the most stupid and socially retarded people I know.A major reason for this was that many of these people felt they were smart.As if the fact that they were in these classes was a recognition of their genius.Yet they knew so little and I so much......

god can't be proven true anymore than than evolution or the big bang theory. however...he is true to millions and milions of people because of a thing called faith, and another thing called a soul.
erm, a thing is not made more real based merely on how many people believe it...most humans once believed that the Earth was the center of all existence, and that the sun and planets and stars rotated about the Earth, but that didn't make it true. something cannot be "true" to one person if it is false objectively, all that would mean is that the person in question is harboring a delusion.

Sorry, I'm a disgrace. I took a cheap shot because I could and because I thought it was an ignorant thing to say. I'm sorry. I am what I've done (insert heavy metal Jim Martin riff here).
This goes with what I was about to say. The idea of preknowledge does not negate the idea of free will. Pudding Pies surmised that we wouldn't read his/her link. In my case, he guessed correctly. Has he got some element of control over me? Has he circumvented my free will?

It's a load of bollocks: It's just like someone guessing I won't eat pork any time in the near future, there's no element of coercion, they just know what I'm like. If you accept the idea that God is omniscient, he knows all variables on all levels and how they interact, so he can guess the often quite simple and predictable choices humans make.
I agree with you here. While I deny the existence of free will, I have to say that just because I know that you're never going to become a massive monster with exactly 13 arms that grows marijuana on its back and destroys Tokyo every few days doesn't automatically mean that it's because there's no such thing as free will. It's just the least likely outcome to a point where to even consider it would be considered madness. I know I will not be able to pick up the pair of scissors right in front of me in the next few seconds (One... Two... Three! I'm pickin' up my scissors now!) because I am trying to prove the point that I knew that it would happen already because we live in a determined universe, while all this demonstrates is that I'm willing to go to lengths to prove you wrong, despite the fact this argument is, for me, the simple interest in knowledge.

Hey, I knew that someday I was going to get into an argument about determined universes. That was just obvious.
Looking through this, I see one thing comes up repeatedly: Theists dodging the question by referring to the brain in a jar idea, and how to prove the world around us exists. This is childish, and doesn't even try to prove God exists to the same level of surety that we have proof for the world around us.
Which question, specifically? I didn't even know that my belief of a determined universe was actually common in Theists, I'd assume it was most common in Atheists and those in scientific and philosophical pursuit. I just brought it up (I should not have, I know, I'm sorry.) because someone mentioned that a God was more likely in a determined universe and I was saying that I support that because I believe in a determined universe.
They then go on to religious experience, which has had more than enough doubt shed on it by modern neuroscience, and doesn't even account for the tendency for Americans and Europeans to see Jesus and such, Arabs to see Muhammed and Japanese to see Buddha.
Either all these experiences are legitimate proof, or none are.
This is either accepted, or they talk about Satan fooling non-believers- which 5000 years of history has shown to be a favourite bolthole of any religion, which sort of proves the point.
I don't care if Satan's fooled you or not. Hey, he knows the religion and he has no reason to deny it, only to enforce a different belief about it; if anything, Satan's responsible for people being fooled into cults and Satanism, and I don't believe he'd even be responsible for that.
I've been subject to many religious miracles, however to say that they're absolutely true would be a lie; I know that most of the time, it just seems like a pleasant reminder that someone's watching out for me and is not even necessarily true. As for seeing religious figures, I've never seen Jesus or even a different religious figure, no matter how weird that would be. I expect many of them were hallucinating or making it up.
So, proof for God(Any God), as 10000 years of bitching has shown, is not forthcoming.
Understood, but we can still have faith if we wish. That's our choice to have faith, and your choice to not have. Good day.

