Enough about GOD!

[evolvedForm]

I don't understand all this talk about whether or not God exists. It's just not interesting, it never was, and it is downright vomit-inducing after being beaten to death constantly. The fact is, whether or not God exists doesn't matter in your lifetime or mine. Everything on this earth is on this earth and a problem of this earth whether God is watching or not! So let's focus on the issue at hand here: this earth!

[agent_fish]

Tell that to a devout theist.

[Lestat]

I actually think it's an interesting and important subject to be discussed. Although if I were to be honest, what I think is important is getting theists into the 21st century in their thinking about religion.

I do think many people post about with their primary intention being to troll.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]


I actually think it's an interesting and important subject to be discussed.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it's not really important for life. It's important for a devout theist only in the sense that it gives him a purpose, comfort, or some other thing like this. But if he were to think about it, God, if he exists, wouldn't care about being believed in, wouldn't need people to argue about him, and if he were really 'perfect,' he wouldn't be so immature as to get as jealous as the OT portrays him.

Finally, as a very religious philosopher told me: God is perfect, and perfection cannot change (it is already perfect). So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change. Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, as a very religious philosopher told me: God is perfect, and perfection cannot change (it is already perfect). So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change. Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]


So this person is basically claiming the world is perfect? this doesn't prove your point at all because he's not only arguing that god shouldnt intervene, but that we shouldn't intervene either.

the fact is he's wrong and so is the persn who claims the world is imperfect while god is perfect yet the perfect god somehow managed to produce this imperfection.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change. Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that either of these two statements follow.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]

So this person is basically claiming the world is perfect? this doesn't prove your point at all because he's not only arguing that god shouldnt intervene, but that we shouldn't intervene either.

the fact is he's wrong and so is the persn who claims the world is imperfect while god is perfect yet the perfect god somehow managed to produce this imperfection.



[/ QUOTE ]

Theists have to accept this rationale. If God is perfect there would be no reason to create the world. Thus the theists came up with Agape: selfless love, selfless creation; a reason to create the world.

That doesn't make much sense to me. But, it would make less sense, if, after he created it, he started messing with it and fixing things along the way. After all, he knew what would happen when he created it. So if I were a theist I wouldn't worry too much about God.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change. Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that either of these two statements follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they?

[ QUOTE ]
God is perfect, and perfection cannot change (it is already perfect). So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is at least a little interesting. But I think "change" is used ambiguously here. In one instance it refers to a change in the nature of God, and in the second instance it refers to a change in the physical world. You would also have to be committed to the view that the world is perfect. And it's not clear to me that miracles are a form of change any more than the passing of time is a form of change.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious why this doesn't follow--it's not even contained in the previous statements.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
God is perfect, and perfection cannot change (it is already perfect). So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change.

[/ QUOTE ]

"This is at least a little interesting. But I think "change" is used ambiguously here. In one instance it refers to a change in the nature of God, and in the second instance it refers to a change in the physical world. You would also have to be committed to the view that the world is perfect. And it's not clear to me that miracles are a form of change any more than the passing of time is a form of change."

Basically, IIRC, by change the philosopher also meant 'move.' God is perfect, so he cannot move. Miracle is another word for intervention.

You bring up time, but I imagine that would be a temporal absolute or something. Either God set it up to change continuously at a set 'speed,' or time is an illusion to humans or something like that.

As to the view that the world has to be perfect, I think we could say what theists always say: it's perfect if that's what a perfect God wanted it to be. (Some would justify this by bringing up Satan to defend God, but it isn't necessary).



[ QUOTE ]
Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious why this doesn't follow--it's not even contained in the previous statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. Maybe I didn't clarify myself. If praying is asking for intervention, then there is no reason to pray. God couldn't intervene.

And as for being concerned with his existence, you may well have a point. But I still think a perfect God wouldn't need us to concern ourselves about him, especially when he gave us all these troubles, desires, drives, and everything else Earthly that practically ensure we'll have too much else to do.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I actually think it's an interesting and important subject to be discussed.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it's not really important for life. It's important for a devout theist only in the sense that it gives him a purpose, comfort, or some other thing like this. But if he were to think about it, God, if he exists, wouldn't care about being believed in, wouldn't need people to argue about him, and if he were really 'perfect,' he wouldn't be so immature as to get as jealous as the OT portrays him.

Finally, as a very religious philosopher told me: God is perfect, and perfection cannot change (it is already perfect). So, God does not perform miracles because they are a form of change. Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a common mistake to put God in a box of your own making. "They say God is perfect so I think he has to act like this."

The character of God revealed throughout the old and new testament is much more complex than "perfect."

