NationStates Jolt Archive

what eyewitness testimony? the word of the bible? You know the bible has the first page missing, it says "To my dearest Sandra. All characters in this book are ficticious, and bear no resemblance to people living or dead"

lol

God has not been proven to not exist. But he has not been proven TO exist either, so therefore, he must not exist.

... Okay, I haven't read all 17 pages of this, so I might be repeating a point.
But... how can you possibly think this is good logic?

Let's see. The super-powered telescopes can see galaxies far away, but that's the farthest they can see. No one has proved that there aren't any galaxies past that, since we can't see them and obviously can't go to them. But of course, no one has proved that there are any galaxies past those, so therefore, that is the end of the universe.

Scientists say they know there are very many different species of insects and what not that they haven't found, but they're sure they exist. (In the rainforests, depths of the oceans, ect.) No one has proved that these species don't exist, but no one has proved that they do for a fact. Therefore, scientists have found and classified all of the species on earth.

In Area 51, no one has proved to us that all the alien-expiriments and what not that supposivly go on there don't exist. But then again, the public hasn't gotten anything very vital from there and there is no proof that it does exist. Therefore, nothing out of the ordinary goes on in Area 51. It's just a secret that the Government likes to keep. Just like 'lil schoolgirls gossiping and what not. Area 51 is just a giant, restricted secret of official gossip. ¬¬

--

I think God would run heaven as a complete dictatorship. Think of it. Utopia. With God being perfect and all his subjects being perfect, everything he commands would be perfect for everyone. The angels would follow it perfectly.

--

And, God did destroy mankind once. The Flood. You know, Noah's Ark and all. That's what it was. Then Jesus died on the cross. A scapegoat for our sins so God doesn't have to come in n' swipe everything out of existance again. The Bible says he will, in due time. Hell's flames and all.

For some reason, though, I think God is going to be something along the lines of that merciful parent. You know? The one who grounds you for a month and lets you off the first hour? :)

--

Again, I appologize if I'm repeating any already-made points. Didn't read through the whole thing before putting this stuff down.

Which door would you choose. Some choose the first door, while others say that the doors don't exist, and are invariably led towards the first one.

I've read a lot of disproportionate and utterly irrelevant analogies in my time, but that one deserves a prize.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, it is the realm of faith.

If you want proof from the bible that Creationism and Intelligent Design trying to prove the existence of God are wrong, here is a quote...

[1 Corinthians 1:21] "God was wise and decided not to let the people of this world use their wisdom to learn about him. Instead, God chose to save only those who believe the foolish message we preach."

Creationism is clearly foolish, and has now been abandoned by most who supported it for "Intelligent Design" because the phoney distinction between, so called, "Micro" and "Macro-Evolution" was insupportable. Creationism was utterly against the idea of Evolution and that it finally had to draw a line in the sand and say "Well, yes, small things evolve, but big things don't" was the end of what tatters of credibility it clutched to itself.

Intelligent Design seeks to prove God exists, but like it's predecessor, cherry picks it's science. Plenty of real-scientists do this too, but that's just bad science. And the jigsaw puzzle of the fossil record has good and bad scientists working on it, but the millions of years of sedimentary deposits that form the rock strata in which fossils are found completely discredit the idea that mankind is only 6000 years old.

You have described the order of the Universe as proof of Intelligent Design; it is no proof, because that which does not fall into order will disperse. What falls into order will endure, so that which is ordered is all that remains for us to observe. However, looking out, large nebulae and colliding Galaxies represent an ever changing pattern of chaotic events, a universe either falling violently into an eventual ordered equilibrium, or constantly expanding and dispersing, which it is we don't yet know.

Natural Selection itself works very elegantly, that which is better suited to success will endure.

No science, good or bad, disproves the existence of God, nor does it prove it. But, there is a great deal of evidence that shows that, if taken literally, the bible is inaccurate.

Leading theologians state that where the bible is not strictly accurate, it is intended to be allegorical (passages such as those that state the Earth was fixed immovable in the heavens [1 Chronicles 16:30], which led to heliocentrists like Galileo being branded heretics). The insistence of some that, against all the evidence to the contrary, the world was and all upon it was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, makes such literal religious belief look foolish and ignorant.

I see a Universe where that which falls into order endures, and that which exists in chaos expends its energy fruitlessly and dissipates. Thus comes an ordered Universe.

You see that as an intelligent design.

Your opinion is every bit as valid as mine, but it is not proof.

There is no Truth, only perception.

I have thought about this a lot and determined that there were actually six potential races (3 sons, and the three daughter in laws.) PLUS Noah was still able to have kids.

Noting the commonalities between some Native Americans and the Orientals, I have arbitrarily decided that they must share the same father (Japeth I think) and that his wife's DNA must have contributed to the physical differences between the two.

Ham is (I think) the father of the black, latino, and India races. Again, I have no proof for this.

Shem clearly is in the lineage of the Jews (from Shem, we get the term "Semitic peoples") It is safe to assume that the majority of the Middle East is from the patriarchal line of Shem.

Which leaves white people. Where did they come from? Do I have something reversed?

Maybe Shem's wife was white. Couldn't tell you for certain. Could have been Ham. Could have been Japeth. Again, arbitrarily I'll decide Shem's wife was white.

Now we have accounted for the 7 main groupings of common physical features... everything in between can be accounted for by interbreeding. So it's not impossible or unlikely in my view.

It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race from a biologicalyl or genetically.

Race is a socio-political construct.

The belief that blacks are Hamites has led to great discrimination.

Such Biblical exegis is both unnecessary and harmful.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence -- particularly from the Human Genome Project and Human Genome Diversity Project-- that proves that there are no genetically distinguishable races. The scientific community is in general agreement that "race" does not exist as a biological concept. It is a socio-political concept.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Here is another summary of facts (and I recognize the last is not necessarily a scientific "fact"):

THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

Here are a few more sources of information:


Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Race is inherited, but in a different fashion from biological heredity. Race is inherited according to no scientific laws, rather, by a commonsense or folk cultural system. Like the way we name our relatives, it’s not determined by biology, and doesn’t map very well onto genetic relationships. In fact that’s precisely what races are -- named groups, nothing more. ...

The key thing is to appreciate that race and genetics aren’t from the same worlds. So it’s not that one is good and the other is bad. It’s that one is scientific, and the other provides a means of localizing yourself and others in a very subjective world of social relations. The difficulty comes when we confuse them for one another. It’s not that race doesn’t exist, as I occasionally see it in the newspaper; it’s that race doesn’t exist as a biological entity. It certainly exists as a symbolic, social category; and that makes it more real and more important than if it were biological.Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
After analyzing thousands of DNA samples collected in smaller studies, experts are amazed at the genetic unity that binds our diverse, polyglot species. Any two people, regardless of geography or ethnicity, share at least 99.99 percent of their genetic makeups--a deep sameness that makes a mockery of racist ideologies such as Nazism.

Paradoxically, the minuscule .01 percent of our genome that does make people different doesn't shake out along visible racial lines. Instead, some 85 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within ethnic groups, not between them. The traits that so polarize our culture--the shade of our skin, the shape of an eye, hair texture--actually hide a dazzling and unexpected molecular tapestry that reflects our true origins. The European gene pool, for example, carries the story of where its members came from--and where they later migrated. It is a swirl of 35 percent African genes and 65 percent Asian genes.
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)
Race and Ethnicity (http://cas-courses.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/anab/apy106/handouts/Race_and_Ethnicity.htm)
In the US the general public has been conditioned to view human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences (phenotype). It has now become clear to anthropologists that human populations are not unambiguous clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from genetics (e.g. DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within "racial groups" (94%) than between racial groups (6%). The attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is arbitrary and subjective.
What are the differences between races? (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm)
Attempts to create categories of biological races have centered on phenotypic differences. A phenotype is the entirety of traits that an individual possesses, including external characteristics such as eye color and shape, body size and shape, hair color and texture, and skin color. In recent years attempts have also been made to evaluate genotypic differences to justify biological races. Genotype refers to a person's genetic makeup. These attempts have tried to define clusters of characteristics in one population that are not found in other populations. These clusters supposedly would enable different populations to be divided into distinct races. Such attempts have failed, however, and what researchers have found is that biological variations exist on a cline rather than in delimited geographic clusters with gaps in between. A cline refers to a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some change in the environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn at a point along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.
The Biology of Race (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm)
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”
The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
We're All Related to Kevin Bacon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21167-2002Dec6&notFound=true)
HUMAN DIVERSITY AND "RACE" (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072500506/23746/CHAPTER5.doc)
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)

actually, the cop would probably doubt the account primarily because witness testimony is relatively unreliable, and because there have been "witnessed accounts" of aliens landing, the Virgin Mary appearing in a bowl of soup, and Elvis playing miniature golf. the age of the account only serves to compound the problems, since the cop would also be faced with the problem of historical context; perhaps, stylistically, supposed "witness accounts" were the way that fabels were passed on back in the day, or perhaps the translation has been modified or corrupted over time.


the fact that all these "witness accounts" are described only in one book, and that book was corrupted and translated and modified by all manner of people over the course of centuries, tends to make the accounts less believable. also, you are ignoring the fact that accounts of such miracles were not rare in that time period; Jesus had at least a dozen contemporaries for whom similar stories exist. holy men raising the dead, walking on water, and doing public acts of "magic" were quite common, and historians find no shortage of messiahs to sift through.

furthermore, virtually the entire Jesus myth was borrowed from other sources, most notably the myth of Horus. why do you believe the "witness accounts" of Jesus' miracles, but reject the same accounts describing such miracles being performed centuries earlier by Horus?

as humans, many of us have a hard time accepting that a fellow 2000 years ago died for sins the rest of us had yet to commit, and that he did so at the command of his supposedly all-powerful and all-good Father, a Father who was unwilling or unable to find any better solution than to allow the torturous death of the child He begat on a 14 year old girl. we particularly have trouble believing such things on the basis of 2000-year-old hearsay, brought to us through accounts that were not even written or compiled until centuries after the events in question, and which were collected by a non-Christian emperor as a means to manipulate his population to cement his political power.

Amen.

Witness the Truth!

Can I get an Amen?

god as in the christian god???
if so no! everything in the bible is too farfetched.
as for other gods im still undecided

Amen.

Witness the Truth!

Can I get an Amen?
of all the reasons to believe in God, "the Bible says so" is one of the absolute worst. anybody who says they believe in God because of the Bible needs to read up on Horus first...when you find that most of your "messiah" myth was plagerized from the ancient Egyptians, it tends to give you a fresh perspective.

I cant really say if he exists or not...theres times where it seems like there is something out there which could be a god but than there times where it seems like everything just sucks and nothing is out there for you so I am undecided.

Cat, sounds like I touch a nerve. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe you can organize people according to genetic traits without being racist?

Or maybe my argument just had so many years of thought invested into it that you felt it was necessary to subtly hint that I might be racist, so that no one could agree that it was possible for six people to have created the genetic diversity we see today?

Your post, while I laud your extensive research, was totally irrelevant to what I said.

i believe in a god and a goddess in nature and i think to a point they have controll of my destiny and whatnot but mostly they dont

Cat, sounds like I touch a nerve. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe you can organize people according to genetic traits without being racist?

Or maybe my argument just had so many years of thought invested into it that you felt it was necessary to subtly hint that I might be racist, so that no one could agree that it was possible for six people to have created the genetic diversity we see today?

Your post, while I laud your extensive research, was totally irrelevant to what I said.
maybe i'm missing something, but Cat's post seemed to directly address what you were saying. Cat was showing (correctly) that your theory cannot be true based on the scientific evidence we have today. if you would like more information on this subject i would suggest starting a fresh thread, since it would be a massive hijack to discuss it here, and i would be more than willing to come participate and help you understand why your theory is refuted by modern information.

Of course God exists. I just don't have the same idea of Him than most. I approach spirituality with an odd sort of logic that might even betray itself, but still. I think any idea that humanity is supposed to go in a certain direction or that each individual is supposed to live his life to $UNIVERSAL_STANDARD is irrational and I don't think this line of thought has any real grounding in reality or the way the Universe works.

The way I see it, God was whatever the catalyst was that created our universe out of presumably nothing. God is simultaneously nothing and everything: he both is and isn't. God is simply the sum of all energy in the universe.

But in a more personal sense, I think that the closest any one of us can really get to this manifestation of God is to think. If there's anything in this world or in my every day life that I regard as holy or divine, it's my ability to think. Think about what happens when an architect sits down and draws up a blueprint, then gets a team of guys to build it. Basically what he's doing is he's turning a system of electrical impulses from his brain into reality. In this sense, the mind is capable of its own creation, proving to me at least that there's a little bit of God in all of us.

I have no god

If Jesus was the savior who did he save, their was no christians until after he died, and if he saved the Jews then what the hell was the Holocaust?

I'm really surprised at the 'No' to 'I don't know' ratio. I thought there were a lot more agnostics than athiests around here. Guess I was wrong :).

Cat, sounds like I touch a nerve. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe you can organize people according to genetic traits without being racist?

Or maybe my argument just had so many years of thought invested into it that you felt it was necessary to subtly hint that I might be racist, so that no one could agree that it was possible for six people to have created the genetic diversity we see today?

Your post, while I laud your extensive research, was totally irrelevant to what I said.

You did touch a nerve. You were perpetuating a fallacy that has caused and continues to cause great suffering -- the myth of race as biological concept.

I would echo what Bottle has said.

I was not accusing you of racism. The Hamite theory has been favored by racists, but I did not see you use it that way.

Actually, the information I provided actually helps you explain how six people could explain humanity today. There is less genetic diversity than people assume. Thus less need to explain alleged genetic diversity.

Whether one is racist or not, one cannot categorize people by race in a meaningful way genetically. If you want to discuss that point further, another thread might be more appropriate.

I'm really surprised at the 'No' to 'I don't know' ratio. I thought there were a lot more agnostics than athiests around here. Guess I was wrong :).
many agnostics could say "no" to that question; an agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, after all, and nothing about that excludes the "i don't believe in God" option. that's where i fall...i'm agnostic, i said "no," and for the same reason i would say "no" to whether or not i believe in Santa. i cannot disprove Santa, and i fully admit that it is possible Santa is real, but i don't see any reason to assume he is real so i don't believe in him.

many agnostics could say "no" to that question; an agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, after all, and nothing about that excludes the "i don't believe in God" option. that's where i fall...i'm agnostic, i said "no," and for the same reason i would say "no" to whether or not i believe in Santa. i cannot disprove Santa, and i fully admit that it is possible Santa is real, but i don't see any reason to assume he is real so i don't believe in him.
I guess I would think of you as an athiest then. Or by your definition, maybe I'm an agnostic. :p

The existence of something otherworldly, is one of the most documented things in human history. Every culture have such a notion, and outside of the Christian world it is still typical to find people that actually have a living experience with this “orherworld”. More often than not, the experience of this “otherworld” leads to the experience/belief in some concept of God. Do you need more evidence?

Maybe they were all high?

I guess I would think of you as an athiest then. Or by your definition, maybe I'm an agnostic. :p
the correct definition of "agnostic" is one who believes the truth of God's existence (or non-existence) is unknowable. that is what i believe, and thus i am agnostic. if you also believe that, you are agnostic. an atheist is one who disbelieves in God. there is a new definition of "atheist," sometimes called "weak atheism," which supposedly refers to the simple lack of belief in God; i find that an imprecise corruption of the original meaning of "atheist," but some people do choose to use it. by that definition, one can be both agnostic and atheist.

the correct definition of "agnostic" is one who believes the truth of God's existence (or non-existence) is unknowable. that is what i believe, and thus i am agnostic. if you also believe that, you are agnostic. an atheist is one who disbelieves in God. there is a new definition of "atheist," sometimes called "weak atheism," which supposedly refers to the simple lack of belief in God; i find that an imprecise corruption of the original meaning of "atheist," but some people do choose to use it. by that definition, one can be both agnostic and atheist.
Hmm. Well, I believe that the existence of God is unknowable, but I also disbelieve in God. After all, you don't have to know something for sure to believe it. So I guess I'm both. :D

While in the future it may be possible to prove that God exists, it is impossible to prove that God does NOT exist.

Personally I find it better to believe that God exists.

But which God? there are so many, the hindu 1, Jewish, Mulim, Christian, Sikh, and thats just 5 of the MAIN religions, why can't the goat worshipping people of St. Kitts Nevis be the true enlightened ones, or the mormans, or Voodoo peoples, maybe the correct religion hasnt been worked out yet and everyone is just wasting their futile lives trying to reach enlightenment!!!

Or maybe the Romans got it right and we just tossed their ideas away like some choclate wrapper into the great bin of life

Hmm. Well, I believe that the existence of God is unknowable, but I also disbelieve in God. After all, you don't have to know something for sure to believe it. So I guess I'm both. :D
join the club :).

i believe that it is wrong to base your life or your personal values on unknowables, so i do not assume the existence of a God or gods. when people ask why i don't believe in God, i usually answer, "why don't you believe in Zeus?"

In more detail, I believe that dinosaurs did exist, but not so long ago as we think. When God made animals, dinosaurs were among them. However, after the Fall, which occured a mere 6000 or so years ago, they began to die out, resulting in the fossils we see today.
Slowly, the dinosaur population began to fall, even the Bible makes references to such animals as the Laviathan, being a humongous sea dinosaur, or dragons and other such things, bieng a reference to other dinosaurs. There are even accounts across the world, in every culture, many of whom had not even made contact with each other, of dragons. Now, I know that the fire-breathing thing is a bit much, but those tales and stories could be easily interpreted into eyewitness, or stories of eyewitness accounts of dinosaurs.

Hunting that ensued of the creatures that had so ravaged their countries happened in the Middle Ages, and, eventually, very few dinosaurs were left alive. Only a handfull exist today.


Have u ANY IDEA how long it takes for fossils to develop??? it takes much more than a 'MERE 6000' years. And in six days I can hardly build a wall, let alone build a world, and, as God is a nothingness that is all around us, how can he build a universe???

Maybe you should look at your views and try to size them up with reality

See the Dead Sea Scrolls, proven to be more than a thousand years older than Jesus is supposed to be, contained prophecies of His coming.

Jesus isnt the only Jew who claimed to be the messiah, even the grandson of King Herod, the guy who actually was king of the Jews, claimed to be the mesiah, born in bethelhem, line of david, why couldnt it have been the young prince?

I do believe in the existence of God.
Why?
The Universe is not infinite. If it were, it would be infinite in ALL respects; duration, size, and complexity.
We aren't sure about duration and size, but we are damn sure about complexity; it isn't infinite. We know this because mathematics exists...we have arrived at an understanding of the universe around us through the use of numbers.
Humans do not equal infinity. If we did, we would know everything there is to know. Therefore, if we can understand SOMETHING, it means the Universe, likewise, is not infinity. If it were, we wouldn't understand a thing, because there would be too many variables.

That means the Universe has a beginning point. Okay, it means it had to be made.
That is where God comes in. God=infinity. Something has to. And, if the universe just happened to possess so many things that make life possible, I tend to believe that God is intelligent and caring.

I do believe in the existence of God.
Why?
The Universe is not infinite. If it were, it would be infinite in ALL respects; duration, size, and complexity.
We aren't sure about duration and size, but we are damn sure about complexity; it isn't infinite. We know this because mathematics exists...we have arrived at an understanding of the universe around us through the use of numbers.
Humans do not equal infinity. If we did, we would know everything there is to know. Therefore, if we can understand SOMETHING, it means the Universe, likewise, is not infinity. If it were, we wouldn't understand a thing, because there would be too many variables.

So, the Universe cannot be infinite because we have some understanding of parts of it?

Why?

How does an infinite universe make mathematics impossible?

That means the Universe has a beginning point. Okay, it means it had to be made.
That is where God comes in. God=infinity. Something has to. And, if the universe just happened to possess so many things that make life possible, I tend to believe that God is intelligent and caring.

And who made God? And what does the Turtle stand on?

And on what leap of logic do you conclude God is intelligent and caring? Darfur, Auschwitz, bubonic plauge = happy, smiley?