Jajajajajajajajajajajaj!!!!!!! I was in specially designed classes for smart people too.Strange that in those classes I met some of the most stupid and socially retarded people I know.A major reason for this was that many of these people felt they were smart.As if the fact that they were in these classes was a recognition of their genius.Yet they knew so little and I so much......
If I was the first to bring it up, I could use it against you. Realise 'at? I know what you mean, most of these special classes have introduced me to some people that could be smart, but were way too ignorant. I remember many arguments and disputes I started; half of them had the sh*ttiest English I'd ever seen and I constantly tried to break them out of it. One of the ones with awful English actually hated Bush because he had awful English, and when I brought that up, his excuse was that he didn't need English because he wasn't president; this was one of the most retarded things I had ever heard. Another constant argument was Form (how things look) vs. Function (how things work); I argued that function was undoubtedly more important than Form because, hey, Form is just to make sure that people understand the Function; the only thing I'd use Form to do is to make something understandable, after that, I see no reason to devote effort into making things colourful and all special and happy. I know those insignificant vomit sacks were nothing compared to me; there's nothing that could make an ordinary intelligent person so stupid; they just had to be stupid. They also had so little understanding of mathematics; it was ridiculous. To top it off, most of them actually thought I had no understanding, despite my high marks; in fact, the only reason why the rest of my subjects didn't get high marks was because I didn't make everything colourful.

On a side note, social retardation rarely has anything to do with general intelligence. I actually think I have something called Asperger's Syndrome, a lesser form of Autism, characterised by (usually) high intelligence, lack of social grace, no understanding of personal space, the list goes on and on. I have all of that. Both my intelligence and my so-called social retardation would most likely spawn from it, as well as my completely bizarre way of thinking and the reason why everyone thinks I'm nuts.

Don't think you're so smart just because you're an Atheist. It has little to do with intelligence.

Sorry, I'm a disgrace. I took a cheap shot because I could and because I thought it was an ignorant thing to say. I'm sorry. I am what I've done (insert heavy metal Jim Martin riff here).

No problem, I made a mistake. It's just annoying when people do nothing else.

I agree with you here. While I deny the existence of free will, I have to say that just because I know that you're never going to become a massive monster with exactly 13 arms that grows marijuana on its back and destroys Tokyo every few days doesn't automatically mean that it's because there's no such thing as free will. It's just the least likely outcome to a point where to even consider it would be considered madness. I know I will not be able to pick up the pair of scissors right in front of me in the next few seconds (One... Two... Three! I'm pickin' up my scissors now!) because I am trying to prove the point that I knew that it would happen already because we live in a determined universe, while all this demonstrates is that I'm willing to go to lengths to prove you wrong, despite the fact this argument is, for me, the simple interest in knowledge.


Which question, specifically? I didn't even know that my belief of a determined universe was actually common in Theists, I'd assume it was most common in Atheists and those in scientific and philosophical pursuit. I just brought it up (I should not have, I know, I'm sorry.) because someone mentioned that a God was more likely in a determined universe and I was saying that I support that because I believe in a determined universe.

The original topic, God = Proove it. There's been almost no attempt in favour of it. As for determinism, some level of logic and the strong likliehood of something happening a specific way under specific circumstances is pretty much required for something big and/or to sustain itself over a long period of time. I'm not sold on the idea of it going up to human choices, though we are limited by our experience. The way physics works determines a lot of what happens on the subatomic and atomic levels, though I don't see how this stops there being a 'singularity', were mental complexity of a lifeform makes the behaviour thereof undeterminable purely by physics. Of course, an omniscient entity would be aware of all systems and processes and could determine the lifeform's behaviour, but this in no way makes the universe deterministic in a way that negates free will.

I don't care if Satan's fooled you or not. Hey, he knows the religion and he has no reason to deny it, only to enforce a different belief about it; if anything, Satan's responsible for people being fooled into cults and Satanism, and I don't believe he'd even be responsible for that.
I've been subject to many religious miracles, however to say that they're absolutely true would be a lie; I know that most of the time, it just seems like a pleasant reminder that someone's watching out for me and is not even necessarily true. As for seeing religious figures, I've never seen Jesus or even a different religious figure, no matter how weird that would be. I expect many of them were hallucinating or making it up.

Well, the point was to say that using these visions and miracles as proof is a nonsense, which you seem to agree with, and that using Satan as an excuse for other religions is just a cheap trick.