Start with:

Omniscient - All knowing
Omnipotent - All powerful
Omnipresent - Everyewhere at once (including outside of a linear timeline)

These three only touch on the surface of what he reveals about himself, (including through the various names we know him by - see here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.html) for example.)

It's not at all incompatible for God to be all these things and still love what he has created and desire to have a relationship with his creation.

It helps to define what we're talking about here:

Religion - all the things man does to try to make himself acceptable to God. (external)

Relationship - God does the work, (creation, salvation, etc.) so that IF we will come to him, we can communicate on a personal level.(internal)

The christian religion is all about relationship, the internal.

So, if we have a God who loves us, who knows everything about us, who is always present, and desires our fellowship, the picture is very very different than what you suppose.

This, in fact, is the story told in the bible. (We've done a wonderful job hiding it through rules and rituals, but it is still there in black and white if you care to look.)

In this scenario, God cares about even the sparrow, numbers the hair on our heads, has a plan for our lives.

Now we come to prayer. How will we know what this plan is if we don't talk to God?

If you really think about it, this is revolutionary. It changes everything. It's really an illusion that you are ever alone. You are forgiven in spite of every evil thing you've ever thought or done. All you ever had to do was ask.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I actually think it's an interesting and important subject to be discussed.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that it's not really important for life. It's important for a devout theist only in the sense that it gives him a purpose, comfort, or some other thing like this. But if he were to think about it, God, if he exists, wouldn't care about being believed in, wouldn't need people to argue about him, and if he were really 'perfect,' he wouldn't be so immature as to get as jealous as the OT portrays him."


[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take offense, but....I think it's odd that you think Man "made up" the idea of god. And then you say "if he exists, wouldn't care about being believed in, wouldn't need people to argue about him, and if he were really 'perfect,' he wouldn't be so immature as to get as jealous" as if you could possibly comprehend what he would be or is. Man is logical, so you say that he would be "perfect" to be void of Jelously and other things that YOU view as imperfection. If god exists, whatever his form, he is as the bible says what he is. I am that I am. If he happens to be jelous, angry, bored, depressed, lonley, none of the above, all of the above, or a magical invisible, purple monkey. Than that is what he is. I believe whether you like it or not.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not at all incompatible for God to be all these things and still love what he has created and desire to have a relationship with his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not incompatible it is double think.

[ QUOTE ]
All you ever had to do was ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal experience tells me it is not so!

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]

If god exists, whatever his form, he is as the bible says what he is


[/ QUOTE ]

There's your first mistake. Other ancient texts offer more profound insights.

[evolvedForm]

And you lose me...

[ QUOTE ]
The character of God revealed throughout the old and new testament



[/ QUOTE ]

here.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, IIRC, by change the philosopher also meant 'move.' God is perfect, so he cannot move. Miracle is another word for intervention.

You bring up time, but I imagine that would be a temporal absolute or something. Either God set it up to change continuously at a set 'speed,' or time is an illusion to humans or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see why miracles are different from other "mere" events. Is it because they violate natural laws, or something? God had to intervene at some point to create "mere" events.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the view that the world has to be perfect, I think we could say what theists always say: it's perfect if that's what a perfect God wanted it to be. (Some would justify this by bringing up Satan to defend God, but it isn't necessary).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to bring up an argument from evil or something like that; what I mean is this: suppose a perfect God created a perfect world in which people have free will. After a while the once-perfect world becomes full of sin, so God creates a flood to make the world a better place. Then he sends his son to atone the world of all sin, etc. In order to maintain that God would never intervene in the world one also has to maintain that the world is also perfect.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, there is no reason to pray, or otherwise be concerned about his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious why this doesn't follow--it's not even contained in the previous statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. Maybe I didn't clarify myself. If praying is asking for intervention, then there is no reason to pray. God couldn't intervene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I think I understand this. One might argue that praying has other meanings like contentment, but this makes more sense.

[ QUOTE ]
And as for being concerned with his existence, you may well have a point. But I still think a perfect God wouldn't need us to concern ourselves about him, especially when he gave us all these troubles, desires, drives, and everything else Earthly that practically ensure we'll have too much else to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about what a perfect God would do, but I don't think this follows from the previous statements. I suppose if being concerned about his existence has the same function as praying, then it does. But the psychological connotation with "concern" is more evident here.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not at all incompatible for God to be all these things and still love what he has created and desire to have a relationship with his creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not incompatible it is double think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this your opinion or do you have a logical argument that explains why you call this "double think"? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
All you ever had to do was ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Personal experience tells me it is not so!