So, the Universe cannot be infinite because we have some understanding of parts of it?

Why?

How does an infinite universe make mathematics impossible?



And who made God? And what does the Turtle stand on?

And on what leap of logic do you conclude God is intelligent and caring? Darfur, Auschwitz, bubonic plauge = happy, smiley?


If something is infinite, it is infinite. A mind that is finite is infintley less. It would be unable to understanding anything involving "infinity". (the phrase "God moves in mysterious ways" comes from this)



God doesn't need to be made. He is infinity. Therefore, He has infinite duration.
Also, I am a deist. I don't believe God interferes in day-to-day business.
But, in theory, if God did interfere and brought about all those things, why would you question Him? He's infinity. You're not. Of course you wouldn't be able to understand Him.

I do believe in the existence of God.
Why?

you make several completely unfounded assumptions in this post, and if these are truly your reasons for believing in God then you have some rethinking to do:

The Universe is not infinite. If it were, it would be infinite in ALL respects; duration, size, and complexity.

where on Earth do you get that idea? something can be infinite in a single quality without being infinite in all qualities. a line is infinite in length, but not in width, depth, color, smell, complexity, or any other characteristic; why could the universe not be infinite in size without being infinite in complexity?

also, what does the infiniteness of the universe have to do with the existence of God? your arm isn't infinite in length; do you consider that to be proof of God's existence?


We aren't sure about duration and size, but we are damn sure about complexity; it isn't infinite.

totally untrue. depending on how you define "complexity," we either are a) unsure, b) pretty sure there is a limitation to the complexity but unable to conclusively prove it, or c) 100% positive that the universe has infinite complexity. you need to define your term more precisely, for one thing, but you are wrong anyway.


We know this because mathematics exists...we have arrived at an understanding of the universe around us through the use of numbers.

mathematics is only one avenue of analysis, and there are many other methods used to explore the universe.


Humans do not equal infinity. If we did, we would know everything there is to know.

again, where on Earth do you get this idea? a geometric line is infinite, but it doesn't "know everything there is to know." it would be perfectly possible for humans to have some quality in infinite degree and yet still remain limited in our understanding of the universe.

if humans were each infinite in all qualities then we would encounter a paradox because humans would have to overlap; there would, effectively, be only one human, and that human would be everything in existence.

finally, a being does not need to have the quality of infiniteness to know everything. humans don't know everything, of course, but there are ways of acquiring knowledge that have nothing to do with trying to increase one's "infiniteness."


Therefore, if we can understand SOMETHING, it means the Universe, likewise, is not infinity. If it were, we wouldn't understand a thing, because there would be too many variables.

um, huh? totally unfounded assumption on your part. i can understand the precise properties of a line segment, even though the line itself is infinite. i can know many things about infinite numbers, quantities, and (theoretically) physical bodies. my knowledge of part, or even all, of those things does not impact their "infiniteness."


That means the Universe has a beginning point. Okay, it means it had to be made.

there are so many problems with this.

-the universe may or may not have a "beginning point." nothing requires that it had one, though we believe that is probably the case.
-a universe that is currently infinite could have had a beginning, and may not have been infinite in the past.
-the universe would not need to have been made in order to have a beginning point.
-the universe most certainly does not require a conscious creator-being in order to have been made.


That is where God comes in.

totally unfounded assumption.


God=infinity.

interesting definition. infinite in what quality? all qualities? if God is infinite in all qualities then every piece of matter (and non-matter) in existence is God. sort of a meaningless definition, if you are claiming "God" made the universe, don't you think?


Something has to.

why? why does anything have to equal infinity?


And, if the universe just happened to possess so many things that make life possible, I tend to believe that God is intelligent and caring.
a laughable assumption. given the size of the universe, the probability of life arrising somewhere was very high to begin with. there is no need for a conscious being to have contributed. if such a being did contribute, there is no reason to assume it is intelligent, since many non-intelligent forces give rise to life as we know it. there is also no reason to believe that such a being is benevolent, since goodness is not a prerequisite for creation of anything.

over all, your beliefs seem very poorly thought out. it's your business what you choose to believe, but i really hope you put a little more effort into your views on the universe...at the very least, learn some basic math, physics, and biology before you attempt to reach definitive conclusions about the nature and origins of the universe. you owe it to yourself.

Didn't we already discredit the whole God is caring and intelligent?

A omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God cannot possibly exsist given how the world is today.

If something is infinite, it is infinite. A mind that is finite is infintley less. It would be unable to understanding anything involving "infinity". (the phrase "God moves in mysterious ways" comes from this)

God doesn't need to be made. He is infinity. Therefore, He has infinite duration.
Also, I am a deist. I don't believe God interferes in day-to-day business.
But, in theory, if God did interfere and brought about all those things, why would you question Him? He's infinity. You're not. Of course you wouldn't be able to understand Him.

1. What makes you think you understand the entire universe? I suggest you do not.

2. If the mind is finite and is "unable to understand[] anything involving infinity," how are you able to understand the concept of infinity?

3. How do you know God is infinite? You have merely assumed it -- an assumption that is about something you claim you cannot understand.

4. Why does a finite thing have to have a beginning? Why does an infinite thing not have a beginning?

5. if I have one infinite thing and I add three more infinite things, do I have more than I started with?

First on the agenda, Bottle, learn to respect people. I have no qualms about people disagreeing with my conclusions, but, when one automatically assumes a position of hostility to a differing opinion, one is indistinguishable from a fascist.
Now, learn it, or shut up. I do not speak with those who believe in the same practices, Hitler did.
And, no, I am not being hypocritical; I am being retaliatory.


where on Earth do you get that idea? something can be infinite in a single quality without being infinite in all qualities. a line is infinite in length, but not in width, depth, color, smell, complexity, or any other characteristic; why could the universe not be infinite in size without being infinite in complexity?

Eucliedan geometry is an instrument of the past. It doesn't explain the universe's motions.
But, it is irrelevant. Lines do not actually exist. Just like the normal distribution does not actually exist.

also, what does the infiniteness of the universe have to do with the existence of God? your arm isn't infinite in length; do you consider that to be proof of God's existence?
You didn't even bother to read my whole post before you criticzed it.
Admit it, you care nothing about logic. You are so avowdley atheist that you will never accept any argument to the contrary.
Anyways, if something is not infinite in duration, it means it had a beginning. That means something had to create it.


totally untrue. depending on how you define "complexity," we either are a) unsure, b) pretty sure there is a limitation to the complexity but unable to conclusively prove it, or c) 100% positive that the universe has infinite complexity. you need to define your term more precisely, for one thing, but you are wrong anyway.
mathematics is only one avenue of analysis, and there are many other methods used to explore the universe.
Math is ONLY complete means of understanding the universe. I can throw the ball up, and it may fall down, but that is only empirical. I cannot prove it will fall all the time, until I use math.
Even logic is incomplete (for the moment) becuase humanity's rational faculties are limited. This results in the "Flat Earth" theory.
But, if the universe is infinite in complexity, it must have infinite variables. How on Earth can any mathematical formula take into account infinite variables?


if humans were each infinite in all qualities then we would encounter a paradox because humans would have to overlap; there would, effectively, be only one human, and that human would be everything in existence.
If there is no God, then there can be a "hive mind" concept, where everything is one.
I am told there are some advanced quantum mechanics which suggest its existence, but I can neither confirm nor deny that, because my knowledge of physics ended in the theories of the 20's.


finally, a being does not need to have the quality of infiniteness to know everything. humans don't know everything, of course, but there are ways of acquiring knowledge that have nothing to do with trying to increase one's "infiniteness."
Universe is not infinite, and I believe God does not interfere. That is the only reason we understand anything.



um, huh? totally unfounded assumption on your part. i can understand the precise properties of a line segment, even though the line itself is infinite. i can know many things about infinite numbers, quantities, and (theoretically) physical bodies. my knowledge of part, or even all, of those things does not impact their "infiniteness."
Even in Eucledian geometry, a line segment is not infinite. Just a "segment".
The mind cannot grasp infinity. It is not possible.


-the universe may or may not have a "beginning point." nothing requires that it had one, though we believe that is probably the case.
What created it?

-a universe that is currently infinite could have had a beginning, and may not have been infinite in the past.
What created it?

-the universe most certainly does not require a conscious creator-being in order to have been made.
What created it?

It couldn't have created itself. It didn't exist.


interesting definition. infinite in what quality? all qualities? if God is infinite in all qualities then every piece of matter (and non-matter) in existence is God. sort of a meaningless definition, if you are claiming "God" made the universe, don't you think?
Duration and complexity. If there are others, I am presently unaware of it.


why? why does anything have to equal infinity?
Because if it has a beginning point, it had to be made.
Not everything can have a beginning point...otherwise nothing would exist, obviously.



a laughable assumption. given the size of the universe, the probability of life arrising somewhere was very high to begin with. there is no need for a conscious being to have contributed. if such a being did contribute, there is no reason to assume it is intelligent, since many non-intelligent forces give rise to life as we know it. there is also no reason to believe that such a being is benevolent, since goodness is not a prerequisite for creation of anything.
The Universe was created. All of it. Meaning its laws were balanced.
ALL of its laws...a small deviation in the force of gravity could mean the end of life.

Of course, you do believe something can arise from nothing...perhaps you WOULD know something about laughable assumptions.


over all, your beliefs seem very poorly thought out. it's your business what you choose to believe, but i really hope you put a little more effort into your views on the universe...at the very least, learn some basic math, physics, and biology before you attempt to reach definitive conclusions about the nature and origins of the universe. you owe it to yourself.
Of course I owe it to myself. For what reason do you believe that I went through all this in the first place?
So far, I see nothing in your argument that is substantive in disproving mine.
I do, however, see the fear of an atheist, resulting in anger and personal attacks.
Very often, when I make the "first laugh" in an argument, it is defensive. This leads me to believe that, though you do not want to believe my conclusion, you do see something valid in this argument.
Either that or you're fascist.



Didn't we already discredit the whole God is caring and intelligent?

A omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God cannot possibly exsist given how the world is today.
Perhaps God thinks of benevolence in a different fashion than you?


1. What makes you think you understand the entire universe? I suggest you do not.
I don't. No one does. What I do understand is that we understand something...meaning there are not infinite variables.


2. If the mind is finite and is "unable to understand[] anything involving infinity," how are you able to understand the concept of infinity?
We understand it only as a very large or very small number. Humanity thinks in terms of absolutes..."Paris is the capital of France"
Can you understand infinite as an absolute? No, just a really large number.


3. How do you know God is infinite? You have merely assumed it -- an assumption that is about something you claim you cannot understand.
I don't know for certain if God is infinite, but something is infinite, and it isn't the Universe.


4. Why does a finite thing have to have a beginning? Why does an infinite thing not have a beginning?
If it's finite, it means it does not stretch infinitley in the past.


5. if I have one infinite thing and I add three more infinite things, do I have more than I started with?
See #2.

no

I don't believe in the existance of any one all-powerful being, so in the Christian meaning of the word, "God", no, I do not believe in "Him". I do, however, believe in higher powers. I like the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. and their concepts of dieties, male and female, none all-powerful, fueding and behaving as mortals, each one representing a different part of the universe.

First on the agenda, Bottle, learn to respect people. I have no qualms about people disagreeing with my conclusions, but, when one automatically assumes a position of hostility to a differing opinion, one is indistinguishable from a fascist.
Now, learn it, or shut up. I do not speak with those who believe in the same practices, Hitler did.
And, no, I am not being hypocritical; I am being retaliatory.

No, what you are being is childish. Bottle criticized your argument so you resorted to name calling.

What created it?

What created God?

What created it?

What created God?

What created it?

And what does the Turtle stand on?

It couldn't have created itself. It didn't exist.

God couldn't have created itself. It didn't exist.

Because if it has a beginning point, it had to be made.
Not everything can have a beginning point...otherwise nothing would exist, obviously.

What a beautiful example of circular logic. I'll have it framed and put on my wall.

The Universe was created. All of it. Meaning its laws were balanced.
ALL of its laws...a small deviation in the force of gravity could mean the end of life.

On what basis do you assert this?

Of course, you do believe something can arise from nothing...perhaps you WOULD know something about laughable assumptions.

You believe God arose from something. How is that less laughable?


Perhaps God thinks of benevolence in a different fashion than you?

Then the human word benevolence does not apply. Perhaps "cruel" or "callous" do.

I don't. No one does. What I do understand is that we understand something...meaning there are not infinite variables.

I understand chair. It does not have infinite variables.

That does not mean the universe in which chair exists has finite variables.

We understand it only as a very large or very small number. Humanity thinks in terms of absolutes..."Paris is the capital of France"
Can you understand infinite as an absolute? No, just a really large number.

Meh.

I don't know for certain if God is infinite, but something is infinite, and it isn't the Universe.

Why is something infinite?

If it was, you could not understand that it even existed, right? Because you insist that understanding even a fraction of something requires it be finite.

If it's finite, it means it does not stretch infinitley in the past.

But something could have a beginning and be infinite, correct?

And something could have an end but stretch infinitely in the past?

These are grade school proofs of God and do not hang together.

Got anything else beyond name-calling?

And who made God? And what does the Turtle stand on?

It's turtles all the way down!

Any fule knows that!

It's turtles all the way down!

Any fule knows that!

Shhhh. Ixnay on the ecretsay!! ;)

First on the agenda, Bottle, learn to respect people. I have no qualms about people disagreeing with my conclusions, but, when one automatically assumes a position of hostility to a differing opinion, one is indistinguishable from a fascist.

what does respect have to do with anything? your conclusions are incorrect, your assumptions flawed, and i was honest about both assessments. if you feel disrespected by honesty then that's your issue, not mine. kindly do not lecture on respect and then use the following language:


Now, learn it, or shut up. I do not speak with those who believe in the same practices, Hitler did.

i haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say here, other than that you are invoking the name of Hitler in some kind of attempt to discredit or insult me.


And, no, I am not being hypocritical; I am being retaliatory.

the two are not mutually exclusive.


Eucliedan geometry is an instrument of the past. It doesn't explain the universe's motions.

i suggest you purchase a modern math textbook. geometry still is used quite extensively in the modern world. geometry was never designed to explain the motions of anything, merely to describe forms, shapes, and mathematical properties of defined objects and points.


But, it is irrelevant. Lines do not actually exist. Just like the normal distribution does not actually exist.

simply incorrect.


You didn't even bother to read my whole post before you criticzed it.

i responded to your whole post, quite clearly. if you feel i could have responded to each of your specific points without having read them then i must disabuse you of that notion...i am unable to directly respond to things i am unaware of.


Admit it, you care nothing about logic. You are so avowdley atheist that you will never accept any argument to the contrary.

i am not an atheist. i also cannot admit that i care nothing about logic, because it is precisely on the basis of logic that i deconstructed your first post.


Anyways, if something is not infinite in duration, it means it had a beginning. That means something had to create it.

for an entity to have a beginning, it does not require something else to have created it. many other things may have caused it to come about, or it may have come about by random chance, or any of a number of other possibilities.


Math is ONLY complete means of understanding the universe.

that is pure opinion on your part. you are free to feel that way, but you have provided no objective proof that you are correct.


I can throw the ball up, and it may fall down, but that is only empirical. I cannot prove it will fall all the time, until I use math.

you cannot even "prove" it with math, techinically speaking. to do so you must embrace several mathematical assumptions (including but not limited to the scientific assumption of materialism), and these assumptions cannot be objectively validated because nothing can be mathematically established without them. it's a bit of an oruborus.


Even logic is incomplete (for the moment) becuase humanity's rational faculties are limited. This results in the "Flat Earth" theory.

logic does not result in the Flat Earth myth. human logic did, at one time, suggest that the Earth was flat, but growing evidence made that conclusion logically inconsistent. logic itself was not incomplete, merely the premises that humans were attempting to apply...this is a phenomenon you seem very personally familiar with.


But, if the universe is infinite in complexity, it must have infinite variables.

simply untrue.


How on Earth can any mathematical formula take into account infinite variables?

many mathematical formulas account for infinite variables. doing so is extremely common, in fact, so much so that there is a mathematical symbol for infinity. i was using math equations involving infinite variables before i was in my junior year of high school, so i would imagine that the brilliant mathematical minds of our planet are probably unfazed by using such variables.


If there is no God, then there can be a "hive mind" concept, where everything is one.

sure, there is that possibility. there is also the possibility that human existence is an illusion projected into our disembodied minds by the telepathic rays sent out by a race of polka-dotted sponge-like aliens. what's your point?


I am told there are some advanced quantum mechanics which suggest its existence, but I can neither confirm nor deny that, because my knowledge of physics ended in the theories of the 20's.

i'm not familiar with any such theory, but if you can find information about it please feel free to share it with us...it sounds like an interesting concept.


Universe is not infinite, and I believe God does not interfere. That is the only reason we understand anything.

i know you believe these things. i really don't care if you believe them. what is at issues is your assumptions; you assert things that are untrue or unproven and claim they support your beliefs, and it is those assertions that i am addressing. if you are willing to simply admit that you believe what you want to believe because you like believing it, then this discussion is over...but as long as you assert untrue or unproven things as "proof" or "evidence" for your beliefs i will continue to demonstrate how your claims are inaccurate.


Even in Eucledian geometry, a line segment is not infinite. Just a "segment".
The mind cannot grasp infinity. It is not possible.

a line segment is a portion of an infinite line. we can, thus, understand many portions of infinity without needing to understand the whole.

also, your claim that the mind cannot grasp infinity is untrue. my mind can, and i'm not terribly bright. perhaps you cannot grasp it, i don't really know, but your inability to do something does not mean that nobody can do that thing.


What created it?

it is possible that nothing created it. it is possible a series of forces gave rise to it. it is possible a giant turtle rose from the depths of the Great Nothing bearing the universe on its back. we don't know, but we have no reason to assume anything or any being created the universe.


What created it?

again, it is not necessary for the universe to have been actively or intentionally created for it to have come about.


What created it?

see above.


It couldn't have created itself. It didn't exist.

you are assuming a paradox that does not necessarily exist. in our universe, non-existent things cannot create themselves, but we are speaking about conditions before our universe existed and therefore you cannot make that assumption.


Duration and complexity. If there are others, I am presently unaware of it.

and you base your assertion on...?


Because if it has a beginning point, it had to be made.
just because you say this a great many times does not mean it will become true.


Not everything can have a beginning point...otherwise nothing would exist, obviously.

that statement is not logically consistent. why would it be impossible for everything that currently exists to have had a beginning point?


The Universe was created. All of it. Meaning its laws were balanced.
ALL of its laws...a small deviation in the force of gravity could mean the end of life.

the force of gravity varies from planet to planet, and we have measured this. or perhaps you mean the F=MA concept? don't forget about quantum physics!


Of course, you do believe something can arise from nothing...perhaps you WOULD know something about laughable assumptions.
actually, i have not said that i believe something can arise from nothing. in our current universe, i do not believe that is possible. however, once you move outside our universe (possibly to whatever existed before our universe) i know that our rules of reality may not apply. i cannot speculate about what might or might not have been possible in that situation.


Of course I owe it to myself. For what reason do you believe that I went through all this in the first place?

i don't know why you went to so much trouble to make untrue and unproven assertions. since you ask me to speculate, my best guess is that you are not well educated (yet) about physics, mathematics, biology, and current theories on the universe, and so you have decided to believe more basic and mythological explanations because they are more accessable. that is fine for now, but you should probably at least attempt to explore the scientific theories before you conclusively rule them out.



So far, I see nothing in your argument that is substantive in disproving mine.
I do, however, see the fear of an atheist, resulting in anger and personal attacks.

anger? no, i wasn't angry at all. a little disappointed, and i laughed in a few places, but i wasn't mad. i also don't see any place where i made a personal attack; i attacked your theories and your assertions, but that is not personal attack.

also, again, i am not an atheist. i also don't know what you think i would be afraid of, in this context; i enjoy debate, and i enjoy encountering alternate theories on the origins of our reality. i am not afraid to find my theories challenged. i am also not afraid to examine other people's theories with a critical eye...you seem to have reacted very strongly to that criticism, and although i don't usually like to go "freshman psychology" all over people, i have to say that the concept of projection is strong in my mind as i read your post.