Understood, but we can still have faith if we wish. That's our choice to have faith, and your choice to not have. Good day.

I'm not a militant atheist, I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in any specific God, though I don't discount the existence thereof, simply because I don't see a determinable way. Since my scientific background in both my upbringing and my education tells me that any theory needs proof to be accepted, I perhaps tend to give that impression. The idea of faith as choice doesn't sit so well with me. I can't realistically choose to be a Catholic because I'm bisexual and open and proud of my status as such, the two aren't compatible at this moment in time. To have a faith, one must be open to it, and it really is just a label that crudely represents your spiritual nature. After all, there are gay Catholics who see no contradiction with what they see as the grounding of the faith and their status.

I'm not a militant atheist, I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in any specific God, though I don't discount the existence thereof, simply because I don't see a determinable way

Welcome to agnostic athiesm.

So you agreed with what I was implying, huh? If I make a claim, I need to prove. It's not YOUR job to disprove it, right?
I agree to a point, but that's not what I'm implying. What I was saying is that if you want me to prove my faith, then I expect you to prove yours. Your faith, or lack of faith, or implied lack of faith, is that there is no God. If I was to attempt to prove God, I'd like you to be ready to either disprove Him or to agree with me.

I can't prove God, but I haven't met anyone who can disprove Him. If someone was to disprove God in a simple, concise explanation, then I would most likely become Atheist or join a different religion. However, because of the open-endedness of today's evolutionary stage of religion, it's impossible to prove or disprove God. I think it'd be much better back when we knew echoes were obviously there because a crazy nymph who loved Narciss did it. That was provable (until disproved) or disprovable. Those were the days...

Thing is, none of us are interested in changing beliefs and we are all way too stubborn to agree on anything. God cannot be, at our level, be proved or disproved. Who agrees and says we should just pack up and leave?

Welcome to agnostic athiesm.
Agnosticism and Atheism both mean the same thing. Regardless of why, you're without God. No other way around it. You don't stop being an Atheist when you decide that you no longer have no God, in favour of having no God.

Atheist = Without God. Anyone without a God, whether because you don't have faith either way or you don't have a need for a God (which sounds ridiculous, things don't disappear when you don't have a need for them... Unless...) or you don't have a want for a God or you actually do believe in God but hate Him for everything he has done, is an atheist.

Agnosticism and Atheism both mean the same thing. Regardless of why, you're without God. No other way around it. You don't stop being an Atheist when you decide that you no longer have no God, in favour of having no God.
Atheist = Without God. Anyone without a God, whether because you don't have faith either way or you don't have a need for a God (which sounds ridiculous, things don't disappear when you don't have a need for them... Unless...) or you don't have a want for a God or you actually do believe in God but hate Him for everything he has done, is an atheist.You are, of course, wrong. While an atheist does not belief in god's existence, the agnostic only thinks that institutionalized faith is rubbish and that one should better look into the available info for oneself instead of following dogmas and doctrines.

Agnosticism and Atheism both mean the same thing.No, they don't.

a·the·ism n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

ag·nos·ti·cism n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist, which is utterly distinct from someone who doesn't have a belief on whether God exists.

An atheist has the positive viewpoint that God is nonexistant, whereas an agnostic simply believes that no-one can know if God exists in this life.

Agnostic literally means without knowledge, so the person believes in the absence of knowledge about God.
Atheist literally means without God, so the person believes in the absence of God.

A lot of the Theists who have posted here are agnostic by this definition: They're honest enough to just say it's a belief with no verifiable grounding, and no verifiable grounds are likely to be found.
A lot of atheists, on the other side entirely, are apparently gnostic, i.e. they believe that God doesn't exist and it can be proven to be so, usually with logic as shakey as gonstic theists.