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably did simplify things a bit. (Got to get back to work here.) I've heard it described as both the hardest and easiest thing to do at the same time.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't see why miracles are different from other "mere" events. Is it because they violate natural laws, or something? God had to intervene at some point to create "mere" events.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think a miracle would be a 'change' of the mere events themselves, which would play out a particular way on their own. God's intervention would be a change of plans, so to speak.

God intervened "at some point to create mere events" when he created the world. Theologians would point to agape, or a selfless creation out of love, for the reason God created the world. His perfection allows this; it's precisely b/c he doesn't need the world that makes it selfless.


[ QUOTE ]
In order to maintain that God would never intervene in the world one also has to maintain that the world is also perfect.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the world is perfect by God's standards, whatever they are. I'm okay with that, and it actually supports my original point. What would a believer stand to gain by asking God for a better world when the world is perfect as it is?

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If god exists, whatever his form, he is as the bible says what he is


[/ QUOTE ]

There's your first mistake. Other ancient texts offer more profound insights.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like what?

[evolvedForm]

The Upanishads, the Baghavad Gita, other Vedantic texts

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a miracle would be a 'change' of the mere events themselves, which would play out a particular way on their own. God's intervention would be a change of plans, so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why this is (or, at the least, how one can know that this is the case).

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
The Upanishads, the Baghavad Gita, other Vedantic texts

[/ QUOTE ]
What specifically about them?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
If god exists, whatever his form, he is as the bible says what he is



[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume this?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a miracle would be a 'change' of the mere events themselves, which would play out a particular way on their own. God's intervention would be a change of plans, so to speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why this is (or, at the least, how one can know that this is the case).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it's the way I always understood miracles based on how they're described in the bible.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If god exists, whatever his form, he is as the bible says what he is


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't? Do you think that thinking something about him adds or removes from him? Think about what you are saying.
Nobody KNOWS anything about what God is, so why would you even try to put him in such a finite box? You said that being jelous would make him imperfect, how would you know this? Is that in the aformentioned texts?

[entertainme]

One quick note on miracles before I have to go for a while.

How much effect do we have on whether miracles happen?

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 13:53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mark 11: 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Without context it would be easy to conclude God is the Big Vending Machine In The Sky! Yet, I find it interesting that in both these cases, belief seems to be a required ingredient, making regular people active participants in the process.

[RJT]

Ev,

I have to disagree.

The “what ifs” are much more interesting to discuss. Worldly stuff gets so tiresome. Especially nowadays with 24 hours news, the internet, etc. Mass information - it gets to be a bit much. Wonder and intrigue is interesting to me.

Regarding the atheist/theist debate. I find this interesting too. Like the little things in life such as Lestat’s cemetery question. To be able to discuss such things with others who have different points of view - where else can we do this?

I had a theology professor (John S. Dunne) at college who coined the phrase “passing over”. Passing over is a shifting of standpoint, a going over to the standpoint of another culture, another way of life, another religion. It is followed by an equal and opposite process he calls “coming back,” coming back with new insight to one’s own culture, one’s own way of life, one’s own religion.”
He uses this technique in his books, in his studies, in his Faith for the most part.

It is like Atticus’ advice in To Kill A Mockingbird - to paraphrase - you never really know a person until you walk in his shoes.

That is what life is all a about to me. It is the journey. Passing over makes that journey much more interesting to me. Talking about God and cemeteries and probabilities that geniuses have a clue - these are the questions of interest. Everything else is “fluff”.

Btw, much of this stuff is a matter of point of view. I might be generalizing, but as one gets older this stuff becomes much more interesting. I don’t think it is so much a matter of one’s death becoming closer as it is that other stuff in the world gets redundant. New experiences become less frequent. The ol’ been there done that seeps in. God/afterlife - well now that is something new to explore.

RJT

[Lestat]

I agree with you, but it's all moot. What's the sense in arguing semantics when you haven't nailed down the most important thing? Does God exist? Before you answer that, what's your basis for any aspect of how God works?

This is a huge problem most atheists have in debate. They allow themselves to be pulled into whether God is jealous, imperfect, amoral, etc., when they shouldn't even touch that. First, let's provide a basis for existence. THEN we can talk about attributes.

Btw- This is sometimes a useful sales tactic.. "Are the standard tires ok? Or would you prefer the sports package?". Assuming the sale before it's even made.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, but it's all moot. What's the sense in arguing semantics when you haven't nailed down the most important thing? Does God exist? Before you answer that, what's your basis for any aspect of how God works?