Very often, when I make the "first laugh" in an argument, it is defensive.
This leads me to believe that, though you do not want to believe my conclusion, you do see something valid in this argument.

yeah, that would be projection.


Either that or you're fascist.

calling people "fascist" for disagreeing with you is childish and unworthy. if you do not want people to regard you in that negative light, i would suggest you try other tactics. i am not saying this to insult or degrade you, and i hope you will understand that none of my posts to you have been intended as insulting or cruel. if you feel you have been personally insulted (PERSONALLY, mind you) then please indicate where the personal attack was and i will address it directly.

*clipped for length*
well put. i'm starting to suspect this new poster is just a troll...i don't think anybody could really believe in such circular reasoning, nor do i think anybody would honestly react with such hostility to a basic debate.

well put. i'm starting to suspect this new poster is just a troll...i don't think anybody could really believe in such circular reasoning, nor do i think anybody would honestly react with such hostility to a basic debate.

Hey. You clipped my beautiful post -- you fascist! :p :D

Hey. You clipped my beautiful post -- you fascist! :p :D
hehe, yeah, i am aparently a fascist atheist...kind of fun for me, seeing as how i'm a libertarian agnostic :).

ALL BOW BEFORE MY BIG NASTY SAY-SO! YOU ALL MUST AGREE WITH ME, AND IF YOU DON'T I WILL COMPARE YOU TO HITLER AND YELL ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU ARE HURTING MY FEELINGS! RARRRRR!

Well, it seems the topic of religion and spirituality still brings out the best in people.

I believe in God. I don't know who he is, where he is, or what he is, be I believe he is. You can ask me to offer you proof of his existance, or tell me to justify my belief, but none of that matters to me. I just believe. It just seems natural to me that there is a...BEING out there (not part of creation, but standing outside it all) who shaped the multiverse. How he did it, I have no clue. Why he did it, I have no clue. What he does momemt to moment (if time even exists for him), I have no clue. In fact, I don't even think "He" is a he (and, NO, I don't think he's a she, either). I believe that, when discussing God, we have to bear in mind that everything we say about him is a metaphor. When discussing God, we are discussing something that is entirely beyond our limited human mind to grasp, and beyond our limited human language to describe. So, for any one person or group to say that they have the entire truth about God is, at best, a delusion, and at worst, a bald-faced lie. But does God exist? I think yes.

My beliefs about God and why existance is the way it is are entirely my own, and they're constantly evolving and changing. If people ask about my beliefs, I'll share them, but I don't obligate anyone to agree with me. I believe that spirituality is a healthy thing, but I am wary of religion, because it can be so divisive, and I honestly don't think that a God who would create us would have us be divided over so stupid a thing as how we worship him.

Yes. Logically, to me, there can't not be a God.

While in the future it may be possible to prove that God exists, it is impossible to prove that God does NOT exist.

Personally I find it better to believe that God exists.
Sound logic!

In what way is it relevant if god exists?

I've always had the impression that God doesn't believe in me, so I don't believe in God.

What the hell is the point in putting "no" (or indeed "yes")? You've already voted, we know you're opinion. This section >>> is for "Discussing" and "Debating."

Have a nice life

Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this
(and I know I'm double posting)
But why does everyone hate christians? It sucks.
Do you hate christians?

Oh boohoo of course there will be hate for us. Our hearts are no longer connected with the world and our souls are in constant rebellion against the patterns of it. Of course there will be hate. There was hatred for the very Person we worship and imulate. If he resides in the center of our hearts, there will be hatred for us also. Tell us something we don't know. Don't go crying about it, it's always going to be there. Hatred was what we were originally supposed to fight against spiritually at the cost of our bodily lives. It is very hard to fight against beings and things beyond our understanding without other people getting tripped out. The words are real, they are in this very argument.

Maybe I should start a seperate thread on this
(and I know I'm double posting)
But why does everyone hate christians? It sucks.
Do you hate christians?
Yes, of course. How can anyone with a clear mind and a minimum knowledge of world history not hate christians?

Yes, of course. How can anyone with a clear mind and a minimum knowledge of world history not hate christians?

what the hell r u talking about

what the hell r u talking about
your ignorance?

I wonder if God belives in Humanity?

And Yes, I belive in God. But not religion.

I wonder if God belives in Humanity?
And Yes, I belive in God. But not religion.How can you believe in god (which one?) without a religion that told you about god in the first place? Is belief a natural thing?

As the Creator, I demand that the flamming in this thread stop.

*every post in this thread*
You rule Cat! Now I need to kill you, eat your brain, and see if I become articulate...

I believe in God. And Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. If you don't your loss.

And the nays have it. I wish Ii had voted nay now, damn it. I voted don't know.

Go Team Atheist!

I believe in God. And Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. If you don't your loss.

Then I shall enjoy my "loss" to the highest extreme.

And the nays have it. I wish Ii had voted nay now, damn it. I voted don't know.

Go Team Atheist!
Exxxxxxcellent, a new recruit...

Exxxxxxcellent, a new recruit...

Get the beer! And the... Erm... What else would we get for this kind of an occasion?

*contemplates*

I believe in God. And Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. If you don't your loss.

eh, that loss is a good thing.

Get the beer! And the... Erm... What else would we get for this kind of an occasion?

*contemplates*
Little plastic horns? And drugs, lots of drugs.

Get the beer! And the... Erm... What else would we get for this kind of an occasion?

*contemplates*

how about pizza?

Little plastic horns? And drugs, lots of drugs.

I know! We could deposit the drugs inside the little plastic horns, and---

*is abducted by men in black*

Exxxxxxcellent, a new recruit...

I created this thread as a result of a spat I had with my Christian friend. After some whavering I've finally come to the conclusion that I do not believe in a God or gods. His response: "You're going to hell!"

Ah well. Yeha!

"I'm on the highway to hell!!!"

I created this thread as a result of a spat I had with my Christian friend. After some whavering I've finally come to the conclusion that I do not believe in a God or gods. His response: "You're going to hell!"

Ah well. Yeha!

"I'm on the highway to hell!!!"

you should have been in the 'how to annoy people' thread. christian t-shirts like this one, http://www.christianshirts.net/designs.php?id=43

I created this thread as a result of a spat I had with my Christian friend. After some whavering I've finally come to the conclusion that I do not believe in a God or gods. His response: "You're going to hell!"

Ah well. Yeha!

"I'm on the highway to hell!!!"
LOL. I'm a relatively new atheist too. Although when I was an agnostic I was really an atheist in all but name. I read this really good article on why agnosticism is an untenable position and that was it. I would link to it, but the link is down. :(

Quite a silly debate going on here. To say that God does exist is foolish. To say that he does not exist is equally as foolish. Unless you have proof either way, there's no solid way to answer it. Faith, i suppose, would be the factor to decide one's opinions on the matter.

you should have been in the 'how to annoy people' thread. christian t-shirts like this one, http://www.christianshirts.net/designs.php?id=43
"Pro-life" bumper stickers would just give me road rage. :p

LOL. I'm a relatively new atheist too. Although when I was an agnostic I was really an atheist in all but name. I read this really good article on why agnosticism is an untenable position and that was it. I would link to it, but the link is down. :(

Cool. The more I've discussed religion and God with my Christian friend, the more I've been drawn to atheism.

No more hidding behind the label agnostic!

I had a friend a few years back who was a total Jesus Freak. Every time we saw each other, he'd try to convert me. I wouldn't have any of it, though. Still, he kept doing it for years.

Then, about six years ago, he finally saw just how futile it was. He saw the hypocrisy of the Church, as well as his parents. He dropped his religion, and two weeks after he did, he and his family moved. I haven't seen him since.

It sucks when people move when they've finally turned around...

I see a lot of insecurity in my friend. I think that is what religion is based on. Insecurity. Fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, the desire to have somebody 'looking over' you.

He's like, "If God doesn't exist what happens when we die then!?"

My answer seemed to scare him.

I had a friend a few years back who was a total Jesus Freak. Every time we saw each other, he'd try to convert me. I wouldn't have any of it, though. Still, he kept doing it for years.

Then, about six years ago, he finally saw just how futile it was. He saw the hypocrisy of the Church, as well as his parents. He dropped his religion, and two weeks after he did, he and his family moved. I haven't seen him since.

It sucks when people move when they've finally turned around...

I was a christian just less than a year ago. I was agnostic for a while and then finally just stopped believing in god all together.

don't believe in the existance of any one all-powerful being, so in the Christian meaning of the word, "God", no, I do not believe in "Him". I do, however, believe in higher powers. I like the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. and their concepts of dieties, male and female, none all-powerful, fueding and behaving as mortals, each one representing a different part of the universe.

Just as a matter of curiosity, when/where/how did you get involved?
I don’t mean to sound aggressive, I just want to know, because there are so few of those these days.


No, what you are being is childish. Bottle criticized your argument so you resorted to name calling.
Fool. The same goes to you for not applying equal justice in the argument. In that “criticism” there were phrases such as “laughable assumption”


What created God?
Nothing needs to create God. It goes with infinity.

God couldn't have created itself. It didn't exist.
God always existed, because He is infinity.

What a beautiful example of circular logic. I'll have it framed and put on my wall.
The Laws of Causality may seem circular to you. The rest of the world sees them as elementary.

On what basis do you assert this?
“Awake!” True, not a wholly legitimate source, and a lot of their stuff is still faith-based, but they do have facts.

You believe God arose from something. How is that less laughable?
No I don’t. God never arose. He always was.

Then the human word benevolence does not apply. Perhaps "cruel" or "callous" do
Perhaps it is more benevolent to allow people free will? In which case, the only people you can blame for the world around you is your fellow man.

If it was, you could not understand that it even existed, right? Because you insist that understanding even a fraction of something requires it be finite.
We can understand that it exists, because we can see its affects. We cannot understand how it works.

But something could have a beginning and be infinite, correct?
No, infinite one direction. Not absolute infinite. Also, most things we have encountered that have a beginning, also have an end. We can't be sure, because things still exist (and therefore have not ended), but, so far, there is no evidence suggesting things will last forever.


These are grade school proofs of God and do not hang together.
I’m not seeing a hole big enough to discredit the basis of the theory
But, you might as do what any person does; run it against the competing theories.

Got anything else beyond name-calling?
The question is, do you have anything beyond faith? Do you have a reason for what you believe?


what does respect have to do with anything? your conclusions are incorrect, your assumptions flawed, and i was honest about both assessments. if you feel disrespected by honesty then that's your issue, not mine. kindly do not lecture on respect and then use the following language:
This post was reasonable and did not resort to any sort of insult. I will do my best to extend the same.
However, civil society and not resorting to words such as “laughable assumption” is the responsibility of everyone. So, yes, it is your issue.

i haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to say here, other than that you are invoking the name of Hitler in some kind of attempt to discredit or insult me
All fascists have the same beliefs about superiority and rights.

the two are not mutually exclusive.
They are in this case.

i suggest you purchase a modern math textbook. geometry still is used quite extensively in the modern world. geometry was never designed to explain the motions of anything, merely to describe forms, shapes, and mathematical properties of defined objects and points.
I do indeed have a modern math book. I have also listened through extensive physics lectures that completely disregard Euclidian geometry, because it only helps in the Newtonian system.

simply incorrect.
I have never seen a line. I have seen squares. Never a line. It's just a concept to help explain the universe.

i responded to your whole post, quite clearly. if you feel i could have responded to each of your specific points without having read them then i must disabuse you of that notion...i am unable to directly respond to things i am unaware of.
Yes, you did respond to every point given, but you didn’t read every point before you began to criticize them, because you criticized something that was addressed later on in the post.

i am not an atheist. i also cannot admit that i care nothing about logic, because it is precisely on the basis of logic that i deconstructed your first post.
What are you?
Either way, you didn’t give my argument a fair chance. You begin your post before even reading all of mine.

for an entity to have a beginning, it does not require something else to have created it. many other things may have caused it to come about, or it may have come about by random chance, or any of a number of other possibilities.
No. Laws of Causality are quite clear. For something to exist, it must have a cause to exist.
The Universe either follows this law, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground.
it doesn’t, then there is no God in the traditional sense of it, because the Universe if infinity, and two mutually exclusive things can’t be infinite. (Of course, the Catholics will just call the Universe the Holy Spirit, but that is besides the point)

you cannot even "prove" it with math, techinically speaking. to do so you must embrace several mathematical assumptions (including but not limited to the scientific assumption of materialism), and these assumptions cannot be objectively validated because nothing can be mathematically established without them. it's a bit of an oruborus.
Indeed, because we have not arrived at a complete understanding of our universe yet. However, through the “magic of math”, we can analyze exactly what speed we need to throw it in order to get it to an altitude of 22,700 miles. That is an understanding of the universe.
Perhaps the word “unbiased” is a better substitute for “complete”. Numbers do not lie.

logic does not result in the Flat Earth myth. human logic did, at one time, suggest that the Earth was flat, but growing evidence made that conclusion logically inconsistent. logic itself was not incomplete, merely the premises that humans were attempting to apply...this is a phenomenon you seem very personally familiar with.
Human logic did, and human logic is the best we have for logic unless aliens come to Earth. Human logic is always going to have a form of bias, even in this argument.
And, yes, I have no doubt that elements of my argument are wrong. I am well aware that my concept of “Benevolent God” is incomplete, and therefore partially incorrect. But I admit when I believe I am incorrect.

simply untrue.
How can it be otherwise? By simple definition, infinite complexity makes it impossible to understand.

many mathematical formulas account for infinite variables. doing so is extremely common, in fact, so much so that there is a mathematical symbol for infinity. i was using math equations involving infinite variables before i was in my junior year of high school, so i would imagine that the brilliant mathematical minds of our planet are probably unfazed by using such variables.

I am hesitant to believe you. I took Statistics oriented courses, and took only beginning calculus courses, so the few times I have run across infinity are in limits and in distributions.
It seems impossible, as well, but I am willing to attempt to sift through an example


sure, there is that possibility. there is also the possibility that human existence is an illusion projected into our disembodied minds by the telepathic rays sent out by a race of polka-dotted sponge-like aliens. what's your point?
My point was that there is a theory out there that explains how every human can be infinity.

i'm not familiar with any such theory, but if you can find information about it please feel free to share it with us...it sounds like an interesting concept.
If I find anything, I’ll share it. Not that I’ll understand it, for the reasons mentioned above.

i know you believe these things. i really don't care if you believe them. what is at issues is your assumptions; you assert things that are untrue or unproven and claim they support your beliefs, and it is those assertions that i am addressing. if you are willing to simply admit that you believe what you want to believe because you like believing it, then this discussion is over...but as long as you assert untrue or unproven things as "proof" or "evidence" for your beliefs i will continue to demonstrate how your claims are inaccurate.
Yes, I do admit that the concept of “Benevolent God” is based primarily on belief, because the reasoning behind it is very shaky. I consider the most probable explanation, though.
However, I have to see any evidence that suggests the Universe transcends the laws in it. I see evidence against it, making it the most probable explanation, once again.
And I see no evidence saying it is possible for something to have emerged from nothing.
But, you are right. There are some assumptions. For instance, that we all exist and this is not the dream of an autistic child.

a line segment is a portion of an infinite line. we can, thus, understand many portions of infinity without needing to understand the whole.
A good point, I admit, but is there such a thing as a line? Sounds like an abstract notion to explain shapes and forms, like you said, not something that actually exists.
Very similar to the original concepts of God…

also, your claim that the mind cannot grasp infinity is untrue. my mind can, and i'm not terribly bright. perhaps you cannot grasp it, i don't really know, but your inability to do something does not mean that nobody can do that thing.
Something that is finite does not have the capacity to understand infinity. It seems the equivalent of trying to show a fictional, 2 dimensional being, how great it is to know what “up” is.

it is possible that nothing created it. it is possible a series of forces gave rise to it. it is possible a giant turtle rose from the depths of the Great Nothing bearing the universe on its back. we don't know, but we have no reason to assume anything or any being created the universe.
Indeed, it is quite possible that whatever created the Universe is not intelligent, and performed an action purely by chance. I am willing to accept it if it becomes the most probable explanation.
So far, I don’t see it as such.

you are assuming a paradox that does not necessarily exist. in our universe, non-existent things cannot create themselves, but we are speaking about conditions before our universe existed and therefore you cannot make that assumption.
A good point. I had to think hard and long about this one.
Essentially, though, it says that, if I have not personally experienced it, then I cannot make assertions about it.
Under this logic, I am not allowed to say Kim Jong Il is the ruler of North Korea.

Another by-product is that we cannot assume 1+1=2, even though there is no evidence to the contrary.


Variables and equations may change, universe to universe, but laws of causality? It is not a mathematical formula, like the kind that can be used to describe strong force. It is a law of reason. (And, yes, I do understand that time is a direction, but it only slows down. It doesn’t stop)


and you base your assertion on...?
Because, for the universe to be absolute, it would have to extended infinitely long in the past. No reason to expect it to destroy itself.
It would also have to have an infinite complexity to have an infinite duration…because it transcends the laws of causality.
As valid an assertion as the assertion you are making in assuming you are not speaking directly to God Himself.

that statement is not logically consistent. why would it be impossible for everything that currently exists to have had a beginning point?
The Universe is the realm in which everything exists. The universe is the framework.
Everything in is subject to the laws of causality. They all had to have some sort of force to create it, something to set it in motion.

The framework has to transcend every known law, meaning it is infinite, or it also was created, by a differing infinity.

the force of gravity varies from planet to planet, and we have measured this. or perhaps you mean the F=MA concept? don't forget about quantum physics!
I refer more to the constant of gravity. “G”. (Though gravity is correctly a measure of distortion in spacetime?)

actually, i have not said that i believe something can arise from nothing. in our current universe, i do not believe that is possible. however, once you move outside our universe (possibly to whatever existed before our universe) i know that our rules of reality may not apply. i cannot speculate about what might or might not have been possible in that situation.
I see no reason to expect that laws of causality are something that can be manipulated
I do see some evidence to the contrary, however, in the Big Bang theory.
Admittdely, some conclusions made be invalid, as my knowledge is somewhat limited. But, if the Big Bang is true, it seems to me that such an explosion would result from something far denser than anything known today.
Including black holes.
Yet, nothing can emerge from a black hole. (Here comes the limit of my knowledge. I do not know the exact specifics about the theory. I understand that it is proven that black holes disintegrate, but I believe this takes place over a very long period of time, which would be inconsistent with the Big Bang?)
If it is true, it means that laws such as gravity have been known to vary between universes (the force of gravity is weaker in the Big Bang universe), but the laws of causality (clumping causes explosion) stayed the same.


i don't know why you went to so much trouble to make untrue and unproven assertions. since you ask me to speculate, my best guess is that you are not well educated (yet) about physics, mathematics, biology, and current theories on the universe, and so you have decided to believe more basic and mythological explanations because they are more accessable. that is fine for now, but you should probably at least attempt to explore the scientific theories before you conclusively rule them out.
In which case, I see no reason why you went through so much trouble, considering you are making an unprovable assumption that you are not speaking with a computer.

I did not make wild conclusions out of thin air, but based on an analysis of empirical and anecdotal data.


calling people "fascist" for disagreeing with you is childish and unworthy. if you do not want people to regard you in that negative light, i would suggest you try other tactics. i am not saying this to insult or degrade you, and i hope you will understand that none of my posts to you have been intended as insulting or cruel. if you feel you have been personally insulted (PERSONALLY, mind you) then please indicate where the personal attack was and i will address it directly.
Laughable assumptions”? No place in a civil society. It is an adjective with a negative connotation that has no purpose other than to insult.
Along with the apparent reality that you began replying to my post before you even finished reading my post, and it seems that you had no desire to consider it. I do, however, see a strong desire to bash people.
Behavior consistent with a fascist.


well put. i'm starting to suspect this new poster is just a troll...i don't think anybody could really believe in such circular reasoning, nor do i think anybody would honestly react with such hostility to a basic debate.
My school swept the Illinois CX championships this year. None of them have ever said that the opponent’s assumption was “laughable”.
If you feel you need to discard the laws of causality, by all means, so do it. But there is no reason to.