Me, I like to stay clear of all that. I tend to classify myself as an infidel, but because of a previous close relationship, I've stopped eating pork. I'm open to religious ideas, but I believe the chances of finding something that follows my spiritual nature close enough, since I don't envisage the nature of God intruding on my life in any day to day way in the near future, to be slim to none. That would be like someone taking their favourite book and saying 'every line in this is perfect'- That's bullshit, and nine times out of ten you won't be checking. Even if a book is believed to be written down by the prophet of a religion, and that can't be said for any major religion, you can't claim it's fully divine in every aspect, especially when God seems quite fond of visions, parables and allegory. The chances of being able to communicate directly with God and know it is Him/Her/Hir/It/Them are slim to none(A study of prayer response amongst opposing groups on same-sex marriage proved that God agrees with whatever anybody says). So we're best off doing what we do, banging rocks together and hoping we get it right.

http://passionoftheshrimp.com/
There's a God everyone can enjoy.

On a side note, I myself am agnostic. I don't count nor discount the existence of one or many gods.

Thats it ive heard to many people claim its true so go on here is your only chance to proove it..

(this should be interesting)



No flaming PLEASE

Religion has been reformed. It's no longer about worshiping the Lord every day and bowing before the might of Christ, it's about faith and love, and even if you don't believe in God, it's a moving experience that can teach you how to live, how to love, and can even provide an emotional escape from a violent world. The writings in the Bible can inspire you, they can move you, they can teach you, even if you do not believe in the Lord.

But you are too skeptical that you want an explanation for everything. Sometimes, the best explanation is no explanation. You just have to believe, and even if you'd rather not believe, you can still live by the teachings of the Bible.

An atheist is someone who believes God doesn't exist, which is utterly distinct from someone who doesn't have a belief on whether God exists.

An atheist has the positive viewpoint that God is nonexistant, whereas an agnostic simply believes that no-one can know if God exists in this life.

That's a gnostic or strong athiest. I leave them to defend themselves. An agnostic athiest is what you claim to the "fence-sitter" agnostic.

If you do not believe in any god, you are an athiest. You lack belief in gods, simple as that.

Theism - Atheism is a statement about belief, either you have it or you don't.
Gnostic - Agnostic is a statement about knowledge, either you have it or you don't.

They're not mutally exclusive.

A lot of the Theists who have posted here are agnostic by this definition: A lot of the Theists who have posted here are agnostic by this definition: They're honest enough to just say it's a belief with no verifiable grounding, and no verifiable grounds are likely to be found.They're honest enough to just say it's a belief with no verifiable grounding, and no verifiable grounds are likely to be found.

You yourself have noted the problem with this sort of "agnosticism." It's trivial. Despite the shared admittance of a lack of knowledge, we see two different conclusions reached. We see the agnostic thiests ... and the agnostic atheists.

... but we can still have faith if we wish. That's our choice to have faith, and your choice to not have. Good day.

You are certainly free to believe that. However, the Biblical doctrine of predestination and of free will teaches that while we are free agents and are responsible for our actions and inactions, that we do choose in accordance to our desires, but that our wills are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of darkness. Therefore, an ememy of God is not "free" to wake up one morning and "decide" that he is going to follow Jesus. He is enslaved and cannot want to do such a thing because he cannot choose against his own desires. For illustration purposes, in a much lesser degree, I hate rap "music". I cannot choose to decide to like it. I cannot because I will not and I will not because I cannot. But no one is hindering me from this. It is something I desire to keep myself away from. The only way that I could suddenly like rap would be if my mind and heart were altered to lean in that direction, by an outside source. This, in a MUCH greater degree is how a former enemy of God becomes his friend. God changes the heart and mind. He does this for some and leaves the rest where they want to be anyway. This he foreordained BEFORE the creation of the world.

[QUOTE=Foe Hammer]Religion has been reformed. It's no longer about worshiping the Lord every day and bowing before the might of Christ, it's about faith and love, and even if you don't believe in God, it's a moving experience that can teach you how to live, how to love, and can even provide an emotional escape from a violent world.QUOTE]

Maybe that's what your church is like but not an orthodox, Reformed church. The true church and the true Christian religion IS and will always be about Christ and about the necessity of worshipping him. A man centered church is not a true church.

I don't post in these forums. I don't lurk here, either. I was updating my nation and saw the topic, so I came because I was intrigued.