This is a huge problem most atheists have in debate. They allow themselves to be pulled into whether God is jealous, imperfect, amoral, etc., when they shouldn't even touch that. First, let's provide a basis for existence. THEN we can talk about attributes.


[/ QUOTE ]
This seems like an odd position, Lestat. How can you ask whether something exists without knowing what that thing is claimed to be? I cant make you believe God exists without telling you what I think God means. Similarly you cant make me see that he doesnt without pointing out some purported property that he clearly doesnt have.

I dont think an atheist saying "God cant be like that because..." should be taken as any kind of giving ground to the theist. I think it is more pointing out a contradiction in the theist's position - a useful way to explain that he must be wrong.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this your opinion or do you have a logical argument that explains why you call this "double think"? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imply seeem to not suffer from blindness or selective cognition.

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard it described as both the hardest and easiest thing to do at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless, still not a fact, from personal experience.

[Lestat]

You could say, "A loving God can't exist because...", but you shouldn't say, "God can't be like that because...". Do you see the difference?

I agree there are many arguments using attributes to either claim or refute existence. For example, many will ask how a loving God allow an innocent baby to suffer and die? Therefore a loving god must not exist. That's fine. But...

What I want to avoid are arguments akin to whether the easter bunny's basket is yellow or green. First show me evidence of an easter bunny. Then we can talk baskets. I'm trying to adopt the position of not allowing myself to debate the attributes of something for which there is no evidence of it's existence in the first place.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You could say, "A loving God can't exist because...", but you shouldn't say, "God can't be like that because...". Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really but I think I agree with what you are saying - your easter bunny example I agree with totally.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree there are many arguments using attributes to either claim or refute existence. For example, many will say how could a loving God allow an innocent baby to suffer and die? Therefore a loving god must not exist. That's fine. But...

What I want to avoid are arguments akin to whether the easter bunny's basket is yellow or green. First show me evidence of an easter bunny. Then we can talk baskets. But I'm not going to waste time debating the attributes of something for which there is no evidence of it's existence in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I misunderstood your point - I certainly sympathise with this last bit.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]

You could say, "A loving God can't exist because...", but you shouldn't say, "God can't be like that because...". Do you see the difference?


Not really but I think I agree with what you are saying - your easter bunny example I agree with totally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I am trying to split too fine a hair.

1. Sending people to gnash their teeth in hell and burn for all eternity is unfathomably cruel. Therefore, if there IS a god, he must not be loving.

2. God can't be loving, because he sends people to gnash their teeth in hell and burn for all eternity.

What I don't like about #2 is the preceding assumption of God... And now let's talk about whether He's loving.

Hair splitting, I know. But I think the distinction might be an important one for me to adopt. Otherwise, I get dragged off on theistic tangents (think godBoy), of having to defend positions that should not require defending.

[godBoy]

So Lestat, you are convinced that for whatever reason that God does not exist.
This is the end of it?
You need to be convinced of his existence before you want to hear about specifics..
This makes no sense, it's in the specifics that one builds the overall picture of his understanding of this 'theoretical God'.
I don't think your bunny example is all that valid in this discussion.. What is attributed to God through the bible(and other scriptures) is the specifics that have 'proven' to those involved his existence.
It's not about asking what we cannot measure - 'the colour of the basket' but rather what we have observed, witnessed, thought regarding God. These are all valid points of discussion IMO.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What is attributed to God through the bible(and other scriptures) is the specifics that have 'proven' to those involved his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That must be one of the weakest argument in favour of a god. No wonder I am atheist! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

I'll walk you through it MidGe,

John the apostle of Jesus Christ was convinced of Christ's deity.
We can look at his reasons for believing this - and decide what to do with them.

[MidGe]

John the apostle...? He was not even as famous as your Jesus (and that he was only within the circle of believers (narrow minded), not in a truly historical sense like Ceasar, Caligula, Herod, or many many others, surely too numerous to list here /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), was he?

Why would I take note of him, ot his views???

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">So Lestat, you are convinced that for whatever reason that God does not exist. </font>

No, no, no. I have not convinced myself that God doesn't exist, because there is not sufficient reason to think He DOES exist. See?

In the same way, I am not convinced a plane won't fall on me today, but I have no reason to think it will.

I acknowledge both are possibilities. So in that regard, I guess I'm not one of those hard core atheists who insist with 100% certainty that there definitely is no god. I don't think there is... I don't believe there is... I'd be incredibly surprised if there is... But at the same time, I suppose anything's possible in a universe we don't entirely understand yet.



<font color="blue"> What is attributed to God through the bible(and other scriptures) is the specifics that have 'proven' to those involved his existence.
It's not about asking what we cannot measure - 'the colour of the basket' but rather what we have observed, witnessed, thought regarding God. These are all valid points of discussion IMO. </font>

You can say what you want, but you have not *observed* or *witnessed* anything regarding God. What you have is *faith* that these scriptures written by men who didn't even know the planet they were on orbited the sun, is true. That's faith. Please call it what it is.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't? Do you think that thinking something about him adds or removes from him? Think about what you are saying.
Nobody KNOWS anything about what God is, so why would you even try to put him in such a finite box? You said that being jelous would make him imperfect, how would you know this? Is that in the aformentioned texts?

[/ QUOTE ]



The bible is one version of God. The Gita offers another. It is the belief of many sophicsticated theists that these texts all reveal something about the nature of God. They are mythologies. This is a cousin of the belief that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, but as a myth that offers a way for humans to understand God.

The argument would go that since people have been wondering about God for ages and ages (the Vedas go back 4000 years) then it's evident there is something reminiscent of God on earth. (Kinda similar to Pauls argument that we all know God exists in our hearts).

It would also then be possible to write and think about God, since our insights are connected to him. This is how it would be possible to know about God without a revealed text.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, but it's all moot. What's the sense in arguing semantics when you haven't nailed down the most important thing? Does God exist? Before you answer that, what's your basis for any aspect of how God works?



[/ QUOTE ]

Being that this is a philosophical question, God is a semantic.



[ QUOTE ]

This is a huge problem most atheists have in debate. They allow themselves to be pulled into whether God is jealous, imperfect, amoral, etc., when they shouldn't even touch that. First, let's provide a basis for existence. THEN we can talk about attributes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did offer a basis for his existence, SO I could offer thoughts on his characteristics.

Remember, this thread is about characteristics of God, if he were to exist. It's not to disprove God, for that is not my point at all. My point is that the only conceivable God is one who we shouldn't waste our time talking about.

I'm talking, of course, about the God of philosophy, and not of religion. (For the philosophers always had better conceptions of God than the religious zealots).

[evolvedForm]

Thanks for the post RJT. I can see where you're coming from, but I still disagree, at least about the God part. I also love philosophical questions, non-experiential ones. But the question of God is only one of them; and there are many more which concern earth to a greater extent than God. (When I say earth, I don't mean daily affairs, but I can see how it could be construed as that).

Questions like "How do I know what I know? What does it mean to be an existing thing?" deal with problems of this earth that would be there with or without knowledge of God.

The God question tends to override these important questions because people have an emotional connection with it. Everyone's got an opinion, but almost nobody offers anything enlightening on the subject.

[sweetjazz]

eF,

I disagree with your assertion that the existence of God is irrelevant for problems on earth. The existence of God and the specific nature of God (assuming he exists) would likely shift the priorities on earth. Some problems are more grave if God exists, while others less so.

In my opinion, the reason that people should spend less time debating the existence of God is that they are typically speaking 100% out of their ass. My statement refers to people on both sides of the issue.

[evolvedForm]

Agree with your point if the conception of God in the Christian religion is correct. Disagree if other more flexible conceptions of God are correct. Since the more flexible conceptions are more likely to me, then my original point is more cogent.

[kurto]

I'd like to add that if one could disprove the existence of God to everyone, the changes in the world would be fairly substantial.

[evolvedForm]

To nonthinking people, you are right. To thinking people it probably wouldn't change too much. The great philosophical problems are still there, no different than they were. Morals would still be there. Society would still be there. When God stopped existing in my mind (which is the equivalent to God not existing, for all intensive purposes) not much changed, except I began to use reason more.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
You can say what you want, but you have not *observed* or *witnessed* anything regarding God. What you have is *faith* that these scriptures written by men who didn't even know the planet they were on orbited the sun, is true. That's faith. Please call it what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No i'm not willing to believe that the bible is 100% true solely because it's the bible. I believe that what is in the bible can be tested personally.. I can see if what happened to a character in the bible will happen to me if I do the same thing. Then these collaborative tests build for me a idea of the reliablility of the scriptures.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...I can see if what happened to a character in the bible will happen to me if I do the same thing...

[/ QUOTE ]

I got news for you godboy. It is called the inherent ("ill" designed in your view) injustice in the world. Same behaviour will not and does not have similar consequences so often it is not funny.

Another one to support your reasonable doubts and your avowed lack of faith! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">No i'm not willing to believe that the bible is 100% true solely because it's the bible. I believe that what is in the bible can be tested personally.. </font>

Such as?

<font color="blue">I can see if what happened to a character in the bible will happen to me if I do the same thing. </font>

Too easy!