Now, Bottle, I am willing to level with you, since you were courteous in your last post.

You do have a point.
Every single statement we make is going to be based off of some sort of assumption. Like, we have to assume we are not all stuck in the Matrix right now. (How can we know for sure?)
No one has an absolute answer to that.
However, there is a difference between a conclusion and blind faith. There are reasonable assumptions and not-so-reasonable assumptions.
A not-so-reasonable assumption is the assumption that the Earth is flat after Magellan’s ship sailed around it.
A reasonable assumption is that Italy exists.
If you are going to argue that I cannot use any assumptions, then it stands to reason that there will never be proven fact, because there is always going to be an assumption.
Which means that everything must be argued based on the likelihood of its existence and the likelihood of its presumptions.

In which case:
I still see nothing wrong this theory. Even if it can be proven as an absolute fact, it has greater viability than anything else, especially the “God can’t exist because bad things happen” and “religion got things wrong” arguments.


Do you hate christians?
I have no time for hate. :)

I see a lot of insecurity in my friend. I think that is what religion is based on. Insecurity. Fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of death, the desire to have somebody 'looking over' you.

He's like, "If God doesn't exist what happens when we die then!?"

My answer seemed to scare him.

My friend was the exact same way. As he got older, he realised (yes, I'm using the original spelling, because the 'z' looks stupid there) just how stupid it all was. He was a much happier person when he dropped his religion.

"If God doesn't exist what happens when we die then!?"

Yeah, thats a basis for so many religions, they all try to answer that question. People are afraid of death so they need to find something to believe in so they can have comfort.

My friend was the exact same way. As he got older, he realised (yes, I'm using the original spelling, because the 'z' looks stupid there) just how stupid it all was. He was a much happier person when he dropped his religion.

If only mine would drop religion too. He's actually quite child-like in his beliefs, and though he tries to convert me often, he can't handle it when the debate turns complicated. He will just answer everything with, "God works in mysterious ways. We can't possibly know this or that."

Still interesting to talk with, if a little frustrating. :p

Yeah, thats a basis for so many religions, they all try to answer that question. People are afraid of death so they need to find something to believe in so they can have comfort.

Amen to that.

If only mine would drop religion too. He's actually quite child-like in his beliefs, and though he tries to convert me often, he can't handle it when the debate turns complicated. He will just answer everything with, "God works in mysterious ways. We can't possibly know this or that."

Still interesting to talk with, if a little frustrating. :p

Holy shit, that's the same thing my friend used to say! And yes, it was very frustrating to argue with him. Very.

Yeah, thats a basis for so many religions, they all try to answer that question. People are afraid of death so they need to find something to believe in so they can have comfort.
How true. Isn't one lifetime enough? I'm all excited looking into my future and I don't see an afterlife in there.

Holy shit, that's the same thing my friend used to say! And yes, it was very frustrating to argue with him. Very.

lol. Yup. They're all about simplicity. Don't like delving.

How true. Isn't one lifetime enough? I'm all excited looking into my future and I don't see an afterlife in there.

It's like these dorks who say "life is short". Life is long. Well, except for people like Sid Vicious. We all know how that goes...

lol. Yup. They're all about simplicity. Don't like delving.

Yep. This one day we were arguing, and he was being really stubborn and bitchy, so I mooned him. Hey, I was 8. What else was I gonna do?

It's like these dorks who say "life is short". Life is long. Well, except for people like Sid Vicious. We all know how that goes...
"One by one, only the good die young..." And musicians apparently.


lol. Yup. They're all about simplicity. Don't like delving.
Well, religion is the ultimate copout. I mean, if something challenges you can always duck out with "it's a matter of faith" or "we can't understand God."

How true. Isn't one lifetime enough? I'm all excited looking into my future and I don't see an afterlife in there.

"Some religions believe in a life after death. Less extreme denominations tend to view it as the other way round."

"Some religions believe in a life after death. Less extreme denominations tend to view it as the other way round."
:D Yeah, I was going to comment on that earlier, but I forgot.
Who is that a quote by?

No

:D Yeah, I was going to comment on that earlier, but I forgot.
Who is that a quote by?

Good question. I don’t rightly know. A cartoon elephant (with a south african accent) said that on a late-night comedy show I saw awhile back. He also said, "What if there wasn’t a God - Would anybody give a f*ck?"

Good question. I don’t rightly know. A cartoon elephant (with a south african accent) said that on a late-night comedy show I saw awhile back. He also said, "What if there wasn’t a God - Would anybody give a f*ck?"
Crazy...
But see, South Africans are wise... :p

Good question. I don’t rightly know. A cartoon elephant (with a south african accent) said that on a late-night comedy show I saw awhile back. He also said, "What if there wasn’t a God - Would anybody give a f*ck?"

How odd...

Crazy...
But see, South Africans are wise... :p

How odd...

lmao yeah. I've been trying to find out whether anybody of signifigance has ever said that, or whether it was just something the writers came up with. Either way, bloody good quote.

Oh! And he also said, "The key to racial equality is to treat everybody like your ******."

Oh! And he also said, "The key to racial equality is to treat everybody like your ******."

Aaaaalrighty then...

Oh! And he also said, "The key to racial equality is to treat everybody like your ******."
See, if he was really South African he wouldn't have said "******..."

See, if he was really South African he wouldn't have said "******..."

Ah, so the elephant's a poser! I knew it!!

See, if he was really South African he wouldn't have said "******..."

True.

You rule Cat! Now I need to kill you, eat your brain, and see if I become articulate...

Wow. Whatever you require, your Eminence.

Nisai']Quite a silly debate going on here. To say that God does exist is foolish. To say that he does not exist is equally as foolish. Unless you have proof either way, there's no solid way to answer it. Faith, i suppose, would be the factor to decide one's opinions on the matter.

Pfft.

Spoken like every believer that cannot justify his/her believe and will not simply accept it is irrational.

If you wish to believe in something despite the absence of any proof it exists (and not for lack of trying) and despite the logical impossibility or improbability of its existence, so be it.

But don't try to make it seem like a 50/50 proposition.

No.

There, simple question, simple answer.

As per.

No.

Well I am too lazy to read past page 12, but I must comment.
Firstly to the atheists, I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, no amount of arguing is going to help you to listen to the Holy Spirit inside of you. So I am not going to argue a point, but I will pray that God will show mercy on you and allow you passage into paridise even though you didn't beleive.
Secondly, to the evangelists trying to force their views on others in this thread, you are never going to truly win a heart over for Jesus Christ by arguing and putting down others beleifs. In order to draw people to God, you must show by example of Faith , Works, and prayer that they might one day realize the error of their ways and recognize some type of Divine presence in the world.
Thirdly, to people who think I am here trying to force my Beleifs on to you all. I am not, I beleive most all religions(minus like death cults and such) have some amount of truth in them and that as long as you try your best to follow your faith in a god or God.

But thats just one Catholic's view on things.

Sorry for such a long post. I've included an initial summary and highlighted my main points in bold so the flow of my argument can be followed relatively quickly and details can be examined at one's leisure and/or as one disagrees.


Summary:
Belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith, because we are unable to directly observe his presence with our senses. However, the need to exercise faith does not make the question of God's existence unarguable or irrelevant. On the contrary, people exercise faith every day in what someone else told them, in what they observe, and/or in what they infer from observation and authorities. The question is not, "Can the existence of God be proved empirically?" Obviously, we do not possess the observational tools to answer the question at this point in time, and we may never have that ability. The question for each individual is whether belief in God is reasonable. One can only research what authorities have to say and determine for oneself whether belief in God is reasonable. Ultimately, the existence of God is not determined by whether or not people believe in him.


Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality.

Of course, this is a bit of a circular definition considering the definition of reality:

- The quality or state of being actual or true.
- One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
- The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
- That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality
(See Dictionary.com: reality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality))

The concept of reality is just that: a concept. It is an intuitive assumption that everything persists in a unified and consistent state. Whether or not a person believes there is one reality, pragmatically he must interact with the people and the world around him according to the concept of reality in order to survive and stay sane.


Our ability to observe reality is limited.

Some people question whether anything can truly be observed as real. What we observe of reality must be experienced through the senses - sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. Many tools throughout history have been developed to heighten the ability of our senses to observe - rulers, microscopes, glasses, steroids, hearing aids, etc. However, the senses can be deceived. The movie The Matrix, for example, did a wonderful job of exploring implications of our inability to completely trust what our senses tell us about the world around us. Interestingly, science is primarily concerned with what can be repeated and "reliably" observed about the world around us. However, if our senses are not completely trustworthy, how can we then know what is real? We can safely assume that our ability to observe that which is real is limited.


What we "know" to be true must be based on either an appeal to authority (someone told me), questionably-reliable personal experience, or inferences from these two sources.

Generally speaking, all knowledge that you or I possess about the world around us comes from either something we experienced with our senses, something someone else told us - whether we read it in a book, listened to a lecture, heard it on the radio, etc., or inferences we have made by working things out logically in our minds based on those experiences or authorities.


Defining Faith

- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
(See Dictionary.com: faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith))

The definition I'm referring to when I use the term "faith" is "belief in the truth of a person, idea, or thing, especially when empirical evidence is unavailable." One exercises faith when he reaches the end of his personal experience and must decide to count something as true based on a source outside of himself. (Note: Even trusting in personal experience requires faith in one's own perception because, as previously noted, our ability to observe reality is limited.)


We exercise faith every day.

Whether you click on the "Submit Order" button of a website to complete a transaction or get up when your alarm goes off in the morning, you are acting according to what you believe is consistent with reality. In the first case, you believe that the company you are ordering from actually exists and is actually selling the product you just paid for. You also believe that the money will be taken out of your bank account or charged to your credit card account and that you will receive a package in the mail next week containing the product you ordered. In the latter example, you believe that your alarm clock is telling you the correct time and that the time is the same for everyone else in your time zone, including your boss who you believe will be at work ready to reprimand you if you don't get up now and get ready so you can arrive to work on time.

Even though we technically do not know for sure that clicking on that button on the computer screen will result in a new product on the doorstep one week later, and even though we do not know that our alarm clock is indicating the correct time of day, we believe that these things are so and we act accordingly. If you really think about what you do each day, you might be surprised at how often you are exercising faith - acting according to what you believe to be true about the world around you.


Faith becomes more obvious in cases that lack first-hand experience.

Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth? In Galileo's time, most people would have probably raised eyebrows at such an odd question and dismissed it as the most obvious thing in the world that the sun revolves around the earth. Why of course it does! For crying out loud! Every day you can see the sun rise in the morning, pass overhead, and set in the evening! What a stupid question! These people had faith in their personal experience. But even though they "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth, their idea of reality was incorrect.

Today, we can still step out of our houses, walk out onto our front lawns, and watch the sun trace it's path through the sky, but we "know" that the earth revolves around the sun based on what our parents and teachers tell us, what we read in science books, and even perhaps on inferences we make from observing the motions of heavenly bodies through telescopes.

The less personal experience one is able to apply to a question of fact, the more obvious the role of faith becomes in understanding what is true.


The issue is whether we consider the putting of our faith in something as reasonable.

When ordering something for the first time online, there is naturally some apprehension for many people. However, because we know other people who have ordered online and received their product, because we figure that it's pretty unlikely that those people would have lied to us, and for various other logical reasons, we go ahead and click on that "Submit Order" button in spite of the uncertainties. Once we receive the product we ordered, we see that our faith was justified, and we now have more confidence in the future that what we believe about the reality of online ordering is in fact true.

When we get up when the alarm clock goes off in the morning, we are probably dealing with fewer uncertainties than when we ordered online, and we also have the benefit of having experienced the routine of getting up in the morning many times before. However, we are still exercising faith, albeit a reasonable one based on previous experiences, in the time of day, the need to be punctual, and the displeasure of arriving to work late.


The question of God, therefore, can be addressed only through faith.

God is not directly observable by our senses nor with the use of current sense-enhancing tools. If he exists, we can only address the issue through faith in an authority outside of ourselves. We must determine individually if this faith is a reasonable one.


In the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, it is written,
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ... By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. ... Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

I am only 25, and I know I have a lot to learn about life. One thing I've learned through discussions like this one is that I need to remain teachable, and not assume that I have all the answers.

Fool.

Again with the name calling. Are you 12? Do we need to call your mommy?

You get all huffy about "civil society" but you call anyone who dares disagree with your faulty logic a "fascist" or a "fool." Remove the plank from your own eye.

Nothing needs to create God. It goes with infinity.
God always existed, because He is infinity.
No I don’t. God never arose. He always was.

Very convenient. Then the same is true of the universe. Hence, no need for God.

The Laws of Causality may seem circular to you. The rest of the world sees them as elementary.

LOL.

1. Hate to break it to you but the "Laws of Causalty" are impossible to prove and utterly illogical. You might trying reading the works of David Hume before basing your entire theory on a faulty premise.

Here are some introductions to the problems of Causality:
Wikipedia - David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_Problem_of_Causation) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - David Hume (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CausationN)
Hume's Problem of Causation (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm)

2. Your argument was circular.

You said:

Because if it has a beginning point, it had to be made.
Not everything can have a beginning point...otherwise nothing would exist, obviously.

L: Everything must have a beginning point.
CT: Why?
L: Because otherwise nothing would exist.
CT: Why?
L: Because everything must have a beginning point.

Yup, that is circular.

“Awake!” True, not a wholly legitimate source, and a lot of their stuff is still faith-based, but they do have facts.

LOL. Your assumption that the universe has balanced laws and all life would cease to exist if gravity changed in the slightest degree is based on what you admit is "not a wholly legitimate source" with mostly "faith-based" facts?

I am not familiar with "Awake!" (or it does not ring a bell). Who publishes it? What is it?

Perhaps it is more benevolent to allow people free will? In which case, the only people you can blame for the world around you is your fellow man.

People are to blame for tsnuami's, bubonic plague, etc.?

On what basis to you assume we have free will?

We can understand that it exists, because we can see its affects. We cannot understand how it works.

If you can understand that God exists because you can see its effects without understanding how it works, then the same is true for the universe.

Thank you. You have rebutted your premise.

No, infinite one direction. Not absolute infinite. Also, most things we have encountered that have a beginning, also have an end. We can't be sure, because things still exist (and therefore have not ended), but, so far, there is no evidence suggesting things will last forever.

Infinity as a mathematical concept has a beginning - zero.

For all your reliance on mathematics, you are now relying on a philosophical concept.

Regardless, whether or not "most things we have encountered" have had a beginning and an end is irrelevant -- particularly as you are the one assuming that something must exist that does not have a beginning and an end.

I’m not seeing a hole big enough to discredit the basis of the theory.

I would think a blind man could see light through the holes identified so far.

Your major premise is wrong.
Your minor premise is wrong.
And, even if your premises are true, your conclusion is wrong.

Hard to be more wrong.

The question is, do you have anything beyond faith? Do you have a reason for what you believe?

Yes. I have reason and experience.

However, civil society and not resorting to words such as “laughable assumption” is the responsibility of everyone. So, yes, it is your issue.

If someone's assumptions are laughable, it is perfectly accept to say so.

Do you wish us to lie and tell you that you are right when you are not?


All fascists have the same beliefs about superiority and rights.

Perhaps you do not understand the word "fascist."

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fascist)
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

I do indeed have a modern math book. I have also listened through extensive physics lectures that completely disregard Euclidian geometry, because it only helps in the Newtonian system.

There are many different ways of explaining parts of the universe. Geometry is one. Non-Euclidian mathematics is another. Quantum physics is another. They are not mutually exclusive.

I thought you said you were unfamiliar with developments in physics since the 1920s? (It struck me as an odd thing to say, so perhaps it was an error.)

Regardless, color me unimpressed.

I have never seen a line. I have seen squares. Never a line. It's just a concept to help explain the universe.

And what do you call mathematics?

No. Laws of Causality are quite clear.

No. See Hume as noted above.

For something to exist, it must have a cause to exist.

Why?

You are merely assuming this.

Moreoever, you make a nice little exception to explain your God.

Can't have it both ways.

The Universe either follows this law, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground. it doesn’t, then there is no God in the traditional sense of it, because the Universe if infinity, and two mutually exclusive things can’t be infinite. (Of course, the Catholics will just call the Universe the Holy Spirit, but that is besides the point)

It does not necessarily follow this "law." See Hume.

The rest of your point here makes no sense. Are you admiting the universe need not follow such a "law" and therefore God does not exist?

I am hesitant to believe you. I took Statistics oriented courses, and took only beginning calculus courses, so the few times I have run across infinity are in limits and in distributions.
It seems impossible, as well, but I am willing to attempt to sift through an example

Then you have much more to learn. Perhaps Bottle wishes to teach you more advanced math and physics. I will not. That is what schools are for. Perhaps one shouldn't develop entire theories of the universe and call anyone who disagrees a "fascist" or a "fool" until one understands the bases of one's theories.


A good point, I admit, but is there such a thing as a line? Sounds like an abstract notion to explain shapes and forms, like you said, not something that actually exists.
Very similar to the original concepts of God…

Mathematics is made up of abstract notions -- yet you claim you base your theory on mathematics. You cannot pick and choose which mathematical concepts are convenient for your theory.

Something that is finite does not have the capacity to understand infinity. It seems the equivalent of trying to show a fictional, 2 dimensional being, how great it is to know what “up” is.

Why?

We came up the concept of infinity. Your theory is based on it.

A good point. I had to think hard and long about this one.
Essentially, though, it says that, if I have not personally experienced it, then I cannot make assertions about it.
Under this logic, I am not allowed to say Kim Jong Il is the ruler of North Korea.

Another by-product is that we cannot assume 1+1=2, even though there is no evidence to the contrary.

Variables and equations may change, universe to universe, but laws of causality? It is not a mathematical formula, like the kind that can be used to describe strong force. It is a law of reason. (And, yes, I do understand that time is a direction, but it only slows down. It doesn’t stop)

What "laws of causality"?

What "law of reason"?

You make many, many assumptions and Philosophy 101 errors. You need to study these subjects.

Because, for the universe to be absolute, it would have to extended infinitely long in the past. No reason to expect it to destroy itself.
It would also have to have an infinite complexity to have an infinite duration…because it transcends the laws of causality.

Infinity in mathematics has a beginning - zero.

Why does the universe have to be absolute?

As valid an assertion as the assertion you are making in assuming you are not speaking directly to God Himself.

Please tell me you did not suggest you could be God.

The Universe is the realm in which everything exists. The universe is the framework. Everything in is subject to the laws of causality.

Again, big & unprovable assumption.

They all had to have some sort of force to create it, something to set it in motion.

Why?

[/QUOTE]The framework has to transcend every known law, meaning it is infinite, or it also was created, by a differing infinity.[/QUOTE]

Why?


I see no reason to expect that laws of causality are something that can be manipulated
I do see some evidence to the contrary, however, in the Big Bang theory.
Admittdely, some conclusions made be invalid, as my knowledge is somewhat limited. But, if the Big Bang is true, it seems to me that such an explosion would result from something far denser than anything known today.
Including black holes.
Yet, nothing can emerge from a black hole. (Here comes the limit of my knowledge. I do not know the exact specifics about the theory. I understand that it is proven that black holes disintegrate, but I believe this takes place over a very long period of time, which would be inconsistent with the Big Bang?)
If it is true, it means that laws such as gravity have been known to vary between universes (the force of gravity is weaker in the Big Bang universe), but the laws of causality (clumping causes explosion) stayed the same.

Again, full of faulty assumptions - chief among them the "laws of causality."

In which case, I see no reason why you went through so much trouble, considering you are making an unprovable assumption that you are not speaking with a computer.

I did not make wild conclusions out of thin air, but based on an analysis of empirical and anecdotal data.

You have made many faulty assumptions and false conclusions.

You have yet to provide any empirical data.