All I have to say is: CAMDEAN. LEARN TO SPELL THE WORD "PROVE". It is not now and never will be "proove". Ever. P-R-O-V-E. Also, try running all of your posts through spell check - you appear to be semi-literate from your writings.

Now everyone else, have fun debating that eternal question.

I agree to a point, but that's not what I'm implying. What I was saying is that if you want me to prove my faith, then I expect you to prove yours. Your faith, or lack of faith, or implied lack of faith, is that there is no God. If I was to attempt to prove God, I'd like you to be ready to either disprove Him or to agree with me.

I'd certainly try (given I can keep up with these fast moving forums :headbang: )

I can't prove God, but I haven't met anyone who can disprove Him. If someone was to disprove God in a simple, concise explanation, then I would most likely become Atheist or join a different religion. However, because of the open-endedness of today's evolutionary stage of religion, it's impossible to prove or disprove God. I think it'd be much better back when we knew echoes were obviously there because a crazy nymph who loved Narciss did it. That was provable (until disproved) or disprovable. Those were the days...

You know, proving things that supposedly shouldn't happen if the Bible is true (like evolution or the Bible's inerrancy) would, logically, be enough to turn the heads of christians enough to make them at least Agnostic (I don't specifically know your religion but most likely it's christian). You believe we orbit the sun, correct? People used to think that the sun orbitted us (guess one place where that can be found). Well, evidence has shown that that thinking was wrong, so no sane person believes it now. Why should evolution be different? The problem is there's too many people set in their ways that no matter how much evidence you throw at them that it can't be true they'll just discard it as nonsense.

Thing is, none of us are interested in changing beliefs and we are all way too stubborn to agree on anything. God cannot be, at our level, be proved or disproved. Who agrees and says we should just pack up and leave?

I'll never pack and leave on this subject. The more people I can reach (much like your faith) the more I may be able to show the truth.

Idiot. Most Japanese are Shinto. You're thinking of the Chinese. Furthermore, to divide by culture and not religion is uncalled for.

I thought it was shinto buddhism?

Thats it ive heard to many people claim its true so go on here is your only chance to proove it..

(this should be interesting)



No flaming PLEASE

That's it. I've heard too many people claim its NOT true so go on. Here's your only chance to DISprove Him.

You are, of course, wrong. While an atheist does not belief in god's existence, the agnostic only thinks that institutionalized faith is rubbish and that one should better look into the available info for oneself instead of following dogmas and doctrines.
Unfortunately, all Agnostics don't have faith at all in one way or another, and thus to say that they would "look into themselves" doesn't make sense, since they have no belief concerning the soul.

Coincidentally, Atheists don't have faith toward God and there isn't really such a thing as faith to there being no God ("don't have faith at all in one way or another"). This definition also applies to so-called Agnostics. Before you say my definition of Atheism is wrong, remember they do not have a faith, but rather a lack of faith.

I don't think you understood what I'm getting at and won't understand what I already said, so I'll try a couple more times in preparation. There are those who believe in God, and those who don't. Certainly, one may have specific reasons for not believing in God, but that may be active disbelief or simply no current preference, or something completely loony.

Theists-Believe in God.
Atheists-Don't believe in God.
Agnostics-Also don't believe in God, but don't like to be called Atheists 'cause they are part of a different sect of Atheism that say they doesn't actively try to disprove Theists, even if they do. Like the Protestants; nothing against Protestants, of course, myself being Presbyterian.

I thought it was shinto buddhism?
Nah, they're separate. If you want, look it up, which'll probably be a good idea anyway, because I often fail to do research and base my works on random comments made by passers-by.

ag·nos·ti·cism n.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.[/i]
Holy sh*t, I'm a Theist AND an Agnostic!? Something about that seems awfully wrong.

Theists-Believe in God.
Atheists-Don't believe in God.
Agnostics-Also don't believe in God, but don't like to be called Atheists 'cause they are part of a different sect of Atheism that say they doesn't actively try to disprove Theists, even if they do. Like the Protestants; nothing against Protestants, of course, myself being Presbyterian.

Most agnostics actually believe in the possibility that there is a God. By definition, they are admitting that they don't really know the answer, one way or another. They neither believe nor disbelieve in any particular deity - because they feel that they cannot know one way or another. Many, because of this, simply live as if there were no deity.

You know, proving things that supposedly shouldn't happen if the Bible is true (like evolution or the Bible's inerrancy) would, logically, be enough to turn the heads of christians enough to make them at least Agnostic (I don't specifically know your religion but most likely it's christian). You believe we orbit the sun, correct? People used to think that the sun orbitted us (guess one place where that can be found). Well, evidence has shown that that thinking was wrong, so no sane person believes it now. Why should evolution be different? The problem is there's too many people set in their ways that no matter how much evidence you throw at them that it can't be true they'll just discard it as nonsense.
Christian Presbyterian and (as soon as I figured out the "definition") Agnostic. I know that many stupid things have been said, and that's an inevitability of anything. I say stupid things all the time, and it's not even about religion. Camdean says absolutely retarded things and is a steadfast atheist. Furthermore, there are a lot of stupid people, religious and not; Camdean (sorry, Camdean, it's a cheap shot, but you do say the stupidest things I've ever heard) is a steadfast atheist retard. The very stupid and the very smart are both stubborn and arrogant, and none of them are willing to change. I'm sure both of us would claim we would react to unbreakable proof, but neither of us is willing to change when the time comes.
I'll never pack and leave on this subject. The more people I can reach (much like your faith) the more I may be able to show the truth.
You don't get it. All of us are really arrogant and stubborn. ALL of us. Me, you, Camdean especially, of course, but everyone. As a result, religious topics will never end until everyone gets completely bored. As yet another consequence, none of us will change. I don't try to "reach" people, because I know they won't listen. Either way, it's not even my task; I'm no priest nor pastor nor reverend nor rhabbai; I hold no position of power; I am consistently questioning myself of my beliefs; why would I try to reach out to others? The most I can do is let people have a choice.

PS. I'm sure everyone's noticed me flooding this thread, I just need to make a reply to everything. Sorry.

You are certainly free to believe that. However, the Biblical doctrine of predestination and of free will teaches that while we are free agents and are responsible for our actions and inactions, that we do choose in accordance to our desires, but that our wills are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of darkness. Therefore, an ememy of God is not "free" to wake up one morning and "decide" that he is going to follow Jesus. He is enslaved and cannot want to do such a thing because he cannot choose against his own desires. For illustration purposes, in a much lesser degree, I hate rap "music". I cannot choose to decide to like it. I cannot because I will not and I will not because I cannot. But no one is hindering me from this. It is something I desire to keep myself away from. The only way that I could suddenly like rap would be if my mind and heart were altered to lean in that direction, by an outside source. This, in a MUCH greater degree is how a former enemy of God becomes his friend. God changes the heart and mind. He does this for some and leaves the rest where they want to be anyway. This he foreordained BEFORE the creation of the world.
I absolutely agree.

Look at the world around you.........how could an explosion (big bang) requiring millions upon millions of remote chances to come true create such an intricate universe which can obviously be seen as something that needs a creator. Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

You should be able to see clearly that there is a God as soon as you step outside your house. If you can't, read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel

Most agnostics actually believe in the possibility that there is a God. By definition, they are admitting that they don't really know the answer, one way or another. They neither believe nor disbelieve in any particular deity - because they feel that they cannot know one way or another. Many, because of this, simply live as if there were no deity.
"Most"? By this, you are already claiming there is such a thing as an exception. But it's a simple mistake (or, hopefully not, a retarded self-attempt to destroy your argument), and I'll ignore it. Diehard Atheists do not believe in the possibility of a God, but that's not part of the definition. But I agree with what you're saying.

Okay, I know why there's this whole problem. The big bang is when God exploded.

Look at the world around you.........how could an explosion (big bang) requiring millions upon millions of remote chances to come true create such an intricate universe which can obviously be seen as something that needs a creator.

It's called Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc... They explain perfectly well how it all could come to be. And no, the "remote chances" aren't as remote as you think. Since there's billions upon billions of galaxies all having a chance to harbor life at any time the chances become MUCH better!