Laughable assumptions”? No place in a civil society. It is an adjective with a negative connotation that has no purpose other than to insult.
Along with the apparent reality that you began replying to my post before you even finished reading my post, and it seems that you had no desire to consider it. I do, however, see a strong desire to bash people.
Behavior consistent with a fascist.

Again, assumptions that are laughable are laughable assumptions. Truth hurts.

My school swept the Illinois CX championships this year. None of them have ever said that the opponent’s assumption was “laughable”.
If you feel you need to discard the laws of causality, by all means, so do it. But there is no reason to.

Color me unimpressed.

As to the "laws of causality," you know not of what you speak.

Which means that everything must be argued based on the likelihood of its existence and the likelihood of its presumptions.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Firstly to the atheists, I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, no amount of arguing is going to help you to listen to the holy spirit inside of you.

Firstly to the atheists, I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, no amount of arguing is going to help you to listen to Anubis inside of you.
And what a cute bottom he has :3

L: Everything must have a beginning point.
CT: Why?
L: Because otherwise nothing would exist.
CT: Why?
L: Because everything must have a beginning point.

Yup, that is circular.

And therefor it has no beginning point! It's God! :eek:

Sorry if the use of the word "Holy Spirit " made me sound confrontational. When saying that, I purely ment your calling to Faith. the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines faith as a calling by the Holy Spirit to do the work of God(paraphrasing, that book is to large for me to find the exact quote at this time of night lol) so by Holy Spirit, I ment whatever you beleive is the driving force behind your desire to do good.

I've seen colanders with fewer holes than Lokiaa's arguments. Cat put them all soundly to rest.

A reasoned faith is a gift -- from what I've read and discussed in my past, God doesn't want morons or automatons for followers. I have a healthy respect for those who can derive the relative solace and peace that faith can deliver. Thing is, faith is exactly what it is -- dependent upon the believer.

Most people's objections to the notion of the Divine are in reaction to the way God is used by we who crafted His image. Is God necessary? Of course -- so long as He is a concept that helps you get along in the world without killing one another. After all, religion is basically societal control -- not admitting that is just plain naive.

FAITH, however, is an individual accomplishment and ideally should only apply to the one who has come to terms with the Divine in and of themselves. To command or even suggest that one person's relationship with what he believes to be the Divine is the best or worst and should be either followed or rejected is utterly pointless in the overall scheme of life. I believe in the Divine, but in no way to I ever believe I have Its phone number.

It pleases me to believe that there is a spiritual component to existence. It pleases others to lord that initial belief over others to effect the gain of power in modest or massive amounts. God, as He has been represented for the vast majority of civilization's existence, is the leading cause of death in this world. I don't think that any kind of supreme being gives that much of a sh*t about what we all do. Then again, maybe he does. Either way, the whole mess seems more to me like a giant experiment that was crafted and is being let run, and whose duration is unknowable. Therefore, why argue about it?

I'm not saying that it's pointless or even unarguable, rather I wish that folks alive and here on Earth would point their energies into something far more relevant and meaningful and follow the Eleventh Commandment:

"Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself."

I doubt anyone will read this post, but I read all of those written in this debate. As far as I can tell, I've seen everything from denial to hypocrisy, and no doubt, I'll be accused of some or another logical, philosophical or even existential failings -- but one thing remains clear: the argument...especially the effort on behalf of the assumption that it can be won...is much like looking in an unlit basement at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.

Which can be fun if you like that kind of thing.

Peace.

-- His Royal Indifference,
Magister Spim III of The Most Serene Republic of Intangelon

Yeah, I believe in God. Who in their right mind wouldn't? I mean, look at the insurmountable evidence in favor of God:
If evolution is right, why aren't all organisms exactly the same? Easy. God created all life as it is today.
Why are there so few school gunmen that believe in God? Simple. Belief in God keeps them from doing so. See, the Columbine gunmen were atheists who believed in Darwinism and killed people because they believed in God. People who believe in God do not do such things.
Stalin, one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants in world history, was an atheist. On the other hand, the more peaceful leaders (Dubya, for example), believe in God and therefore make more moral decisions.
My belief in God has changed my life. I probably would not have made it as far as I have in as good a condition as I have. I know for a fact that I could not have made it to two ranks away from Eagle Scout without a strong belief in God. My political beliefs are affected by my religious beliefs.
Now for something in my e-mail inbox... (Sorry, no pics.)


DID YOU KNOW ALL THIS? I SURELY DIDN'T.

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law
the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Please forward this to everyone you can. Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

Thank you!!

Chamber, US House of Representatives

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having the 10 commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!! or go back to their country to live.

Firstly to the atheists, I am really sorry that you feel the way you do, no amount of arguing is going to help you to listen to the Holy Spirit inside of you. So I am not going to argue a point, but I will pray that God will show mercy on you and allow you passage into paridise even though you didn't beleive. Secondly, to the evangelists trying to force their views on others in this thread, you are never going to truly win a heart over for Jesus Christ by arguing and putting down others beleifs. In order to draw people to God, you must show by example of Faith , Works, and prayer that they might one day realize the error of their ways and recognize some type of Divine presence in the world.
Thirdly, to people who think I am here trying to force my Beleifs on to you all. I am not, I beleive most all religions(minus like death cults and such) have some amount of truth in them and that as long as you try your best to follow your faith in a god or God.Just because you sugar coat it with the "I'm only saying this because I love you as a fellow child of god" sentiment, doesn't make this type of message less offensive. I hold my beliefs just as earnestly as you do and frankly I see very little difference in the catholic tactic of passive agressive threat of hell to be any less hateful than the tactics used by the evangelists. Yes, telling or implying that people are going to hell for all eternity does come off as hateful, not loving.

The bible may have lessons to offer anyone but I sure wish people would heed this one in particular:

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)

As for me, I'm satisfied accepting responsibility for my own life.

Pfft.

Spoken like every believer that cannot justify his/her believe and will not simply accept it is irrational.

If you wish to believe in something despite the absence of any proof it exists (and not for lack of trying) and despite the logical impossibility or improbability of its existence, so be it.

But don't try to make it seem like a 50/50 proposition.

Spoken like someone who has no justification for things greater than himself, but is too afraid to admit it.

It is, in fact, a 50/50 proposition, just like whether or not a coin toss will land heads in any given try. I do believe in a form of God, but at the same time i understand it to be irrational. Face it, humans are irrational beings, despite how you may feel about yourself personally. It is a choice, and like i said its a very simple matter of faith. If you can explain, beyond a doubt, the things that are credited to God that people witness, then i will renounce my religion immediately. Otherwise, it is certainly not impossible, and to deny that would be just blind of anyone.

Yeah, I believe in God. Who in their right mind wouldn't? I mean, look at the insurmountable evidence in favor of God:
If evolution is right, why aren't all organisms exactly the same? Easy. God created all life as it is today.
You obviously have NO understanding whatsoever of evolution. What the hell do they teach you in school? Organisms evove differently to evolve differently to fill different niches and adapt to different environments. A big fleecy coat would be no good at the equator would it now?

Why are there so few school gunmen that believe in God? Simple. Belief in God keeps them from doing so. See, the Columbine gunmen were atheists who believed in Darwinism and killed people because they believed in God. People who believe in God do not do such things. That's an illogical argument. There have been plenty of killings in the name of God. Inquisition? Crusades? LEARN SOME HISTORY. The gunmen might have all had black hair, does that make all people with black hair killers? NO.

Stalin, one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants in world history, was an atheist. On the other hand, the more peaceful leaders (Dubya, for example), believe in God and therefore make more moral decisions. Um, This is where I begin to think you're a troll.

My belief in God has changed my life. I probably would not have made it as far as I have in as good a condition as I have. I know for a fact that I could not have made it to two ranks away from Eagle Scout without a strong belief in God. My political beliefs are affected by my religious beliefs.
Now for something in my e-mail inbox... (Sorry, no pics.) Good for you. My unbelief in God, and embracing of secularity has changed my life. I'm able to think clearly and rationally and fully develop as a person now.


DID YOU KNOW ALL THIS? I SURELY DIDN'T.

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law
the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?

Please forward this to everyone you can. Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on.

Thank you!!

Chamber, US House of Representatives

I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't. Now it is your turn...

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having the 10 commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!! or go back to their country to live.
So you advocate tyrrany by majority? Niiiiiiiiiiice. I can't wait for the you're a minority.

Undetermined. While I have no reason to believe in god (personal experiences don't count), I likewise have no reason to DISbelieve (disproof of prior claims eliminates only those claims, not all claims).

In general, I won't care until prodded about it, then I pull out the polaroids and the cell phone to call 60 Minutes or something and go god hunting... until I stop caring about it a few minutes later.

God has not been proven to not exist. But he has not been proven TO exist either, so therefore, he must not exist.
same thing were thinking the ancient people. For them radio waves, infrared and so on, didn't exist... and they said... it must not exist. What if we still don't know woh to search for Him?

1) As for the topic, no, sure as hell not. God can go to hell for all I care.
2) Just because 86% of the Americans beleive in god doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Also, looking at the lastest PISA study the Americans aren't the sharpest tools in the box. Not to mention that I doubt that statistic. How'd they know that 86% really do it? You can't ask all Americans, impossible. And if really 86% do it? Well, some people just enjoy to be manipulated and it would prove that Hitler was right after all. The large mass of people is blind and stupid.

So you advocate tyrrany by majority? Niiiiiiiiiiice. I can't wait for the you're a minority.

LMFAO!

Nisai']
It is, in fact, a 50/50 proposition, just like whether or not a coin toss will land heads in any given try.

A teacher in a statistics class asks a blonde -
"What's the probability of a seeing a dinosaur driving a car down I-95 around exit 16 at 6:30 in the morning?"
"That's easy, it's 50%! There are two possibilities - you can either see one or not see one!" :D ;)

A teacher in a statistics class asks a blonde -
"What's the probability of a seeing a dinosaur driving a car down I-95 around exit 16 at 6:30 in the morning?"
"That's easy, it's 50%! There are two possibilities - you can either see one or not see one!" :D ;)
:D That's the same probability that the tooth fairy exists!

A teacher in a statistics class asks a blonde -
"What's the probability of a seeing a dinosaur driving a car down I-95 around exit 16 at 6:30 in the morning?"
"That's easy, it's 50%! There are two possibilities - you can either see one or not see one!" :D ;)

Not funny. Don't dis blondes!

By 'God', do you mean God as he is presented in Christian texts, or any deity of source of divine power?

Not funny. Don't dis blondes!
Yeah I noticed that too. And the story would have been just as funny if Reason.... had omitted that part.

Yeah I noticed that too. And the story would have been just as funny if Reason.... had omitted that part.

:p he could have just replaced it with 'Ultra-Conservative Religious Nut'.

:p he could have just replaced it with 'Ultra-Conservative Religious Nut'.
:p Or "dumbarse."

C'mon, answer my question! I need this information in order to answer yours.

C'mon, answer my question! I need this information in order to answer yours.
I'm pretty sure it's a general question. You can be more specific if you want.

My question is very simple:
By 'Do You Believe in God?', do you mean 'Do You Believe in God as He Appears in The Bible?' or 'Do You Believe in a Supernatural Force That You Worship?'?

There's far too much scientific evidence to prove god isn't real . I didn't hear the bible saying anything about dinosaurs.

Yes... I believe in a supreme being... however, what if "God" is actually a Goddess?? Something to think about from the Wiccan participants!!

Show yourself, JRV! I want clarification!

So by that same logic we don't know whether Santa exists or not?

No we dont

I will not leave until my question has been answered, because I'm a stubborn prick!! I demand acknowledgement!! Acknowledge me, dammit!!

So, SEO, what's your opinion on the matter?

only on sundays!

There's far too much scientific evidence to prove god isn't real . I didn't hear the bible saying anything about dinosaurs.


So you are saying that you would rather let a group of men and women convince you that there is no "supreme being, because scientists say dinosaurs lived 100s of millions of years ago proven by carbon testing, which isnt always correct. Just because something wasnt metioned in the bible doesnt mean that it is true or false.

The Bible doesn't mention cats either, but that doesn't mean that Christians don't believe in them.

However, anyone who says that the world is only 6000 years old is in denial. They've done carbon testing hundreds of times for every fossil they've dug up. Unless it made exactly the same mistake EVERY SINGLE TIME, you'll just have to face that the world is hundreds of millions of years old.

The question was: Do you believe in a god, not if there is a god.

It's called belief

You don't need scientific evidence to believe in something.

Don't u think that science and religion go hand in hand?
For example, I believe that there is a God, but i dont believe in everything the bible tells us. I believe that God created the universe by creating the big bang, and that there is such a thing as evolution.

Im an atheist.

Many people like me will give one or two well used lines to advocate thier beliefs,

"I dont believe in god becuase bad things happen to good people."

Or something smilair.

I dont believe for slightly different and if I do say so myself, more thought provoking reasons.

If we assume that God is real, then we must assume that the intellect of god is vast, and unfallable.
Thus, why would such a being crreate man, and ask for his devotion, and yet, make the true knowledge of himself, uncertain?

Picture it:

"You there! Go forth and make my religion and church! Make sure all those people worship me right and proper.....I go now to erase all proof of my existance!"


The second reason is the much vaunted "God Has a Plan" scenario played out by most Christians.

They would like you to think that God, in his infinite wisdom, has a plan for you all laid out like a stone tablet.

This begs the question...
If everything I do is laid out,a nd all im doing is following God's plan, is there such a thing as free will?

If free will is an illusion...whats the point of having a mind?

Creation wouldnt work in such a way.

Finally, and this one may be in keeping with the "bad things happen..."

Some of the worst crimes of humanity have occured in the name of god.
No kind, benevolent god, would allow such things to occur in his name, if he could help it.

What do christians say about the recent tsunami in thailand?
Gods will?

I doubt it.

The question was: Do you believe in a god, not if there is a god.

It's called belief

You don't need scientific evidence to believe in something.

No you dont.

In fact..modern "faith" is simply that.

The belief in something for wich there is not one shred of evidence.

To be honest, you have nothiog to loose if you do believe in God. If you died believing in God and after your death learned there was no such thing, you would have lost nothing. If you died not believing in God and when you were dead found that there was a God, you would be doomed to eternity in HELL. So you have nothing to loose if you do believe in God.

To be honest, you have nothiog to loose if you do believe in God. If you died believing in God and after your death learned there was no such thing, you would have lost nothing. If you died not believing in God and when you were dead found that there was a God, you would be doomed to eternity in HELL. So you have nothing to loose if you do believe in God.


Ive heard this arguement before and its stupid. (no offense)

"If you die, believing in god, and find out that there is no such thing.."

Lets look at this.
This implies that there IS life in some form after death.
You cannot realize anything AFTER you die, unless the above is true.

So what?

If after 80 years of believing that God is real, you get to the next life and find out that your entire belief system is wrong, and that God is one big lie...
...your telling me that that wouldnt be the worst thing that had ever happened to you?

I would say the average christian has just as much to lose as the athiest.

You have nothing to lose by not believing in god either.

And honestly, I rather go to hell than having to spend eternity with some of these wannabe-christians with their "the christian god is the only true god" bullshit. Then again, I'm not christian, I'm not even baptised... so I can't really go to your christian hell since it doesn't exist for me, tough luck.

Besides... hell seems to be another distorted image from those monotheistic weirdos.

Though what really makes me wonder is... Have some of those god-screamers here ever considered the fact that... there are other religions except christianity and that the bible is just one religious book out of many (if not countless)?

Obviously not.

Western arrogance at its best...

yes - no - don't know is a bit to less answer...

i belive in something. no matter what gender, race or blah... just don't care... I go with the "Druids" the godly is within us all and surrounding us.

but I can't believe in a god that states himself fatherly and forgiving but tell's us we go to hell if we are bad. hey... if this god made us, we have all our bad sides of this god... so it's all his fault and he should go to hell ;-)

(and take all thos "we are the only real" religions with him.)

religion is somthing personal, not a thing which is the same all around the world. you don't wear the same underwear as any other too, do you?

This post was reasonable and did not resort to any sort of insult. I will do my best to extend the same.

really? your best seems hardly good enough, given the language of your last post.


However, civil society and not resorting to words such as “laughable assumption” is the responsibility of everyone. So, yes, it is your issue.

so it is my responsibility to not call laughable assumptions laughable, if i want to be a member of your civil society? sorry, i prefer honesty. if you don't enjoy that you can simply stsop debating with me.


All fascists have the same beliefs about superiority and rights.

that's actually not true at all. also, i still don't understand your reference.


They are in this case.

no, you may say they are incorrect in this case, but they are not mutually exclusive. do you understand what that phrase means?

I do indeed have a modern math book. I have also listened through extensive physics lectures that completely disregard Euclidian geometry, because it only helps in the Newtonian system.

hmm, then i guess you either need a) a newer book, or b) a slightly higher level text, or c) a good teacher. since you have aparently lacked these things, your ignorance is totally understandable. (please note that my saying "ignorance" here is not an insult, that being ignorant of certain things is not necessarily an indication of any personal failing, etc etc etc.)


I have never seen a line. I have seen squares. Never a line. It's just a concept to help explain the universe.

i've never seen Africa. i have seen Europe. never Africa. it's just a concept to help explain the universe.


Yes, you did respond to every point given, but you didn’t read every point before you began to criticize them, because you criticized something that was addressed later on in the post.

if you feel that way please indicate where i did that.


What are you?

why should you care? will my personal beliefs somehow impact how right or how wrong you are?

my criticisms stand on their own. if you can address them then do so. what my personal beliefs may be is not at issue. the very fact that you made so many wrong assumptions about my beliefs is an indication of your close-mindedness on this subject, so i would suggest you try to focus on the issue at hand rather than on labeling and name calling.

Either way, you didn’t give my argument a fair chance. You begin your post before even reading all of mine.

that is untrue. just because you say something does not make it the case.


No. Laws of Causality are quite clear. For something to exist, it must have a cause to exist.

laws of causality only apply in this universe. we have no idea what the laws might be, if there are any, outside of this universe.


The Universe either follows this law, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground.

the universe currently appears to be bound by certain laws, yes. however, it is possible that it is merely our understanding or perception of the universe which is bound by those laws. it is possible the universe at one time was not bound by those laws. it is possible that whatever it outside, before, beyond, benieth, or otherwise not a part of the universe does not abide these laws.


If it doesn’t, then there is no God in the traditional sense of it, because the Universe if infinity, and two mutually exclusive things can’t be infinite. (Of course, the Catholics will just call the Universe the Holy Spirit, but that is besides the point)
please be aware that "the traditional sense" of God has almost nothing to do with your particular conception of God. just because your particular traditions hold a given image of God does not mean that the majority of humans throughout time have shared those beliefs, nor does it mean that the longest-standing traditions allign with your personal traditions. you have provided one concept of God, that God is infinite...a great many traditions do not agree.


Indeed, because we have not arrived at a complete understanding of our universe yet.

also because mathematics inherently carries assumptions which cannot be escaped if you are going to apply mathematics.


However, through the “magic of math”, we can analyze exactly what speed we need to throw it in order to get it to an altitude of 22,700 miles. That is an understanding of the universe.

okay.


Perhaps the word “unbiased” is a better substitute for “complete”. Numbers do not lie.

numbers can lie very easily, actually. but feel free to put your trust in them...you could do a lot worse, i suppose.


Human logic did, and human logic is the best we have for logic unless aliens come to Earth. Human logic is always going to have a form of bias, even in this argument.

you don't seem to understand; the laws of logic will not reach any theory (like the Flat Earth Theory) without having premeses entered in. it's like having a calculator sitting in front of you, but not entering anything...it isn't going to tell you any answers by itself. now, if you punch in "7+4=" the calculator will give you the answer dictated by its "rules," just as logic will compute the solution to a given argument based on the premeses you enter.

now, if you are trying to calculate how old your 7 year old nephew will be in 6 years, and you punch in "7+4=" the calculator will not give you the correct age...this is because you provided it with incorrect input and thus did not receive the solution that is objectively correct. the calculator was not flawed, and it did not itself generate a "wrong" answer, you simply gave it the wrong input. that is how logic can lead to false conclusions, when the premeses are incorrect.


And, yes, I have no doubt that elements of my argument are wrong. I am well aware that my concept of “Benevolent God” is incomplete, and therefore partially incorrect. But I admit when I believe I am incorrect.

good for you. that is a rare and splendid trait in a human being.


I am hesitant to believe you. I took Statistics oriented courses, and took only beginning calculus courses, so the few times I have run across infinity are in limits and in distributions.

so you have encountered the mathematical application of variables for infinity. you claimed such variables do not exist, yet now you admit you have personally used them. which is the truth?


It seems impossible, as well, but I am willing to attempt to sift through an example

what seems impossible?


My point was that there is a theory out there that explains how every human can be infinity.

If I find anything, I’ll share it. Not that I’ll understand it, for the reasons mentioned above.

that's perfectly fine. you don't have to completely understand a theory to be interested by it...i don't completely understand string theory, but i think it's cool as hell :).


Yes, I do admit that the concept of “Benevolent God” is based primarily on belief, because the reasoning behind it is very shaky. I consider the most probable explanation, though.

then the part of your concept which is based on belief does not need to be debated, only the claim that it is "most probable" does.


However, I have to see any evidence that suggests the Universe transcends the laws in it. I see evidence against it, making it the most probable explanation, once again.
i've yet to claim that things inside this universe would be able to transcend physical law. i can't disprove that idea, but i too lack any evidence to suggest it is the case. what i have said is that we cannot speculate about the behavior of things outside or prior to this universe.


And I see no evidence saying it is possible for something to have emerged from nothing.

not in this universe, perhaps :).


But, you are right. There are some assumptions. For instance, that we all exist and this is not the dream of an autistic child.

precisely.


A good point, I admit, but is there such a thing as a line? Sounds like an abstract notion to explain shapes and forms, like you said, not something that actually exists.

it sort of depends on how you look at things...this is a mathematically complex area, and may be more of a tangent than we can handle right now.


Very similar to the original concepts of God…

an interesting observation! hmm...


Something that is finite does not have the capacity to understand infinity. It seems the equivalent of trying to show a fictional, 2 dimensional being, how great it is to know what “up” is.

i am a finite, 3 dimensional being, but i understand many things about the fourth dimension. you do too, to a certain extent, for you move through it constantly.


Indeed, it is quite possible that whatever created the Universe is not intelligent, and performed an action purely by chance. I am willing to accept it if it becomes the most probable explanation.
So far, I don’t see it as such.

you have yet to show why intelligence is more probable than nonintelligence in the Creator Force/Being.


A good point. I had to think hard and long about this one.
Essentially, though, it says that, if I have not personally experienced it, then I cannot make assertions about it.
Under this logic, I am not allowed to say Kim Jong Il is the ruler of North Korea.

no, that's not what it says. whether or not you have personally seen something has nothing to do with the point i was making. we have data on the existence of Kim Jong Il, North Korea, and the concept of a "ruler." we do not have data on events, forces, or objects outside this universe. your speculation on the existence of Kim Jong Il can be based on evidence, while your speculations on the nature of things outside our universe cannot.


Another by-product is that we cannot assume 1+1=2, even though there is no evidence to the contrary.

again, no.


Variables and equations may change, universe to universe, but laws of causality? It is not a mathematical formula, like the kind that can be used to describe strong force. It is a law of reason. (And, yes, I do understand that time is a direction, but it only slows down. It doesn’t stop)

we have no reason to assume reason, time, or causality will remain constant
outside this universe.


Because, for the universe to be absolute, it would have to extended infinitely long in the past. No reason to expect it to destroy itself.
It would also have to have an infinite complexity to have an infinite duration…because it transcends the laws of causality.

already addressed before.


As valid an assertion as the assertion you are making in assuming you are not speaking directly to God Himself.

i also assert i am not speaking directly to Elvis.


The Universe is the realm in which everything exists. The universe is the framework.
Everything in is subject to the laws of causality. They all had to have some sort of force to create it, something to set it in motion.

the assumption of the First Cause has been demonstrated to be a dangerous road to travel. a simple web search can give you some excellent resources regarding this.


The framework has to transcend every known law, meaning it is infinite, or it also was created, by a differing infinity.

untrue.


I refer more to the constant of gravity. “G”. (Though gravity is correctly a measure of distortion in spacetime?)

more or less. this is another major tangent in the making...:)


I see no reason to expect that laws of causality are something that can be manipulated
I do see some evidence to the contrary, however, in the Big Bang theory.
Admittdely, some conclusions made be invalid, as my knowledge is somewhat limited. But, if the Big Bang is true, it seems to me that such an explosion would result from something far denser than anything known today.
Including black holes.
Yet, nothing can emerge from a black hole. (Here comes the limit of my knowledge. I do not know the exact specifics about the theory. I understand that it is proven that black holes disintegrate, but I believe this takes place over a very long period of time, which would be inconsistent with the Big Bang?)
If it is true, it means that laws such as gravity have been known to vary between universes (the force of gravity is weaker in the Big Bang universe), but the laws of causality (clumping causes explosion) stayed the same.

this is a whole other thread on its own...i don't want to hijack this one to discuss it here, but it's a very interesting topic. if you wanted to create another thread about this i would be sure to visit. i think you have some interesting thoughts on it, though i don't entirely agree with them.


In which case, I see no reason why you went through so much trouble, considering you are making an unprovable assumption that you are not speaking with a computer.

oh, don't worry, it was no trouble at all! i visit here for pleasure, and it doesn't matter to me who (or what) i might be talking to.


I did not make wild conclusions out of thin air, but based on an analysis of empirical and anecdotal data.

not out of thin air, no. out of a misunderstanding of many concepts and theories, perhaps, but not out of thin air.


Laughable assumptions”? No place in a civil society. It is an adjective with a negative connotation that has no purpose other than to insult.

it insults the assumptions, not the individual. an otherwise intelligent person may make laughable assumptions. i don't know you, so i don't know if you are smart, dumb, or a magical frog...all i know is that your assumptions had certain qualities, one of which was to make me laugh out loud.

also, you keep refering to "civil society." perhaps it would be best if we simply agree that i am not a member of your "civil society," so that you don't continue to waste time expecting me to follow its rules. i am a scientist by trade, and we are notoriously uncivil. ;)

Along with the apparent reality that you began replying to my post before you even finished reading my post, and it seems that you had no desire to consider it. I do, however, see a strong desire to bash people.

again with your insistance that i did not read your post. if you would like to support that with any sort of evidence feel free, but you seem to have such fun claiming that i am "bashing people" that i hate to spoil your party...


Behavior consistent with a fascist.
to borrow a line,

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.


My school swept the Illinois CX championships this year. None of them have ever said that the opponent’s assumption was “laughable”.

that's nice.


If you feel you need to discard the laws of causality, by all means, so do it. But there is no reason to.

outside this universe, there is no reason to cling to them either.


Now, Bottle, I am willing to level with you, since you were courteous in your last post.

i'm glad my good behavior has earned me a measure of honesty from you.


You do have a point.
Every single statement we make is going to be based off of some sort of assumption. Like, we have to assume we are not all stuck in the Matrix right now. (How can we know for sure?)
No one has an absolute answer to that.
However, there is a difference between a conclusion and blind faith. There are reasonable assumptions and not-so-reasonable assumptions.
A not-so-reasonable assumption is the assumption that the Earth is flat after Magellan’s ship sailed around it.
A reasonable assumption is that Italy exists.
If you are going to argue that I cannot use any assumptions, then it stands to reason that there will never be proven fact, because there is always going to be an assumption.
Which means that everything must be argued based on the likelihood of its existence and the likelihood of its presumptions.

okay.


In which case:
I still see nothing wrong this theory. Even if it can be proven as an absolute fact, it has greater viability than anything else, especially the “God can’t exist because bad things happen” and “religion got things wrong” arguments.

huh? if your theory were proven to be absolute fact then OBVIOUSLY it would be more viable than anything else.

i see many things wrong with your theory, and i (as well as Cat, i believe) have pointed them out. if you continue to see nothing wrong with it then you might want to re-read some of our material.

as for the “God can’t exist because bad things happen” and “religion got things wrong” arguments, they are obviously poor arguments. which is why nobody here is making them. they are straw men.

I have no time for hate. :)
i find that most people have no time for hate, and yet do not let that stop them...but, anyhow, it's good to know you intend to keep your cool from now on.

Nope I don't.

To be honest, you have nothiog to loose if you do believe in God. If you died believing in God and after your death learned there was no such thing, you would have lost nothing. If you died not believing in God and when you were dead found that there was a God, you would be doomed to eternity in HELL. So you have nothing to loose if you do believe in God.

1st this assumes that your one god is the right god.
2nd it assumes that by simply believing in that one god that you will get into said heaven.
3rd i assumes that hell is really o so bad.

What if youve got the wrong god completely and when you end up outside the pearly white gates Allah turns to you and says hard luck son.
Or what if you got it right and when you arrive god simply says im sorry but you didnt follo all the rules i clearly made exactly down to a T. Or you didnt kill enough people in my name its hell for you.
What if when you get to hell (which you most definatly will if you sin in any way because there is no 2nd redemption, or there is depending on what part of the book you interpret in your own way) its just a party house.

It makes perfect sense that god rewards you for doing his work all your life and the devil tortures you for doing his? surely the devil can be bought off (sell my sould for a big demon bird thing to fly about hell and also less torture please :)

Hell it could all turn out that god is some mad sadistic maniac (different from the one he is discribed as in the bible) and when everyone is in the queue at the end of the world (or whatever) he laughs and tells everyone that he gave no proof of his existance and he never asked anyone to believe in him and he sends everyone who had faith to hell and only atheists go to heaven.

So as i may have got accross in this post, when dealing with the unknown (and the whole pascals wager thing) its entirely possible that just believeing wont be enough and it some cases may actually be the wrong decision to make entirely.

1st this assumes that your one god is the right god.
2nd it assumes that by simply believing in that one god that you will get into said heaven.
3rd i assumes that hell is really o so bad.

What if youve got the wrong god completely and when you end up outside the pearly white gates Allah turns to you and says hard luck son.
Or what if you got it right and when you arrive god simply says im sorry but you didnt follo all the rules i clearly made exactly down to a T. Or you didnt kill enough people in my name its hell for you.
What if when you get to hell (which you most definatly will if you sin in any way because there is no 2nd redemption, or there is depending on what part of the book you interpret in your own way) its just a party house.

It makes perfect sense that god rewards you for doing his work all your life and the devil tortures you for doing his? surely the devil can be bought off (sell my sould for a big demon bird thing to fly about hell and also less torture please :)

Hell it could all turn out that god is some mad sadistic maniac (different from the one he is discribed as in the bible) and when everyone is in the queue at the end of the world (or whatever) he laughs and tells everyone that he gave no proof of his existance and he never asked anyone to believe in him and he sends everyone who had faith to hell and only atheists go to heaven.

So as i may have got accross in this post, when dealing with the unknown (and the whole pascals wager thing) its entirely possible that just believeing wont be enough and it some cases may actually be the wrong decision to make entirely.

Satan has you well in hand, my friend. You can question what God could be all your life. But until you start actually thinking that God is THE God, and Jesus is THE Savior, you're absolutely screwed. Hell is no freakin' party house, God is no sadistic maniac, He never asks you to kill people in His name, Allah, even from its very own history, does not exist (Allah was more of a banner that the religiously separated Middle Easterners united under wth the word of Muhammed), and I garuntee that satan can not be bought off. Once you're in hell, you're in his domain, and he will do what he pleases, even if you 'signed a contract.' After all, satan speaks his own tounge when he lies.

Nor will satan torture you for doing his work. You will be tortured according to the amount you can take. If you have the power to overcome what I could not in hell, your torture will be oh, so much worse. Satan doesn't care what the heck you do as long as it doesn't bring you closer to God and farther from him.

Oh boohoo of course there will be hate for us. Our hearts are no longer connected with the world and our souls are in constant rebellion against the patterns of it. Of course there will be hate. There was hatred for the very Person we worship and imulate. If he resides in the center of our hearts, there will be hatred for us also. Tell us something we don't know. Don't go crying about it, it's always going to be there. Hatred was what we were originally supposed to fight against spiritually at the cost of our bodily lives. It is very hard to fight against beings and things beyond our understanding without other people getting tripped out. The words are real, they are in this very argument.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone hated you!

I wouldn't be surprised if someone hated you!

Whose quote was that?

,

[QUOTE]He never asks you to kill people in His name, Allah, even from its very own history, does not exist (Allah was more of a banner that the religiously separated Middle Easterners united under wth the word of Muhammed),

Allah is Arabic for God. There is only one God.

Satan has you well in hand, my friend. You can question what God could be all your life. But until you start actually thinking that God is THE God, and Jesus is THE Savior, you're absolutely screwed. Hell is no freakin' party house, God is no sadistic maniac, He never asks you to kill people in His name, Allah, even from its very own history, does not exist (Allah was more of a banner that the religiously separated Middle Easterners united under wth the word of Muhammed), and I garuntee that satan can not be bought off. Once you're in hell, you're in his domain, and he will do what he pleases, even if you 'signed a contract.' After all, satan speaks his own tounge when he lies.

Nor will satan torture you for doing his work. You will be tortured according to the amount you can take. If you have the power to overcome what I could not in hell, your torture will be oh, so much worse. Satan doesn't care what the heck you do as long as it doesn't bring you closer to God and farther from him.
You seem to have missed part of the argument.
This:

1st this assumes that your one god is the right god.
2nd it assumes that by simply believing in that one god that you will get into said heaven.
3rd i assumes that hell is really o so bad.
To sum up Stoned Bureaucracy's argument, how is it that you know what you believe is true?

You seem to have missed part of the argument.
This:

To sum up Stoned Bureaucracy's argument, how is it that you know what you believe is true?

Because it is. I know it is true. I could say "all the evidence," but I would be lying.
I believe in the Truth simply because it is the Truth. There should be no other reason. You say you need proof? Why? Christianity is the Relationship built off of faith.

[QUOTE=Vespucii],



Allah is Arabic for God. There is only one God.

Do you know the history?

The Middle East was not united, separated by a hundred different religions. Enter Muhammed, a great conquerer who claimed that he had a vision that their God was to be Allah. Then, with the entire region behind him, he began to an invasion of quite a large area. Now, the visions and the God he claimed were true re a major world religion.

[QUOTE=GoodThoughts]

Do you know the history?

The Middle East was not united, separated by a hundred different religions. Enter Muhammed, a great conquerer who claimed that he had a vision that their God was to be Allah. Then, with the entire region behind him, he began to an invasion of quite a large area. Now, the visions and the God he claimed were true re a major world religion.

I do know the history, and Allah still means God. The same God of Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha and today Baha'u'lah.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

I do know the history, and Allah still means God. The same God of Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha and today Baha'u'lah.

Even the Romans called Jupiter god. That doesn't mean he was the same god.

No, I don't believe in a Big Guy In Da Sky. :rolleyes:

And if he existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

[QUOTE=GoodThoughts]

Even the Romans called Jupiter god. That doesn't mean he was the same god.

Even the Greeks and Romans realized that there was a higher Unity that united all of their gods.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

No, I don't believe in a Big Guy In Da Sky. :rolleyes:

And if he existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

That's REAL nice.
Let's start an intelligent debate on the subject, and see who wins. Science, or God?

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

Even the Greeks and Romans realized that there was a higher Unity that united all of their gods.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)


You know that that verse is a reference to Jesus with God.

[QUOTE=GoodThoughts]


You know that that verse is a reference to Jesus with God.

So therefore Jesus can not be God, but a Messenger of God. I gotta go.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

So therefore Jesus can not be God, but a Messenger of God. I gotta go.
Jesus is both God's son AND God. It's a concept that twists the human mind out of shape.

If nobody's going to respond, then I'm LEAVING.

That's REAL nice.
Let's start an intelligent debate on the subject, and see who wins. Science, or God?
Nice? I don't believe so. I was being objective, which wouldn't make it nice or mean. Just what it was.

Perhaps you didn't like my choice of words, but those are the exact impressions one would rationally draw from reading the bible (and I have, cover-to-cover... twice).

I'm a reformed dedicated Christian. I've found Buddhism so much more satisfying, once I let go of the fantasy-father-figure.

:confused: [QUOTE=Vespucii]

So therefore Jesus can not be God, but a Messenger of God. I gotta go.
You're confused. There's plenty of manifestations of God, from burning bush to incarnate son.
That's not confusing. God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. How's that a hard equation? :confused:

:confused: [QUOTE=GoodThoughts]
You're confused. There's plenty of manifestations of God, from burning bush to incarnate son.
That's not confusing. God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. How's that a hard equation? :confused:

I can only stay for a little while. The equation is not that hard. Except that Jesus said that His Father is greater than Him. So how can Jesus be God?

The following quote say we have never heard the voice of the Father, yet those who lived in the time of Jesus must have heard the voice of Jesus. It seems to me that Jesus is telling us that He is not the same as the Father.

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

(King James Bible, John)

Do you believe in God?
Not the Christian God...

That's REAL nice.
Let's start an intelligent debate on the subject, and see who wins. Science, or God?
God created Science ;)

:confused: [QUOTE=GoodThoughts]
You're confused. There's plenty of manifestations of God, from burning bush to incarnate son.
That's not confusing. God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. How's that a hard equation? :confused:

that stuff that growls at the back of my fridge may be the holy spirit trying to make contact. And an image of some lady keeps appearing in my butter.

[QUOTE=Eichen]:confused:

that stuff that growls at the back of my fridge may be the holy spirit trying to make contact. And an image of some lady keeps appearing in my butter.

I'm not sure what the growling stuff is , but the lady in your butter is probably Betty Crocker.

God created Science ;)
Aye

Yes, I believe in God. But it is purely a matter of faith. I would never, ever, force anyone else to live life according to my beliefs. In terms of being afraid, I believe that as long as you are a moral individual, you will get to heaven. But once again, I leave eternal judgment to God.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

I'm not sure what the growling stuff is , but the lady in your butter is probably Betty Crocker.

I think the growling stuff could be either spinach, or meat sauce. Both have a tendancy to come alive when left in a cool environment for long enough.
Maybe it's the spinach growling at the meat sauce that is encroaching on its territory?

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

I'm not sure what the growling stuff is , but the lady in your butter is probably Betty Crocker.

And I can't keep fish in it. Someone keeps stealing it and leaving bread instead.

[QUOTE=GoodThoughts]

And I can't keep fish in it. Someone keeps stealing it and leaving bread instead.
It's the growling spinach. Spinichus animus has a diet of fish, and the digestive system produces whole-wheat bread as a waste product.
Don't believe me? Then where do all those stores get their healthy bread from? Bread is grown white.

[QUOTE=GoodThoughts]
Jesus is both God's son AND God. It's a concept that twists the human mind out of shape.

Yes how convenient. The whole Holy Trinity system is a wacky way for christians to try to still be monotheistic.

So why would Jesus then refer God as father? Isn't that like God refering to another God as father? Isn't he then just praying to himself? Or another way to look at it is talking to ones self. Great! Lets base our religion on a guy who talks to himself.

"Its a concept that twists the human mind out of shape"

So I guess that means it doesn't have to make sence. Neither do flying pink bunnies but I don't see anyone believing in them.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]
It's the growling spinach. Spinichus animus has a diet of fish, and the digestive system produces whole-wheat bread as a waste product.
Don't believe me? Then where do all those stores get their healthy bread from? Bread is grown white.

What's this a literalist with a sense of humor! How odd. Are Irish by any chance?

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

What's this a literalist with a sense of humor! How odd. Are Irish by any chance?

ha Ha HA! ....That's mean!

No, not Irish.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]
It's the growling spinach. Spinichus animus has a diet of fish, and the digestive system produces whole-wheat bread as a waste product.
Don't believe me? Then where do all those stores get their healthy bread from? Bread is grown white.

Those pilgrims in my kitchen are going to be so dissappointed.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

Yes how convenient. The whole Holy Trinity system is a wacky way for christians to try to still be monotheistic.