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Like I mentioned before, quoting scriptures is not evidence. If it is, then I guess Batman must be real.

You should be able to see clearly that there is a God as soon as you step outside your house.

Maybe if I was still brainwashed and ignorant of the accomplishments of science.

If you can't, read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel

I won't read a book that is strictly biased for one case without examing the other side. Strobel does exactly this by interviewing only apologetics, not skeptics.

Christian Presbyterian and (as soon as I figured out the "definition") Agnostic. I know that many stupid things have been said, and that's an inevitability of anything. I say stupid things all the time, and it's not even about religion. Camdean says absolutely retarded things and is a steadfast atheist. Furthermore, there are a lot of stupid people, religious and not; Camdean (sorry, Camdean, it's a cheap shot, but you do say the stupidest things I've ever heard) is a steadfast atheist retard. The very stupid and the very smart are both stubborn and arrogant, and none of them are willing to change. I'm sure both of us would claim we would react to unbreakable proof, but neither of us is willing to change when the time comes.

You don't get it. All of us are really arrogant and stubborn. ALL of us. Me, you, Camdean especially, of course, but everyone. As a result, religious topics will never end until everyone gets completely bored. As yet another consequence, none of us will change. I don't try to "reach" people, because I know they won't listen. Either way, it's not even my task; I'm no priest nor pastor nor reverend nor rhabbai; I hold no position of power; I am consistently questioning myself of my beliefs; why would I try to reach out to others? The most I can do is let people have a choice.

Hey, I don't disagree with you on many people being arrogant and stubborn. The thing is, there ARE people that are still undecided. I'm just trying to point them in the right direction. Plus, arguing's fun ;)

Okay, I know why there's this whole problem. The big bang is when God exploded.

rofl :p

What do theists say when children doubt the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Superman? Do you say, ‘We can’t prove they don’t exist so they must be around here somewhere.”?

Okay, I know why there's this whole problem. The big bang is when God exploded.

:eek:

LOL

There exist 6 billion incarnations of God on this planet. Each with the ability to imagine that they are not responsible for what is going on in the world around them. But actually, if they pulled themselves together they would by using their "divine" imagination be able to create a far better world than this miserable excuse for a place.
Religion misleads. :)

God exist!

...or at leat existed until recently.
Looking back, he was a good buddy of mine.
Very competitive.

I was sad to see him ill and powerless.
Followers, he died a peaceful death,
knowing I would pursue his work.
(The only difference is I get involved a bit more)

We all miss the big ol' bearded feller.

Satan
:mad:

Has anyone made the point recently that all absolute proof is impossible, because all logical deductions must start from a set of unproveable statements, and everyone chooses their own set of statements (you might call them axioms, or givens, or postulates, but they're basic to all logic)?

Someone might have made this point already, but I don't have time to read 400 posts on a very well-trodden subject.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, and that happened 4 years and 7 months ago when God changed my mind about Him. The psychology of Jesus's followers after His death was also pretty persuasive, but God did most of the work directly. This isn't exactly predestination, cause I DID want to know the truth, but it isn't exactly free will, cause He had to internally change me for me to understand.

Has anyone made the point recently that all absolute proof is impossible, because all logical deductions must start from a set of unproveable statements, and everyone chooses their own set of statements (you might call them axioms, or givens, or postulates, but they're basic to all logic)?

Someone might have made this point already, but I don't have time to read 400 posts on a very well-trodden subject.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, and that happened 4 years and 7 months ago when God changed my mind about Him. The psychology of Jesus's followers after His death was also pretty persuasive, but God did most of the work directly. This isn't exactly predestination, cause I DID want to know the truth, but it isn't exactly free will, cause He had to internally change me for me to understand.
Yeah, this point's been made before. You should repeat it, however, because no one seems to be listening. 'Specially the atheists. Wacky.

Hey, I don't disagree with you on many people being arrogant and stubborn. The thing is, there ARE people that are still undecided. I'm just trying to point them in the right direction. Plus, arguing's fun ;)
Most of the people who are undecided are those who claim to be Agnostic Atheists and claim to never get involved, even if they do; as such, they're just as stubborn as us.