So why would Jesus then refer God as father? Isn't that like God refering to another God as father? Isn't he then just praying to himself? Or another way to look at it is talking to ones self. Great! Lets base our religion on a guy who talks to himself.

"Its a concept that twists the human mind out of shape"

So I guess that means it doesn't have to make sence. Neither do flying pink bunnies but I don't see anyone believing in them.

Humans are tiny, finite creatures with almost no capacity to do anything when compared to their Creator. God is not anything we can fathom: his power is beyond our capablilty of understanding, His love is farther stretching than we can ever imagine, His intelligence is of a caliber which we could never measure, even Him Himself is completely beyond the limits of our mind. I could not try to fathom the distances 'twixt the stars, nor could I even begin to imagine what God is like.
When I say that Jesus is God, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is God, the Spirit is Jesus, God is the Spirit, and God is Jesus, I mean what I say, but when I say that the three are also entirely separate, that must be taken into account as well.
If you don't want to be unable to comprehend it, then fine, call us polytheists. We are still right no matter what name you can plaster to us.

[QUOTE=Cinnamon Robots]

Humans are tiny, finite creatures with almost no capacity to do anything when compared to their Creator. God is not anything we can fathom: his power is beyond our capablilty of understanding, His love is farther stretching than we can ever imagine, His intelligence is of a caliber which we could never measure, even Him Himself is completely beyond the limits of our mind. I could not try to fathom the distances 'twixt the stars, nor could I even begin to imagine what God is like.
When I say that Jesus is God, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is God, the Spirit is Jesus, God is the Spirit, and God is Jesus, I mean what I say, but when I say that the three are also entirely separate, that must be taken into account as well.
If you don't want to be unable to comprehend it, then fine, call us polytheists. We are still right no matter what name you can plaster to us.
""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone."" (Mark 10:18)

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of God Almighty the trinity was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

Those pilgrims in my kitchen are going to be so dissappointed.

It's their fault in the first place.

[QUOTE=Cinnamon Robots]

Humans are tiny, finite creatures with almost no capacity to do anything when compared to their Creator. God is not anything we can fathom: his power is beyond our capablilty of understanding, His love is farther stretching than we can ever imagine, His intelligence is of a caliber which we could never measure, even Him Himself is completely beyond the limits of our mind. I could not try to fathom the distances 'twixt the stars, nor could I even begin to imagine what God is like.
When I say that Jesus is God, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is God, the Spirit is Jesus, God is the Spirit, and God is Jesus, I mean what I say, but when I say that the three are also entirely separate, that must be taken into account as well.
If you don't want to be unable to comprehend it, then fine, call us polytheists. We are still right no matter what name you can plaster to us.

And this is why I don't like religion, you always seem to enjoy degrading yourselves in the name of God.

"Let us thank God for this wonderful meal."

No let us thank ourselves for all the hard work we did to earn the money to BUY our own food and our own time to cook it. Unless God magicaly zapped down a meal for me I'm not going to be thanking no one but those who worked for it and cooked it. That'd be me and my family.

Or how about that whole "God protected my son in the war." thing. Well yeah? What about the other people who got killed? I guess God didn't really give a damn about them eh?

Or those losers who pray to god that their football team wins? Then when they do win they thank God for their victory. Hah right, like God would have time to watch over and control a high school football match.

Anyway I'm rambling, pet peeves, I just hate how religion gives to much credit to a higher being. I refuse to believe in any such thing, all we live for and accomplish we do with our own power for ourselves and the people we love.

[QUOTE=Cinnamon Robots]

Humans are tiny, finite creatures with almost no capacity to do anything when compared to their Creator. God is not anything we can fathom: his power is beyond our capablilty of understanding, His love is farther stretching than we can ever imagine, His intelligence is of a caliber which we could never measure, even Him Himself is completely beyond the limits of our mind. I could not try to fathom the distances 'twixt the stars, nor could I even begin to imagine what God is like.
When I say that Jesus is God, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is God, the Spirit is Jesus, God is the Spirit, and God is Jesus, I mean what I say, but when I say that the three are also entirely separate, that must be taken into account as well.
If you don't want to be unable to comprehend it, then fine, call us polytheists. We are still right no matter what name you can plaster to us.

How do you explain the many statements where Jesus calls His Father greater than Him. There are other explainations. That Jesus is the Mouthpiece of God. He spoke with the authority of God. That is what the title Son of God implies, He represented God on earth just as the son may speak for his father in matters here on earth.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]
""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone."" (Mark 10:18)

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of God Almighty the trinity was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.

You're taking the verse a little out of context.
Jesus was not denying his own goodness, in a sense, but, when the man says 'good teacher,' may actually be making the man consider whom he is really talking to.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

It's their fault in the first place.

Yeah...The bastards were keeping me up at night with their "Mary is in the butter" crap anyway.

Gotta go for now.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

And this is why I don't like religion, you always seem to enjoy degrading yourselves in the name of God.

"Let us thank God for this wonderful meal."

No let us thank ourselves for all the hard work we did to earn the money to BUY our own food and our own time to cook it. Unless God magicaly zapped down a meal for me I'm not going to be thanking no one but those who worked for it and cooked it. That'd be me and my family.

Or how about that whole "God protected my son in the war." thing. Well yeah? What about the other people who got killed? I guess God didn't really give a damn about them eh?

Or those losers who pray to god that their football team wins? Then when they do win they thank God for their victory. Hah right, like God would have time to watch over and control a high school football match.

Anyway I'm rambling, pet peeves, I just hate how religion gives to much credit to a higher being. I refuse to believe in any such thing, all we live for and accomplish we do with our own power for ourselves and the people we love.

Submission to God, making yourself lower than him, is, to quite a few people, the ultimate inner pleasure, that is why so many do it.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

Yeah...The bastards were keeping me up at night with their "Mary is in the butter" crap anyway.

I think you know what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Cinnamon Robots]

Submission to God, making yourself lower than him, is, to quite a few people, the ultimate inner pleasure, that is why so many do it.
One of the reasons why Islam is called what it is. If you didn't know already, the word Islam means 'Submission'.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

I think you know what I'm talking about.

:confused: actually...no

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

:confused: actually...no

Don't play with me. Don't make me get out the big guns. :sniper:

proof God exists-

a carpenter named Jesus
a little book called the Bible
something known as love
the fact that everyone on this Earth is alive and has all of their possessions
the whole "universe" thing

-snip-

Oh yeah, that really proves it.

[/sarcasm]

:confused: proof God exists-

a carpenter named Jesus
a little book called the Bible
something known as love
the fact that everyone on this Earth is alive and has all of their possessions
the whole "universe" thing
Is that sarcasm?

:confused:
Is that sarcasm?

I certainly hope so.

The equation is not that hard. Except that Jesus said that His Father is greater than Him. So how can Jesus be God?
Don't be silly... it's obvious:

The Original is always better than the photocopy. :p

I certainly hope so.

Where do you get the moral politics test standings?

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

Don't play with me. Don't make me get out the big guns. :sniper:

Oh...erm...of course...of course...of course I know what you're talking about. Yes yes, it's all their own fault, yes.







:confused:

Where do you get the moral politics test standings?
www.politicalcompass.org

So, SEO, what's your opinion on the matter?

Me? I do believe in God. you want my reason for it? Us being here

You cannot realize anything AFTER you die, unless the above is true.

So what?

If after 80 years of believing that God is real, you get to the next life and find out that your entire belief system is wrong, and that God is one big lie...
...your telling me that that wouldnt be the worst thing that had ever happened to you?


No it wouldn't be the worst thing that happened, because like you said, we cannot and will not know anthing about it if we are wrong

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

Oh...erm...of course...of course...of course I know what you're talking about. Yes yes, it's all their own fault, yes.







:confused:

THAT'S IT!!! YOU HAVE CARRIED IT WAAAAY TO FAR, MY FRIEND!!!
:sniper:
:sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
:gundge:

www.politicalcompass.org
I know that, but it only told me my political standings, not the moral standings.

I find this question a bit too simlplistic in a way. I guess it depends on what you mean by "God". Omnipotent bearded guy in sky? No. I don't subscribe to a monotheistic religion that is implied by the word. I'm a pantheist. I see god as a concept rather than a being. I think it's our way of understanding the massive force of life in the universe with all its infintessimal diversity and interconnections. To me, God is in everything. It expresses itself in beauty and intricacy of design. I mean, sometimes when you look around you at the natural world, you have to feel awe and wonder. That's close enough to God for me. Alice Walker's The Color Purple expresses the idea better than I ever could. I don't even think of is as "God". I see a male and a female aspect. Mother and Father, as it were. :p

I find this question a bit too simlplistic in a way. I guess it depends on what you mean by "God". Omnipotent bearded guy in sky? No. I don't subscribe to a monotheistic religion that is implied by the word. I'm a pantheist. I see god as a concept rather than a being. I think it's our way of understanding the massive force of life in the universe with all its infintessimal diversity and interconnections. To me, God is in everything. It expresses itself in beauty and intricacy of design. I mean, sometimes when you look around you at the natural world, you have to feel awe and wonder. That's close enough to God for me. Alice Walker's The Color Purple expresses the idea better than I ever could. I don't even think of is as "God". I see a male and a female aspect. Mother and Father, as it were. :p

Talk about New Age. Just break out some crystals, won't you?

Yes, He does exist.

Prove it.

[QUOTE=Crapholistan]

THAT'S IT!!! YOU HAVE CARRIED IT WAAAAY TO FAR, MY FRIEND!!!
:sniper:
:sniper:
:sniper:
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
:gundge:

:eek:

-Since birth I have not met with any problem or phenomena that I could not rationally explain. This doesn't mean god diddn't create all physics. I'm just saying.

-Since birth I have not encountered anything that requires a god to exist in order to explain.

-Since birth I have not been confronted by god, or any messengers, or received any "signs" (that I have interpreted as being from a god).

-Until I was 12 I was a steadfast believer in God (the christian God) and it brought me great happiness.

-God(s) has/have evolved in many isolated cultures across the globe throughout history.

-Many empires and armies have been forged through religeon.

The following only applies to cristianity:
-A VERY large chunk of the old testament of the bible (up until exodus, or around then) predates writing. So, it must have been spoken word for thousands of years.

-The creation story in the bible states the the earth is only a few thousand years old. In direct contradiction of the more common theories of the formation of the solar system and many analasies done on the sun, placing its age at a few bilion years.

Conclusions:
-Either God has abandoned me, hidden, is testing my faith (the christian belief, as I understand it), has died (or the all powerful being equivalent), or never existed. Any one of these is fair game.

-God could have been invented by man. It also could have been modified by power hungry despots in order to drive people, in fear, to worship tham as messengers.

-There is no real concrete way to prove God. That's the point isn't it? God is supposed to be testing our faith. Personally, I am Atheist. And 75% of NorthAmerica silently agrees with me. (These results based on a poll done a few years back. I say silently, because of the people I know, 99.9% are strong believers. At the time of writing, 48% of the forum-ers here agree with me) But, it would be hypocritical of me to say believers are ignorant or wrong. No-one knows how the universe was created. Scientists are just as likely to make their theories up as any prophet.

-I also firmly believe that most religeons support very good values. I am the person I am today because of my childhood beliefs.

-There is also a very good chance that there is a "superior being". The universe is 15 billion years old (allegedly) and it is very big. He may even be watching us or manipulating our history (why he would care, I dont know).

-I read something about "if god diddn't exist, we would have been wiped ourselves out a long time ago" in this forum. I disagree, since war is actually a very important part of evolution. When two parties disagree in matters of religeon or government (or just differ in race) the victor is usually the one that has the support of more people or is the stronger (in the case of race or politics). The one that attracts the most able soldiers. Its actually a little sick, but nature is cruel.

Nisai']Spoken like someone who has no justification for things greater than himself, but is too afraid to admit it.

It is, in fact, a 50/50 proposition, just like whether or not a coin toss will land heads in any given try. I do believe in a form of God, but at the same time i understand it to be irrational. Face it, humans are irrational beings, despite how you may feel about yourself personally. It is a choice, and like i said its a very simple matter of faith. If you can explain, beyond a doubt, the things that are credited to God that people witness, then i will renounce my religion immediately. Otherwise, it is certainly not impossible, and to deny that would be just blind of anyone.

ROLASTC

It is hard to argue with someone who contradicts oneself multiple times. I'll try to respond the sentences that make at least some sense.

Nisai']I do believe in a form of God, but at the same time i understand it to be irrational.

Okay, that is what I said - belief in God is irrational. You are free to believe, but don't pass it off as a rational choice.

Nisai']If you can explain, beyond a doubt, the things that are credited to God that people witness, then i will renounce my religion immediately.

Please identify "the things that are credited to God that people witness" and I will see if I can explain them too you. I doubt you are really willing to listen.

I find this question a bit too simlplistic in a way. I guess it depends on what you mean by "God". Omnipotent bearded guy in sky? No. I don't subscribe to a monotheistic religion that is implied by the word. I'm a pantheist. I see god as a concept rather than a being. I think it's our way of understanding the massive force of life in the universe with all its infintessimal diversity and interconnections. To me, God is in everything. It expresses itself in beauty and intricacy of design. I mean, sometimes when you look around you at the natural world, you have to feel awe and wonder. That's close enough to God for me. Alice Walker's The Color Purple expresses the idea better than I ever could. I don't even think of is as "God". I see a male and a female aspect. Mother and Father, as it were. :p

I guess I agree.

[QUOTE=Vespucii]

:eek:

DON'T LOOK AT ME THAT WAY, PUNK!!!
:sniper: :mp5:
:mp5: :sniper:
:mad: :gundge:

I know that, but it only told me my political standings, not the moral standings.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home

Damn, you beat me to it.

My question is very simple:
By 'Do You Believe in God?', do you mean 'Do You Believe in God as He Appears in The Bible?' or 'Do You Believe in a Supernatural Force That You Worship?'?

And you've gotten a simple answer, you just chose to ignore it.

The question is general. Feel free to qualify your answer.

If you really want to be picky, consult a dictionary to help:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=God)
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

To be honest, you have nothiog to loose if you do believe in God. If you died believing in God and after your death learned there was no such thing, you would have lost nothing. If you died not believing in God and when you were dead found that there was a God, you would be doomed to eternity in HELL. So you have nothing to loose if you do believe in God.

Over simplified version of Pascal's Wager. Raised and rebutted several times already.

But, I'll repeat a couple points:
1. Wagering on God is heresy, immoral, and not likely to impress Her.

2. You have your self-respect, intellectual honesty, reason, and morality to loose.

3. What if you pick the wrong god or the wrong way to worship? Oops. :eek:

Satan has you well in hand, my friend. You can question what God could be all your life. But until you start actually thinking that God is THE God, and Jesus is THE Savior, you're absolutely screwed. Hell is no freakin' party house, God is no sadistic maniac, He never asks you to kill people in His name, Allah, even from its very own history, does not exist (Allah was more of a banner that the religiously separated Middle Easterners united under wth the word of Muhammed), and I garuntee that satan can not be bought off. Once you're in hell, you're in his domain, and he will do what he pleases, even if you 'signed a contract.' After all, satan speaks his own tounge when he lies.

Nor will satan torture you for doing his work. You will be tortured according to the amount you can take. If you have the power to overcome what I could not in hell, your torture will be oh, so much worse. Satan doesn't care what the heck you do as long as it doesn't bring you closer to God and farther from him.

You are a silly little troll, aren't you? :p

nope

ROLASTC

It is hard to argue with someone who contradicts oneself multiple times. I'll try to respond the sentences that make at least some sense.



Okay, that is what I said - belief in God is irrational. You are free to believe, but don't pass it off as a rational choice.



Please identify "the things that are credited to God that people witness" and I will see if I can explain them too you. I doubt you are really willing to listen.

Do tell how i contradict myself. I am accepting simple facts that you would most likely do better to accept as well. Belief without proof is irrational, yet something that humans are willing to do. Its like choosing to eat a piece of cake instead of a hunk of bloody meat. Knowing that the meat is far more nutritional, why would someone eat the cake? Its just more fun to believe in God, as it just tastes better to eat the cake. A simple matter of choice, however irrational.

Just for kicks, please explain the coincidence of, say, human existence. How is it that we came to be? And don't tell me that it is just a coincidence. I fail to see how beings of such complexity could just... happen.

If you have anything actually worth listening to, i will gladly lend an ear.

Talk about New Age. Just break out some crystals, won't you?
Since no one will explain what it means, I'll have to assume from its usage in sentence structures that "New Age" means, "I don't like you; go away."

Don't be silly... it's obvious:

The Original is always better than the photocopy. :p

You have to be joking!!!

Satan has you well in hand, my friend. You can question what God could be all your life. But until you start actually thinking that God is THE God, and Jesus is THE Savior, you're absolutely screwed.

To begin with remember that my post was referring only to pascals wager, the if you believe and it turns out true you lose nothing where as if you dont and its true you lose everything argument. My point was IF its true its just as likely to be anouther god or a god with specific requirements for entry as it will be one that requires belief.

But really though what about the buddists, hindus, jews and muslims and the x% of the world which is not christian, they are just screwed cause nobody told them or they were taught differently from birth? hardly seems fair. (goes back to my post on religion being on the roll of the dice, hard luck son you scored that wee aboriginal island that no one knows about guess youll be going to hell then)

Hell is no freakin' party house,

Have you been there?

God is no sadistic maniac,

Is that rejecting the OT? How about allowing people be born with terminal illiness? that is a point where id say god in all his mercy is a bit sadistic. but i digress the idea was that how can you know god in a personal nature, remember this was a post on pascals wager i wasnt specifically saying the THE God of which you are referring to was sadistic, i was inventing my own god who has about as much physical proof of his existence as yours and could be another possibility to no god or the god, guessing about the aferlife (if there is one) is a tricky business if you take into the fact that maybe you are wrong maybe i am wrong i dont know that wasnt really my point in the original post :)

He never asks you to kill people in His name,

But people are (have been) killed in his name; crusades or various OT for example, maybe he liked that maybe he truly was whispering in peoples ears telling them to do it (although i very much doubt it, i do believe that religion as abused by people but who are we to say that is fact)

Allah, even from its very own history, does not exist (Allah was more of a banner that the religiously separated Middle Easterners united under wth the word of Muhammed)

My point wasnt meant to be specific, it was more what if you were wrong and you ended up faced with any other possible faiths alternative to heaven in the christian form and as most main religions (bar i think hindu tho i could be wrong) put their own god before all others (a commandment i believe about false idols :) then you will be there standing near by me also screwed :)

I garuntee that satan can not be bought off. Once you're in hell, you're in his domain, and he will do what he pleases, even if you 'signed a contract.' After all, satan speaks his own tounge when he lies.

You speak as if you know him personally, once again i point out the complete pure possibility of it all, i have no proof that that may be the case but however if the bible IS the divine word of god then he in all his wisdom would easily be able to fool me into not knowing the true personality of satan, for whatever reason it may be guided that way (assuming any of its true) then what if the devils not actually a bad guy just a victum of bad propaganda :D

Nor will satan torture you for doing his work. You will be tortured according to the amount you can take. If you have the power to overcome what I could not in hell, your torture will be oh, so much worse. Satan doesn't care what the heck you do as long as it doesn't bring you closer to God and farther from him.

Can i raise a question at how this would be possible? because as pain is a nerve reaction and the body dies only the soul remains (assuming the nervous system really is part of the body and also dies and gets buried with it) how will a soul feel pain? or for that matter exist on a physical plane to have pain inflicted upon it.

To begin with remember that my post was referring only to pascals wager, the if you believe and it turns out true you lose nothing where as if you dont and its true you lose everything argument. My point was IF its true its just as likely to be anouther god or a god with specific requirements for entry as it will be one that requires belief.

But really though what about the buddists, hindus, jews and muslims and the x% of the world which is not christian, they are just screwed cause nobody told them or they were taught differently from birth? hardly seems fair. (goes back to my post on religion being on the roll of the dice, hard luck son you scored that wee aboriginal island that no one knows about guess youll be going to hell then)

Well, it would be unfortunate if ANYONE went to hell, but the fact of the matter is that some people are going. Don't be one of them.