... And, of course, arguing is fun, anyway.

What do theists say when children doubt the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Superman? Do you say, ‘We can’t prove they don’t exist so they must be around here somewhere.”?
No. I refuse to claim that a God must exist, because I don't know. We already know that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Superman do exist, so they have no relevence to the topic.

There exist 6 billion incarnations of God on this planet. Each with the ability to imagine that they are not responsible for what is going on in the world around them. But actually, if they pulled themselves together they would by using their "divine" imagination be able to create a far better world than this miserable excuse for a place.
Religion misleads. :)
Religion has simply been used as an excuse. Everyone is responsible for what they have done, regardless of whether it has already been said for; this is because there is always a chance of it recurring. Getting rid of religion would not solve the crisis of different religions falling into disagreement; we'd simply reorganise to our true standing. For instance, Jews have, culturally, had a lot of money. That is why they are Jews. Don't say anything about poor Jews existing, because I've made a generalisation that applies not to all, but to a large majority or, at the very least, a time when there was a large majority. Gotta think a step higher.

... Wait, did you say I was an incarnation of God? Woah, you a cultist or something? Furthermore, aren't there more than 6 billion people now? I think there's 7 now...

It's called Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc... They explain perfectly well how it all could come to be. And no, the "remote chances" aren't as remote as you think. Since there's billions upon billions of galaxies all having a chance to harbor life at any time the chances become MUCH better!
At a time when there were no Free Will Agents, the world was determined up to the existence of free will agents, which I seriously doubt will ever exist. So, the world was pretty much said for at the beginning of time, with or without God (Pudding Pies, this is in support of you, in case you couldn't figure out).
Like I mentioned before, quoting scriptures is not evidence. If it is, then I guess Batman must be real.
Dude! Batman is wicked real! Anyway, the scriptures could only possibly be evidence if they themselves had been proven and had been affected by Divine Intervention. Since we have no current knowledge of how they were proven and that Divine Intervention itself would explain the existence of God, it's highly disputable.
Maybe if I was still brainwashed and ignorant of the accomplishments of science.
Well, this is really an opinionative item. Neither side can make a point without being heavily biased.
I won't read a book that is strictly biased for one case without examing the other side. Strobel does exactly this by interviewing only apologetics, not skeptics.
This is common with every book arguing a specific side, which is why one must always question everything one sees and hears.

God is not a matter of material existence, the original concept of God was one of faith which implies believing without justification. God's existence is questionable always has been, always will be, its a matter of how you interpret God as everyone has 1 a hardcore anarchist's God is himself. So whether or not you believe in the religious side of God you do have 1.

God is not a matter of material existence, the original concept of God was one of faith which implies believing without justification. God's existence is questionable always has been, always will be, its a matter of how you interpret God as everyone has 1 a hardcore anarchist's God is himself. So whether or not you believe in the religious side of God you do have 1.
An unusual opinion and backed up by a very unusual example (hardcore anarchist!?). Regardless, we are arguing the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient God. He is obviously the Christian God, because everyone on NationStates is, for whatever godforsaken reason, either an Atheist or a Christian. There are no other religions on NationStates and if there are, they refuse to announce themselves in Atheist vs. Theist debates.

http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/richard_ashcroft/human_conditions/check_the_meaning/

Has anyone made the point recently that all absolute proof is impossible, because all logical deductions must start from a set of unproveable statements, and everyone chooses their own set of statements (you might call them axioms, or givens, or postulates, but they're basic to all logic)?

Someone might have made this point already, but I don't have time to read 400 posts on a very well-trodden subject.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, and that happened 4 years and 7 months ago when God changed my mind about Him. The psychology of Jesus's followers after His death was also pretty persuasive, but God did most of the work directly. This isn't exactly predestination, cause I DID want to know the truth, but it isn't exactly free will, cause He had to internally change me for me to understand.

Ahh Descartes' Method of Doubt. What exactly do you mean by "The psychology of Jesus's followers"?