Have you been there?

Is that rejecting the OT? How about allowing people be born with terminal illiness? that is a point where id say god in all his mercy is a bit sadistic. but i digress the idea was that how can you know god in a personal nature, remember this was a post on pascals wager i wasnt specifically saying the THE God of which you are referring to was sadistic, i was inventing my own god who has about as much physical proof of his existence as yours and could be another possibility to no god or the god, guessing about the aferlife (if there is one) is a tricky business if you take into the fact that maybe you are wrong maybe i am wrong i dont know that wasnt really my point in the original post :)

Illness comes about because of sin in the world. Blaming it on God cause it makes you feel good won't make your attack any more true.



But people are (have been) killed in his name; crusades or various OT for example, maybe he liked that maybe he truly was whispering in peoples ears telling them to do it (although i very much doubt it, i do believe that religion as abused by people but who are we to say that is fact)

Or maybe they were all of them deceived into killing.


My point wasnt meant to be specific, it was more what if you were wrong and you ended up faced with any other possible faiths alternative to heaven in the christian form and as most main religions (bar i think hindu tho i could be wrong) put their own god before all others (a commandment i believe about false idols :) then you will be there standing near by me also screwed :)

Not only do I doubt that eternity will play out that way, i know for certain that it won't.


You speak as if you know him personally, once again i point out the complete pure possibility of it all, i have no proof that that may be the case but however if the bible IS the divine word of god then he in all his wisdom would easily be able to fool me into not knowing the true personality of satan, for whatever reason it may be guided that way (assuming any of its true) then what if the devils not actually a bad guy just a victum of bad propaganda :D


Quite literally playing the devil's advocate. The devil is representative of all things evil. So, take a look at some of the most evil things you've seen done, and there is the devil at work. That is how we know his personality.


Can i raise a question at how this would be possible? because as pain is a nerve reaction and the body dies only the soul remains (assuming the nervous system really is part of the body and also dies and gets buried with it) how will a soul feel pain? or for that matter exist on a physical plane to have pain inflicted upon it.

Your soul can't feel physical pain. But what you would feel in hell is terrible loss and eternal separation from God and every other sentient being. You might not understand that as a bad thing, but it simply is.

Nisai']Do tell how i contradict myself. I am accepting simple facts that you would most likely do better to accept as well. Belief without proof is irrational, yet something that humans are willing to do. Its like choosing to eat a piece of cake instead of a hunk of bloody meat. Knowing that the meat is far more nutritional, why would someone eat the cake? Its just more fun to believe in God, as it just tastes better to eat the cake. A simple matter of choice, however irrational.

That it was irrational was my point. That you chose to argue and then return to the point I made intially is one of many was you contradicted yourself.

But, nonetheless, thank you for admitting belief in God is irrational.

Nisai']Just for kicks, please explain the coincidence of, say, human existence. How is it that we came to be? And don't tell me that it is just a coincidence. I fail to see how beings of such complexity could just... happen.

Please explain how human existence is proof of God.

I fail to see how a being of the complexity of God could just ... happen.

I fail to see how a being of the complexity of God could just ... happen.

Well, technically God didn't happen. He always was. And always will be.

But you got the complex part right.

Interesting: Totally the Earth has seen roughly 150-200 BILLION human beings. Shouldn't heaven and hell get crowded?

I follow Asimov: If there is a heaven and hell no torture of hell can be worse than the boredom of heaven.

Can you imagine ETERNITY walking around in heaven? You would go insane!

I also want to know who created God. In different old mythologies the gods usually had parents. Is there a Dad Creator? Maybe he had all his children create their own universe? I am an Atheist, watch out!

Well, technically God didn't happen. He always was. And always will be.

But you got the complex part right.

Cute loophole.

Prove it.

Here is the proof that god exists. Well or at least heaven:

http://www.durrrrr.blogspot.com/

That it was irrational was my point. That you chose to argue and then return to the point I made intially is one of many was you contradicted yourself.

But, nonetheless, thank you for admitting belief in God is irrational.



Please explain how human existence is proof of God.

I fail to see how a being of the complexity of God could just ... happen.

You see, its answers like that which make people tend not to listen. I admitted the irrationality long ago, so thank you for now acknowledging it. And returning to your point was only to reiterate that you agree with me, not a contradiction at all, if you think about it for a second or two.

I never said human existence is proof of God, acutally. I was asking you to explain it. I notice that you are unable to, which is why people credit such things to a higher power, silly as it may be. I also notice you are using many of my phrases and replacing a word or two in them, a somewhat pitiful thing to do instead of replying with originality, let alone intelligence. If you'd like to try to explain human existence in its complexity, i would gladly listen. Otherwise, you're wasting your time as well as mine with your silly rhetorical statements.

Nisai']You see, its answers like that which make people tend not to listen. I admitted the irrationality long ago, so thank you for now acknowledging it. And returning to your point was only to reiterate that you agree with me, not a contradiction at all, if you think about it for a second or two.

I never said human existence is proof of God, acutally. I was asking you to explain it. I notice that you are unable to, which is why people credit such things to a higher power, silly as it may be. I also notice you are using many of my phrases and replacing a word or two in them, a somewhat pitiful thing to do instead of replying with originality, let alone intelligence. If you'd like to try to explain human existence in its complexity, i would gladly listen. Otherwise, you're wasting your time as well as mine with your silly rhetorical statements.

<sigh>

I ridiculed your silly point by echoing it. That you fail to recognize wit is your sad little problem.

You are correct that you worded your original request in a way that asked me to explain things that people "credited" to God, not that proved God's existence. Of course, that makes any explanation irrelevant. Whether or not things are "credited" to God or can be explained to those who believe whatever they want adds little to the question at hand.

You originally maintained belief in God was a 50/50 proposition. That was ridiculous and you have not since defended it.

You now appear only to maintain:

1) Belief in God is irrational.

2) People credit God with things they don't understand. This is silly.

I agree with both points.

If you have any actual point to make, please make it. Your insults are tiresome and petty.

<sigh>

I ridiculed your silly point by echoing it. That you fail to recognize wit is your sad little problem.

You are correct that you worded your original request in a way that asked me to explain things that people "credited" to God, not that proved God's existence. Of course, that makes any explanation irrelevant. Whether or not things are "credited" to God or can be explained to those who believe whatever they want adds little to the question at hand.

You originally maintained belief in God was a 50/50 proposition. That was ridiculous and you have not since defended it.

You now appear only to maintain:

1) Belief in God is irrational.

2) People credit God with things they don't understand. This is silly.

I agree with both points.

If you have any actual point to make, please make it. Your insults are tiresome and petty.

I would applaud your attempt at evading the purpose of this discussion, but i cant quite give you that credit, since you failed at it. I understand that you cannot answe any of the questions that i have presented to you, thats ok, but you should admit that you cant, instead of running away. I can forgive that though. You have now diverted this toward your own miniscule struggle against inferiority, to what i have no idea, maybe to me or God or just your own self.

Nonetheless, you have apparently forgotten that i said it was the existence of god that was a 50/50 proposition, not the belief (which can be expressed as a statistic). I have no proof for his existence and admit that it is an irrational belief. You have no proof against his existence and are denying everything about it in a rather childish manner.

I have been making the same point in the last several posts that i've done. This has obviously gone unseen by you in your endeavor to state some obscure thing that may or may not have any relevance to anything but your own silly ego. I say you should stop while you're ahead, but its up to you. My point was made long ago, you have yet to justify anything. Therefore i feel no need to explain anything further unless you can debate logically and not childishly.

Nisai']I would applaud your attempt at evading the purpose of this discussion, but i cant quite give you that credit, since you failed at it. I understand that you cannot answe any of the questions that i have presented to you, thats ok, but you should admit that you cant, instead of running away. I can forgive that though. You have now diverted this toward your own miniscule struggle against inferiority, to what i have no idea, maybe to me or God or just your own self.

Nonetheless, you have apparently forgotten that i said it was the existence of god that was a 50/50 proposition, not the belief (which can be expressed as a statistic). I have no proof for his existence and admit that it is an irrational belief. You have no proof against his existence and are denying everything about it in a rather childish manner.

I have been making the same point in the last several posts that i've done. This has obviously gone unseen by you in your endeavor to state some obscure thing that may or may not have any relevance to anything but your own silly ego. I say you should stop while you're ahead, but its up to you. My point was made long ago, you have yet to justify anything. Therefore i feel no need to explain anything further unless you can debate logically and not childishly.

Your unique combination of pettifogging and insulting borders on trolling and flamebating, but is mostly just amusing. I think it rather likely that you are someone's puppet. Whether you are or not, I hope you are enjoying yourself as I certainly am.

You have asked one question which -- as you amply demonstrated -- is phrased in a manner that makes any attempt to answer it irrelevant. You ask for an explanation of things that are not proof of the existence of God, but rather a "silly" basis for the "irrational" belief in God. As such, there is no point in answering your question.

As was explained to you by both myself and others, the existence of God is not "a 50/50 proposition." Simply because there are two options does not make each of equal probability. And simply repeating a ridiculous statement does not lend it any more credibility.

There is, as you admit, no proof of God. More than a score of centuries have been spent searching for such proof without success. The absence of proof is not proof, but it is persuasive evidence of the absence of God. Moreover, there are few conceptions of "God" that fit that name and they are all logically impossible or contrary to empirical evidence. Thus, the existence of God is highly improbable.

You, my friend, may wish to hide in brambles of obscurity and obfuscation.
Neither that nor your feeble attempts at insults have said nothing to justify your statement about a 50% probability of the existence of God. Your remaining assertions are so mundane that I mistakenly assumed you must have some further point. Alas, I was wrong and seeking to engage you in a discussion of that point led nowhere.

If you wish to either defend your single statement of interest or make an actual point, please do so.

Your unique combination of pettifogging and insulting borders on trolling and flamebating, but is mostly just amusing. I think it rather likely that you are someone's puppet. Whether you are or not, I hope you are enjoying yourself as I certainly am.

You have asked one question which -- as you amply demonstrated -- is phrased in a manner that makes any attempt to answer it irrelevant. You ask for an explanation of things that are not proof of the existence of God, but rather a "silly" basis for the "irrational" belief in God. As such, there is no point in answering your question.

As was explained to you by both myself and others, the existence of God is not "a 50/50 proposition." Simply because there are two options does not make each of equal probability. And simply repeating a ridiculous statement does not lend it any more credibility.

There is, as you admit, no proof of God. More than a score of centuries have been spent searching for such proof without success. The absence of proof is not proof, but it is persuasive evidence of the absence of God. Moreover, there are few conceptions of "God" that fit that name and they are all logically impossible or contrary to empirical evidence. Thus, the existence of God is highly improbable.

You, my friend, may wish to hide in brambles of obscurity and obfuscation.
Neither that nor your feeble attempts at insults have said nothing to justify your statement about a 50% probability of the existence of God. Your remaining assertions are so mundane that I mistakenly assumed you must have some further point. Alas, I was wrong and seeking to engage you in a discussion of that point led nowhere.

If you wish to either defend your single statement of interest or make an actual point, please do so.

Goodness, sir, how long did you spend on Dictionary.com to come up with such big words? Its pretty easy to see past them, by the way. You are now beyond talking to, i think. Your goal now is to enlarge your ego to a point where there is no room left in this thread for anything else. You did a pretty poor job of answering anything, let alone defending anything with any degree of logic or civility. I see no point in continuing if you're going to make this about yourself, because in all reality you just dont really matter. But hey, have fun trying to make yourself look good with beating around the bush concerning any reasonable topic. You sure did that with this one. I just get a kick out of people like you. Maybe you cand find another thread with easier questions to throw meaningless words at. Me, on the other hand, i have better things to do than waste my time with children like you who cant see the sense in a reasonable discussion. Oh well. I guess the world would be a different place without ya.

Nisai']Goodness, sir, how long did you spend on Dictionary.com to come up with such big words? Its pretty easy to see past them, by the way. You are now beyond talking to, i think. Your goal now is to enlarge your ego to a point where there is no room left in this thread for anything else. You did a pretty poor job of answering anything, let alone defending anything with any degree of logic or civility. I see no point in continuing if you're going to make this about yourself, because in all reality you just dont really matter. But hey, have fun trying to make yourself look good with beating around the bush concerning any reasonable topic. You sure did that with this one. I just get a kick out of people like you. Maybe you cand find another thread with easier questions to throw meaningless words at. Me, on the other hand, i have better things to do than waste my time with children like you who cant see the sense in a reasonable discussion. Oh well. I guess the world would be a different place without ya.

Wow. All those words and no point whatsoever.

My words were not meaningless. Perhaps if you consulted a dictionary you could follow along. (While there you might look up "vocabulary.")

As is you are simply trolling. But it is entertaining to read your babble.

Wow. All those words and no point whatsoever.

My words were not meaningless. Perhaps if you consulted a dictionary you could follow along. (While there you might look up "vocabulary.")

As is you are simply trolling. But it is entertaining to read your babble.
If you really took a good look, and considered understanding a thing or two, you'd see that yes, your words are meaningless, and please dont think i'm being literal, that would be simplistic of you. I mean, you carry on like the world will end if you dont. It is amusing to a point, but you need to give it up. Take a look from a different point of view (it helps sometimes) and see that you're taking up some valuable threadspace in your persistence. Carry on, though while i'm not entirely bored of you. Careful, the mods do detest flamers as you have presented yourself to be...

Nisai']If you really took a good look, and considered understanding a thing or two, you'd see that yes, your words are meaningless, and please dont think i'm being literal, that would be simplistic of you. I mean, you carry on like the world will end if you dont. It is amusing to a point, but you need to give it up. Take a look from a different point of view (it helps sometimes) and see that you're taking up some valuable threadspace in your persistence. Carry on, though while i'm not entirely bored of you. Careful, the mods do detest flamers as you have presented yourself to be...

LOL.

Me flame you. The pot calls the kettle ...

Again, you have no substantive point. Care to try again?

LOL.

Me flame you. The pot calls the kettle ...

Again, you have no substantive point. Care to try again?

You know, i honestly didnt believe you would respond. But i guess i should have expected it. I'm fresh out of points to make. I already made mine, remember way back when? The one you couldnt refute? Now i'm just seeing if you have any n00b flame left in you. Go ahead... we're waiting.

The very notion that a deity might exist is unreasonable.

Use your loaf, of course God doesn't exist.

I quite like the idea that people actually vote 'Don't Know' because it's asking if you believe, not if you know! And lets face it nobody can possibly Know! (Although I'm pretty certain, and if I'm wrong well that's one practical joke!)

God is dead... In saying that I don't mean an immortal, all powerful being could die, that makes no sense. God(s) never existed. It is our idea of God that has died. Who killed it you may ask... The Rationalists, the Empiricists, and the Sceptics. They laid waste to deontoligy and spiritialism... So what of Human Existence?

Human Existence is one filled with anxiety, alienation from all others (things/people), and unqueness at best absurdity at worsest. One is alone, a conscious being condemed to be totally free, undetermined, and thus spontanius. "I stick my finger into existence-it smells of nothing. Where am I? What is this thing called world? Who is it that has lured me into the thing and now leaves me here? Who am I? How did I come into the world? Why was I not consulted?"(Soren Kierkegaard) Ultimately a human life, despite its consciousness, is worth nothing more to the impartial Universe then that of a clam or a bacteria. That is Human Existence... TO THE UNIVERSE WE DO NOT MATTER. And yet...

We matter to ourselves, one as a conscious being has value because one gives himself value. One matters because one makes himself matter. The idea of God represented nothing more then a mistake caused by ignorance, a mential and philiosphical shortcut. With the death of God Humanity can loose it's child-like dependence on God. Instead of sinking into despair, considering this freedom empty, depressing, let us seize it. Let us become happy, independent and free.

Nisai']Goodness, sir, how long did you spend on Dictionary.com to come up with such big words? Its pretty easy to see past them, by the way. You are now beyond talking to, i think. Your goal now is to enlarge your ego to a point where there is no room left in this thread for anything else. You did a pretty poor job of answering anything, let alone defending anything with any degree of logic or civility. I see no point in continuing if you're going to make this about yourself, because in all reality you just dont really matter. But hey, have fun trying to make yourself look good with beating around the bush concerning any reasonable topic. You sure did that with this one. I just get a kick out of people like you. Maybe you cand find another thread with easier questions to throw meaningless words at. Me, on the other hand, i have better things to do than waste my time with children like you who cant see the sense in a reasonable discussion. Oh well. I guess the world would be a different place without ya.
you know, insulting Cat because you've been proven wrong doesn't make you look more right...it makes you look petty, rude, and even more wrong. i like to assume the best about people, so i assume you aren't those things and would rather not be perceived as such. you might want to consider revising your approach.

your claim of the 50-50 deal is bunk, and it's been shown to be bunk. if Cat used too many big words then just ask and i am sure that Cat, or i, or somebody else, will help to clarify matters for you. if you don't understand the points that have been made against you, just ask and we can try again. but there's no need to be rude.

Nopes, no God, what is told in the Bible is the creation of a poet, the ancient world's most famous fiction writer.

There is however a chance that the ancients were a more advanced society and had a very strong knowledge of events well before the time of humans, and the Bible is just another history book, but like the existence of God, this can't be proven with the current evidence.

incoming monkeywrench...

*monkeywrenches*

Ding dong! The pope is dead! Which old pope? The wicked pope!
Ding dong the wicked pope is dead!

Er, wouldn't a better conclusion be "so therefore we don't know whether he exists or not"?

Dam you beating me... ¬_¬

I believe in God as one divine being fully present in three persons, they being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I believe there is something, some kind of a god- but exactly what is there I am totally undecided :confused:

The Cat-Tribe: I ridiculed your silly point by echoing it. That you fail to recognize wit is your sad little problem.
[NS]Nisai: Goodness, sir, how long did you spend on Dictionary.com to come up with such big words?
Can you two please take your petty argument somewhere else? Cat-tribe's comments have taken up nearly half the thread which makes trying to read other, more interesting views a little difficult.
Or if you are gonna argue can you stop quoting the whole of the other person's last thread? Please?

I believe there is something, some kind of a god- but exactly what is there I am totally undecided :confused:


Mid if I ask you what has led you to this conclusion?

Yeah, just not in Bin'Yeshuah

I do not like it when people think they know something about God.

[QUOTE]Nopes, no God, what is told in the Bible is the creation of a poet, the ancient world's most famous fiction writer. There is however a chance that the ancients were a more advanced society and had a very strong knowledge of events well before the time of humans, and the Bible is just another history book, but like the existence of God, this can't be proven with the current evidence. [QUOTE]

Have you read the Bible?
The Bible is not just a history book. The Bible is a guide to living. The Bible tells you how much love Jesus Christ showed when he was crucified on Calvary so that he could save mankind.

You are ignorant. The disciples Moses, Ruth, and the other writers were poets. They did not write fiction other than the occasional parable.

Why do you need evidense? What would be wrong with going to heaven?

Jesus is the only way to the Father.

I do not like it when people think they know something about God.

[QUOTE]Nopes, no God, what is told in the Bible is the creation of a poet, the ancient world's most famous fiction writer. There is however a chance that the ancients were a more advanced society and had a very strong knowledge of events well before the time of humans, and the Bible is just another history book, but like the existence of God, this can't be proven with the current evidence. [QUOTE]

Have you read the Bible?
The Bible is not just a history book. The Bible is a guide to living. The Bible tells you how much love Jesus Christ showed when he was crucified on Calvary so that he could save mankind.

You are ignorant. The disciples Moses, Ruth, and the other writers were poets. They did not write fiction other than the occasional parable.

Why do you need evidense? What would be wrong with going to heaven?

Jesus is the only way to the Father.


How about becuase not only did those people not exist, but even if they had, as humans, the word of "god" can only be corrupted from the original message.

Flawed beings like us, cannot know the perfect.

It's a shame so many think He doesn't. Let's say that you're right and there is no God, then everyone will be fine once they die. If I'm right, then few have little to worry about.



Oh well it's your soul not mine.

Do you believe in God?

Uh, which one??? :confused: