Why you think God doesn't exist? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

evolvedForm

07-06-2006, 10:46 AM

revots33

07-06-2006, 10:47 AM

I don't believe it is possible to know for sure either way. However, without eyewitnesses I think the circumstantial evidence points to him not existing.

At the very least, the idea that he's all-good, or all-powerful, or actively concerned with each and every human being, would be laughed out of court if we required real evidence to prove it.

kurto

07-06-2006, 10:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of a pure "spirit" being with no form yet can still manipulate the universe, is sentient and can think and reason without any sort of physical brain, may not be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem is with the OP's post. In the title, he says "Why you think God Doesn't Exist."

Then, in the body, he asks if there could be a non-specific higher power. A 'higher power' is so vague as to be meaningless. A higher power then man? You interpret a higher power to mean, "The existence of a pure "spirit" being with no form yet can still manipulate the universe, is sentient and can think and reason without any sort of physical brain, may not be possible."

Couldn't a higher power be simply a race of aliens who are greatly more intelligent and developed as a civilization then us?

I don't see how one can answer his question because its so open to interpretation.

kurto

07-06-2006, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out how to edit.

1) Yes, a conscious higher power.

2) Instead of "possible" let's go with likley.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... would an alien race where their dumbest children have the intelligence of Einstein... a race that has telepathy and some powers of precognition... would that constitute a higher power to you?

If so... then yes, it is possible. Though this wouldn't address the question of your subject line... for this would not be a "god" as I suspect you are asking.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
of course it's possible. anyone who says it's impossible is a [censored] idiot. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says? It may NOT be possible if the laws of physics are such that make it not possible (not that we know if they are or aren't). It's possible that every atom on the earth could simultaniously tunnel into the middle of a star or cease to exist. Not probable but possible. The existence of a pure "spirit" being with no form yet can still manipulate the universe, is sentient and can think and reason without any sort of physical brain, may not be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

"it may not be possible"

If it's possible that it's impossible, then it's possible that it's possible. It's not impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it possibly impossible and possibly possible it could also be impossible. There's an equivication between what's possible due to a state of ignorance and what's possible in fact.

e.g It's possible that its impossible to find a counter-example to the riemann hyposthesis (or any unproven maths conjecture).

chez

Chips_

07-06-2006, 11:27 AM

I think your original post is fine. Its a straightforward question. Yes its possible there is a higher power.

It seems unlikely that a higher power is responsible for placing people on the earth seperate from the rest of life. The Evolution of life on earth through natural mechanisms seems solid. But I would not exclude the possibility of a higher power 100% from people's existence.

The creation of the Universe itself may have had a higher power behind it - it's really an unknown I think so yes it is possible. The suggestion of a higher power is not a random idea as some like to label it (Spaghetti monsters and so on). Its a very logical possibility that the Universe is a creation or part of a creation of some kind. A bacteria may look around it and realize it came about from other forms of life, but it can't see up the microscope.

Sephus

07-06-2006, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
of course it's possible. anyone who says it's impossible is a [censored] idiot. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says? It may NOT be possible if the laws of physics are such that make it not possible (not that we know if they are or aren't). It's possible that every atom on the earth could simultaniously tunnel into the middle of a star or cease to exist. Not probable but possible. The existence of a pure "spirit" being with no form yet can still manipulate the universe, is sentient and can think and reason without any sort of physical brain, may not be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't see what was hard to understand about my post.

if you believe that there's a 99% chance (from your point of view) that X is "impossible" and a 1% chance that X is possible, are you going to say "i believe X is impossible"? if you did, would you be answering the OP's question or a different one? what if it were 51/49?

the question's use of "possible" and my response to it were (i thought) obviously concerned with our own personal certainty/non certainty.

bunny

07-06-2006, 12:14 PM

I would be amazed if anyone said they thought it was impossible. This doesnt seem the contentious part of the argument. The controversy seems to be how likely it is, given what we know.

agent_fish

07-06-2006, 12:16 PM

Why do you think there aren't unicorns on Pluto?

Lestat

07-06-2006, 12:21 PM

There are several reasons why man invented gods. But the biggest one, was a way to explain the incomprehensible.

Is a higher power possible? Of course. Are there compelling reasons to think there is a higher power? Of course not. It is only compelling to those who MUST have answers to things not understood at the moment.

Chips_

07-06-2006, 12:21 PM

If you mean Unicorns as mammals, we dont believe in Unicorns on Pluto because the idea is foolish - it is too cold. The idea of a higher power behind the Universe is not foolish - it's just unknown.

JMAnon

07-06-2006, 12:46 PM

Certainly, a "higher" power than humans could exist, but not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent one. No one has satisfactorily refuted the problem of evil and human suffering.

It is possible that a powerful entity or civilzation has created us and everything we observe through our senses. But, even if that were the case, it would not explain why there is something (the higher entity/civilzation) rather than nothing. Although many struggle to find an ultimate reason for existence, there can be none. Things just exist. Positing a god who created our universe only pushes the question back another level.

JMAnon

07-06-2006, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible. Literally everything is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not possible that I do not exist at this moment.

bluesbassman

07-06-2006, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out how to edit.

1) Yes, a conscious higher power.

2) Instead of "possible" let's go with likley.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, if this "higher power" is conscious, it must be some type of biological organism which has a form of neurological activity. (Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "conscious.")

I'm still not clear what you mean by higher "power." If you are asking whether there exist alien life forms which are physically or mentally superior to man in some sense, then I'd guess yes, that's likely to be found somewhere in the universe.

If you mean something else by a conscious higher power, you'll need to be more precise.

revots33

07-06-2006, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are several reasons why man invented gods. But the biggest one, was a way to explain the incomprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Before science explained thunder, lightning, the sunrise, etc., they were explained by gods. Perhaps in the future some advanced descendant of the human race will look back on our ancient religions, and laugh about our quaint beliefs.

evolvedForm

07-06-2006, 01:00 PM

you're right, i should have concluded "it is possible" rather than, "it is not impossible."

luckyme

07-06-2006, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean something else by a conscious higher power, you'll need to be more precise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been hoping a definition would appear so I could consider the question. "Higher" power?? What makes a power 'higher'? Is it one I don't have, such as we find in bats or homing pigeons? Or is it one I have but stronger, such as more intelligence, such as Einstein had over me and I have over GeorgeW?
Maybe I'm having more trouble than most because I don't see the universe as a hierarchy and if there are amazing aliens or super-aliens out there I wouldn't consider them as 'higher' just different.
Does anyone have any idea what qualities the OP had in mind for his 'higher power' so I can participate in the exchange?

revots33

07-06-2006, 01:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any idea what qualities the OP had in mind for his 'higher power' so I can participate in the exchange?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for the OP, but I took his meaning as a being that has the power to create the universe.

bluesbassman

07-06-2006, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any idea what qualities the OP had in mind for his 'higher power' so I can participate in the exchange?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for the OP, but I took his meaning as a being that has the power to create the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the definition of higher power, then the answer follows immediately from the definition, which is no, it's not possible. Since a "conscious being" must be some type of biological organism, it must be a consequence of and part of the universe, and could not have created it.

If you claim this "being" could be a very clever organism in a larger "super universe," who subsequently created our universe, that extends the concept of a conscious being beyond intelligibility.

Matt R.

07-06-2006, 02:13 PM

Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

bluesbassman

07-06-2006, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we know for sure consciousness is a direct consequence of biochemical reactions in a physical medium. Thus, if we take away the medium, the concept of "consciousness" has no intelligible meaning.

luckyme

07-06-2006, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're conscious then it's not anything special/unusual and I'm more impressed with homing pigeon powers. We're dealing with some very fuzzy-edged concepts here. 'biological' doesn't have any clear boundaries and runs into the same problems as trying to nail down 'alive' vs 'not alive'.
Consciousness or even self-awareness is not a higher power ( 'cause I have those) and the ability to create universes is discussed in labs these days. I'm getting the impression this 'higher power' is simply the difference between Darth Vader and the Emperor. Not 'higher' just 'more of'. ??

madnak

07-06-2006, 03:15 PM

We know that about the consciousness we observe, not about consciousness in general. It's unjustifiable to make definitive statements about consciousness.

Then of course Hume makes it clear that nothing is impossible, not even that I exist at this moment. At the ultimate level, skepticism is the only rational position there is.

bluesbassman

07-06-2006, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We know that about the consciousness we observe, not about consciousness in general. It's unjustifiable to make definitive statements about consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying we know about furriness in creatures we observe, but not about furriness "in general." I don't understand the distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
At the ultimate level, skepticism is the only rational position there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that, or should I be skeptical of the preceding claim?

spaceman Bryce

07-06-2006, 03:29 PM

someones probably already said this but- Its not that I think god does or doesn't exist. Its that I think the burden of proof is on the side of the believers. Nothing has proved he's up there.

chezlaw

07-06-2006, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
someones probably already said this but- Its not that I think god does or doesn't exist. Its that I think the burden of proof is on the side of the believers. Nothing has proved he's up there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a problem of proof. I believe its likely the sun will rise tomorrow, not only can't I prove this but its damn hard to demonstrate that its a rational belief.

There are however reasons to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. There is no objective reason to believe that god exists. Its possible god exists just because we can't prove that god doesn't exist, but no likelyhood can be given.

chez

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we know for sure consciousness is a direct consequence of biochemical reactions in a physical medium. Thus, if we take away the medium, the concept of "consciousness" has no intelligible meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know nothing of the sort. Consciousness is a very tricky descriptor. I can recognize things that are similar to me, and I 'know' that I am conscious. But I really have no good reason to either believe or not believe that other people are conscious. I can just recognize similarities between what they do and what I do, and guess that they are.

Morrek

07-06-2006, 04:07 PM

Yes, I believe in some sort of higher power. A "God" if you wish, although I think the word is quite misused these days. He/she/whatever is simply put, everything and everyone in this world. The alpha and the omega, the good and the evil, the male and the female, etc. If someone asks me if I believe in God, it's the same to me as if they ask me if I believe in life. This also means that we all are "God", it's just that most of us don't remember it. But that is a good thing, because otherwise, if we remembered it all, we wouldn't be able to play the game of life as we know it.

One book I highly recommend on the subject is Conversations with God (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0340693258/026-6453750-5280468?v=glance&n=266239)

bluesbassman

07-06-2006, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we know for sure consciousness is a direct consequence of biochemical reactions in a physical medium. Thus, if we take away the medium, the concept of "consciousness" has no intelligible meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know nothing of the sort. Consciousness is a very tricky descriptor. I can recognize things that are similar to me, and I 'know' that I am conscious. But I really have no good reason to either believe or not believe that other people are conscious. I can just recognize similarities between what they do and what I do, and guess that they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, we do in fact know consciousness is a consequence of brain activity, and we can even determine different states of consciousness (sleeping vs. awake, etc) by making physical measurements of that neural activity.

Positions such as this poster takes immediately lead one to universal skepticism, or the claim that we really know nothing at all. That would include the claim itself, which leads to hopeless absurdities. As (I believe) Aristotle states, then no knowledge or argumentation is possible, and there is nothing to do but return to a vegetative state.

I find this to be a common epistemological tactic: to make room for absurd claims (such as disembodied "consciousness"), one must subvert all knowledge in general.

ZenMasterFlex

07-06-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out how to edit.

1) Yes, a conscious higher power.

2) Instead of "possible" let's go with likley.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... would an alien race where their dumbest children have the intelligence of Einstein... a race that has telepathy and some powers of precognition... would that constitute a higher power to you?

If so... then yes, it is possible. Though this wouldn't address the question of your subject line... for this would not be a "god" as I suspect you are asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "higher power I mean either/or. God or spaghetti monster aliens with telekenisis. Let's not limit the discussion to one or the other just yet.
I am not going to specify anymore about the original question. Just take what you think it means and throw it an answer.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Restricting "consciousness" to be a purely biological phenomenon seems like a very narrow view, especially since we don't know precisely how consciousness arises from simple biochemical reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we know for sure consciousness is a direct consequence of biochemical reactions in a physical medium. Thus, if we take away the medium, the concept of "consciousness" has no intelligible meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know nothing of the sort. Consciousness is a very tricky descriptor. I can recognize things that are similar to me, and I 'know' that I am conscious. But I really have no good reason to either believe or not believe that other people are conscious. I can just recognize similarities between what they do and what I do, and guess that they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, we do in fact know consciousness is a consequence of brain activity, and we can even determine different states of consciousness (sleeping vs. awake, etc) by making physical measurements of that neural activity.

Positions such as this poster takes immediately lead one to universal skepticism, or the claim that we really know nothing at all. That would include the claim itself, which leads to hopeless absurdities. As (I believe) Aristotle states, then no knowledge or argumentation is possible, and there is nothing to do but return to a vegetative state.

I find this to be a common epistemological tactic: to make room for absurd claims (such as disembodied "consciousness"), one must subvert all knowledge in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we know that? How do we KNOW that a dog is or isn't conscious? They have brains. They have biological processes. And yet there is FAR from a consensus on whether or not they are conscious or not. The same applies to ants, or bacteria. How can you so assuredly say that the same cannot apply to a typewriter or the more advanced computers we will have in ten, twenty, or a hundred years?

Matt R.

07-06-2006, 05:16 PM

Agreeing with vhawk,
As far as I know, all we *know* about human brain activity is that certain observable activities in a human correspond (roughly, at best) to certain neural impulses in the brain. We *kind of* know what biochemical mechanisms are occuring in the brain, and how they respond to certan chemical stimuli. The fact that we can observe brain activity in response to a stimulus does not convince me that we completely understand how a network of chemical reactions can become self-aware. Until we can explain how and why a neural net becomes conscious, I find the conjecture that consciousness is purely a result of neuronal impulses very unsatisfying.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Agreeing with vhawk,
As far as I know, all we *know* about human brain activity is that certain observable activities in a human correspond (roughly, at best) to certain neural impulses in the brain. We *kind of* know what biochemical mechanisms are occuring in the brain, and how they respond to certan chemical stimuli. The fact that we can observe brain activity in response to a stimulus does not convince me that we completely understand how a network of chemical reactions can become self-aware. Until we can explain how and why a neural net becomes conscious, I find the conjecture that consciousness is purely a result of neuronal impulses very unsatisfying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally, and more specifically, all of those descriptions can easily be applied to machines or computers as well. Computers also can respond to stimuli, and in predictable ways, and if you analogize the neural net, this can be similar, though cruder, than human thought. Dogs also respond in a way that correlates with neural activity, yet many would say they are not conscious. I believe consciousness exists on a continuum, and I see no fundamental barrier or prerequisite that says only things made of carbon can be conscious, or only things that have dopamine.

madnak

07-06-2006, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying we know about furriness in creatures we observe, but not about furriness "in general." I don't understand the distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be. What definition of "furriness" are you using here? I don't even know what that means. But unless we define it specifically based on the biology of "furry" creatures, it doesn't exclusivley apply to them. Hell, we already have synthetic fur, and it seems to me that plenty of nonliving things are "furry," such as a teddy bear. I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find out about "furry" asteroids or "furry" aliens.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the ultimate level, skepticism is the only rational position there is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that, or should I be skeptical of the preceding claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to be certain of something to act on it.

Regardless, your "Pascal's wager" of skepticism hardly holds up. Even if skepticism did result in paralysis, which is absurd, such a fact would have no bearing on the validity of skepticism.

godBoy

07-06-2006, 07:42 PM

Definately,

Something is eternal, something didn't have a beginning - I name this something God.

deleteduser

07-06-2006, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's possible. Literally everything is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not possible that I do not exist at this moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

hah thats what you think

kurto

07-06-2006, 10:26 PM

If the answer is that open... ie, where a higher power can simply mean a being more advanced or intelligent then what we know, it certainly is a possibility.

FortunaMaximus

07-07-2006, 12:00 AM

42.

Or that there exists a perpetual state where there is always more or less than one God.

As for a scalar definition of intelligence, there exists a hierarchy on Earth. Why not the Universe?

_TKO_

07-07-2006, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't a higher power be simply a race of aliens who are greatly more intelligent and developed as a civilization then us?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't much that differs this civilization from God, if said civilization created our planet and all the species living on it.

kurto

07-07-2006, 11:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As for a scalar definition of intelligence, there exists a hierarchy on Earth. Why not the Universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is nice and succinct.

The first part you posted, "42.

Or that there exists a perpetual state where there is always more or less than one God."

I don't understand what you're saying. I also don't see anything in this thread or the original question that implies there is a God (in the religious sense: all powerful creator of everything except itself).

Shooby

07-09-2006, 06:39 AM

Ok. I'll bite. Is it "possible" that there's a higher power. Sure. But it's possible in the same way that it's possible that there are leprechans.
Using the scientific method, you can only state a hypothesis if there's some evidence. There isn't any evidence for God.
There's no rational basis for belief in a supernatural being.
These beliefs are part of society, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like they are going anywhere soon.
Steve

madnak

07-09-2006, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no rational basis for belief in a supernatural being.

[/ QUOTE ]

No empirical basis. There may very well be a rational basis. Personally I agree there's no rational basis to assume a higher power, but nor is there any rational basis to assume the absence of a higher power. The arguments to parsimony are pretty irrelevant. Rationally speaking, the basis of existence is impossible to evaluate in any kind of meaningful sense.

Shooby

07-09-2006, 10:13 PM

Shoot. I knew the word "rational" was going to bite me in the butt. It was a sloppy response. Empirical is the right word.Thanks, Steve /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Shooby

07-09-2006, 10:23 PM

Why do you think "it's very possible"?
There isn't any good reason to even ask the question "Is there a God?" IMO. You need evidence first. Anything else, I think, is mental masturbation.
Steve

bunny

07-09-2006, 10:24 PM

The fact of a majority (? certainly a large proportion) of humans believing it is a reason to ask the question (although not a reason to believe).

Jordan Olsommer

07-09-2006, 10:56 PM

2003 BBC Reith Lectures (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/)

Q:"Is [your atheism] because of your science, is that because of what you have learned, or...?"

A:"Well, it's partly common sense."
- V.S. Ramachandran

revots33

07-09-2006, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of a majority (? certainly a large proportion) of humans believing it is a reason to ask the question (although not a reason to believe).

[/ QUOTE ]

Many, many people also believe that if they don't have their lucky troll doll with them, they won't win at bingo.

I often hear the reasoning, from others on these boards, that since x percent of humans have believed in a higher power since the earliest civilizations, that must therefore give the idea enough credence to at least make it worth considering. (Some even go so far as to offer it as proof.)

But why? If a lot of people believe in something with absolutely zero evidence to support it, then it does not follow that the belief must therefore have merit. The only thing that would give it merit would be actual evidence of its existence. Otherwise it's just a widely-held superstition. Whole communities thought they were burning witches at the stake at one time, and I do not think their numbers gives any more credence to their preposterous claims of witchcraft.

bunny

07-09-2006, 11:46 PM

I absolutely agree. I didnt mean it is evidence of the belief being true, I was responding to the claim that there was no reason to ask "Does God exist?"

Clearly millions say they believe, so it is reasonable to ask "Well are they right?" I dont think that the fact that millions believe provides any evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but the distinction seems meaningful to me.

revots33

07-10-2006, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. I didnt mean it is evidence of the belief being true, I was responding to the claim that there was no reason to ask "Does God exist?"

Clearly millions say they believe, so it is reasonable to ask "Well are they right?" I dont think that the fact that millions believe provides any evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but the distinction seems meaningful to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand bunny, and I wasn't trying to belittle your post. My argument is that there shouldn't be a distinction. Even asking the question, "are they right?" should depend more on the evidence and less on how many people believe it.

For example, how many people would have to believe that aliens from a distant galaxy are reading our thoughts right now, before we deemed the question worthy of asking, "are they right?" 100? A million? What is the tipping point that makes an unprovable belief even worthy of consideration?

txag007

07-10-2006, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I'll bite. Is it "possible" that there's a higher power. Sure. But it's possible in the same way that it's possible that there are leprechans.
Using the scientific method, you can only state a hypothesis if there's some evidence. There isn't any evidence for God.
There's no rational basis for belief in a supernatural being.
These beliefs are part of society, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like they are going anywhere soon.
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

luckyme

07-10-2006, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. I didnt mean it is evidence of the belief being true, I was responding to the claim that there was no reason to ask "Does God exist?"

Clearly millions say they believe, so it is reasonable to ask "Well are they right?" I dont think that the fact that millions believe provides any evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but the distinction seems meaningful to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question that arises if you find a large group of people believing something for which there is no evidence is not " is what they believe true?" but "why do they believe it?"

The cargo cults are a good example. Are we supposed to study whether building landing strips causes airplanes to appear? or are we going to study the actual cause of the belief?

bunny

07-10-2006, 12:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. I didnt mean it is evidence of the belief being true, I was responding to the claim that there was no reason to ask "Does God exist?"

Clearly millions say they believe, so it is reasonable to ask "Well are they right?" I dont think that the fact that millions believe provides any evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but the distinction seems meaningful to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question that arises if you find a large group of people believing something for which there is no evidence is not " is what they believe true?" but "why do they believe it?"

The cargo cults are a good example. Are we supposed to study whether building landing strips causes airplanes to appear? or are we going to study the actual cause of the belief?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reason this analogy is different is that we know more about the situation. I think we should say "Are they right?" Immediately discount it since it's so obvious they arent (given our extended knowledge) then start looking at why they did it.

With "I believe in god" we dont have as much information as to whether or not he exists as we do regarding the causality of planes landing on airstrips, etc etc. It is harder to discount it out of hand (although when you look for evidence and find none, you can discount the reality of it pretty quickly - the point is, looking for evidence of whether god exists is answering the question. Denying the right to ask "Does something exist?" without evidence seems too stringent).

Perhaps an analogy of my own? If I tried to ask "Is there a smallest fundamental particle?" would you require me to provide evidence of it existing before you allowed me to even speculate?

I think the question is legitimised by the masses - I dont think the belief is justified by them.

bunny

07-10-2006, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. I didnt mean it is evidence of the belief being true, I was responding to the claim that there was no reason to ask "Does God exist?"

Clearly millions say they believe, so it is reasonable to ask "Well are they right?" I dont think that the fact that millions believe provides any evidence that the belief is true. Perhaps I am nitpicking, but the distinction seems meaningful to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand bunny, and I wasn't trying to belittle your post. My argument is that there shouldn't be a distinction. Even asking the question, "are they right?" should depend more on the evidence and less on how many people believe it.

For example, how many people would have to believe that aliens from a distant galaxy are reading our thoughts right now, before we deemed the question worthy of asking, "are they right?" 100? A million? What is the tipping point that makes an unprovable belief even worthy of consideration?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think there has to be a tipping point for this question to be valid, any more than there is a tipping point for is it hot or cold. Some people will say it is hot and others will disagree - once it is 50C, everyone will disagree. Some people will say 1 person is enough, others will say 1 million is enough (perhaps you are saying 6 billion is enough) whatever your personal requirement - there is some level. Wouldnt you allow us to ask the question "Are we right?" if everyone but you believed without evidence?

This is all clearly nitpicking - but for some reason it seems important to me. I cant quite put my finger on what it is...

luckyme

07-10-2006, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason this analogy is different is that we know more about the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's possible the cults have photo's of building runways and then airplanes arriving. They have a 'bin der, dun dat' argument for their belief. The existance of evidence of god has been far more studied than cargo cult beliefs and can be dismissed much easier. Where's is there left to look?
I realize you may be trying to split hairs here, but I can't see anything unusual in your appeal to popularity... and I am trying to.

txag007

07-10-2006, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I believe in some sort of higher power. A "God" if you wish, although I think the word is quite misused these days. He/she/whatever is simply put, everything and everyone in this world. The alpha and the omega, the good and the evil, the male and the female, etc. If someone asks me if I believe in God, it's the same to me as if they ask me if I believe in life. This also means that we all are "God", it's just that most of us don't remember it. But that is a good thing, because otherwise, if we remembered it all, we wouldn't be able to play the game of life as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]
When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"

"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." Luke 19:37-40

bunny

07-10-2006, 01:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I realize you may be trying to split hairs here, but I can't see anything unusual in your appeal to popularity... and I am trying to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the effort. It seems to me that there are two claims:

1) Millions of people believe in God so there is evidence that he exists. Let's look for more.
2) Millions of people believe in God so there is a phenomenon worth exploring (and we shouldnt rule out the possibility they are right at the outset). Let's see if there is any evidence to back up their claim.

I dont believe the first is valid, I do believe the second is. I think my aversion to ruling things out of the realms of investigation without some baseline amount of evidence is just a fear of restricting human speculation. I think there is a difference between my position and the oft-repeated "Millions believe so there's something to it" claim.

What do you think of the smallest fundamental particle analogy? Does it make my point at all?

txag007

07-10-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly, a "higher" power than humans could exist, but not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent one. No one has satisfactorily refuted the problem of evil and human suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]
King Rehoboam established himself firmly in Jerusalem and continued as king. He was forty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city the LORD had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel in which to put his Name. His mother's name was Naamah; she was an Ammonite. He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the LORD. 2 Chronicles 12:13-14

5 "God is mighty, but does not despise men;
he is mighty, and firm in his purpose.

6 He does not keep the wicked alive
but gives the afflicted their rights.

7 He does not take his eyes off the righteous;
he enthrones them with kings
and exalts them forever.

8 But if men are bound in chains,
held fast by cords of affliction,

9 he tells them what they have done—
that they have sinned arrogantly.

10 He makes them listen to correction
and commands them to repent of their evil.

11 If they obey and serve him,
they will spend the rest of their days in prosperity
and their years in contentment.

12 But if they do not listen,
they will perish by the sword
and die without knowledge.

13 "The godless in heart harbor resentment;
even when he fetters them, they do not cry for help.

14 They die in their youth,
among male prostitutes of the shrines.

15 But those who suffer he delivers in their suffering;
he speaks to them in their affliction.

Job 36:5-15

MidGe

07-10-2006, 02:09 AM

Truly a nightmarish definition of god!

Let's unite against the tyrant, he seems to be the one needing to be redeemed! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

luckyme

07-10-2006, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think of the smallest fundamental particle analogy? Does it make my point at all?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
If I tried to ask "Is there a smallest fundamental particle?" would you require me to provide evidence of it existing before you allowed me to even speculate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've shifted the focus. On god, you contend that the mere belief of others should be enough to have non-believers look for proof. With the particle, you ( the sorta believer) can look all you want, but you wouldn't expect that I should give it any credence until you do produce something simply on the strength of the unsupstantiated belief of you and your cohorts?? You wouldn't expect, "lookee, Bunny and the Boys all have a belief in a smallest particle, without evidence mind you, but they sound so sure, we should perhaps look for one."

bunny

07-10-2006, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think of the smallest fundamental particle analogy? Does it make my point at all?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
If I tried to ask "Is there a smallest fundamental particle?" would you require me to provide evidence of it existing before you allowed me to even speculate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've shifted the focus. On god, you contend that the mere belief of others should be enough to have non-believers look for proof. With the particle, you ( the sorta believer) can look all you want, but you wouldn't expect that I should give it any credence until you do produce something simply on the strength of the unsupstantiated belief of you and your cohorts?? You wouldn't expect, "lookee, Bunny and the Boys all have a belief in a smallest particle, without evidence mind you, but they sound so sure, we should perhaps look for one."

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I have just misunderstood - all I am asking for is the right to have the unfounded beliefs respected as possibly true. I may have been overinterpreting the original objection to be "Without evidence it doesnt even qualify as possibly true."

I certainly dont demand that atheists look for evidence for God, nor would I demand they look for my bunny-on. I think both beliefs are equivalent in term of possibly being true...I'm having a bad day, logically speaking, I think /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

madnak

07-10-2006, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think "it's very possible"?
There isn't any good reason to even ask the question "Is there a God?" IMO. You need evidence first. Anything else, I think, is mental masturbation.
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

The question was asked in the OP. Whether it's practical is something else entirely. It's very possible there's an invisible, immaterial unicorn sitting in my room right now, but it's impractical to give the question any extensive consideration.

"God" is an extremely broad concept with a lot of power in many different cultures, a lot of interesting hypotheses about why reality "is" involve the idea, and I find it very interesting in general. Still, "God" has in common with the unicorn a lack of empirically verifiable traits, and in that sense the "reality" of God is irrelevant. But God can still have an emotional impact when people claim he has the power to cause eternal torment. If a billion people said the unicorn in my room had that power, I'd be disturbed. Thankfully, nobody seems to believe the unicorn has that power, or that the unicorn even exists.

(I'll have nightmares about unicorns tonight /images/graemlins/frown.gif)

jws43yale

07-10-2006, 04:53 AM

I believe it is very propable that there is a higher power. Our universe had to come from something. But with this belief comes one of the most difficult parasoxes. Who created the creator? Our laws of physics don't explain how anything could come from nothing whether it be our universe or a higher power. This is something that an intelligent religious person will always struggle to explain.

But disregarding a religious stance, it seems highly likely that there must be something greater in this universe (or "higher" that this universe).

txag007

07-10-2006, 09:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Truly a nightmarish definition of god!

Let's unite against the tyrant, he seems to be the one needing to be redeemed! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:5-7

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:1-10

revots33

07-10-2006, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I have just misunderstood - all I am asking for is the right to have the unfounded beliefs respected as possibly true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why should an unfounded belief be respected as possibly true? Doesn't the fact that the belief is unfounded, negate the need to even consider it? Otherwise we must, by extension, regard EVERY belief as possibly true, regardless of how outlandish.

And if the belief is unfounded - why should it matter how many people believe it?

Another example (from wikipedia):

[ QUOTE ]
Heaven's Gate was the name of a UFO religion co-led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles (until her death). The cult's end, coinciding with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp, created a sensation in the United States in 1997. Applewhite convinced 39 followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet; members reportedly believed themselves to be extraterrestrials. Such beliefs have led some observers to characterise the group as a type of "UFO religion".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we need to ask, "are they right", about the Heaven's Gate members? How many more members would they have needed for us to deem the question worthy of considering? Because even if they had a billion members, it would still be a preposterous and unprovable belief that I wouldn't even waste time considering.

If we can agree that the Heaven's Gate members were crackpots, then we need to ask why believing that your soul will float up to heaven and live on clouds with angels is any more worthy of consideration. How is that more reasonable than believing you'll be going on a spaceship?

txag007

07-10-2006, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are several reasons why man invented gods. But the biggest one, was a way to explain the incomprehensible.

Is a higher power possible? Of course. Are there compelling reasons to think there is a higher power? Of course not. It is only compelling to those who MUST have answers to things not understood at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Ephesians 4:10-16

bunny

07-10-2006, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I have just misunderstood - all I am asking for is the right to have the unfounded beliefs respected as possibly true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why should an unfounded belief be respected as possibly true? Doesn't the fact that the belief is unfounded, negate the need to even consider it? Otherwise we must, by extension, regard EVERY belief as possibly true, regardless of how outlandish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this should indeed be the starting position when considering a claim. I am against placing arbitrary limits on what I will consider possibly true. I'm not saying you must put effort into examining every preposterous claim - I think that would be silly. But I dont think you should say (as you seem to be) "Anything which has no evidence currently should be considered impossible until evidence is found supporting it"

[ QUOTE ]
And if the belief is unfounded - why should it matter how many people believe it?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter in the sense that I dont think it becomes more likely to be right. I do think it becomes a more significant fact about the world which requires explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
Another example (from wikipedia):

[ QUOTE ]
Heaven's Gate was the name of a UFO religion co-led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles (until her death). The cult's end, coinciding with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp, created a sensation in the United States in 1997. Applewhite convinced 39 followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet; members reportedly believed themselves to be extraterrestrials. Such beliefs have led some observers to characterise the group as a type of "UFO religion".

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we need to ask, "are they right", about the Heaven's Gate members?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think we need to, no. But I think it is incorrect to deem their belief impossible without considering whether it is logically consistent.

[ QUOTE ]
How many more members would they have needed for us to deem the question worthy of considering? Because even if they had a billion members, it would still be a preposterous and unprovable belief that I wouldn't even waste time considering.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me neither - I'm not suggesting we waste our time investigating ludicrous claims, merely that we not dismiss them as impossible just because they have no evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
If we can agree that the Heaven's Gate members were crackpots, then we need to ask why believing that your soul will float up to heaven and live on clouds with angels is any more worthy of consideration. How is that more reasonable than believing you'll be going on a spaceship?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I dont think either are reasonable.

To be clear: I do think there is a god, but I dont think you should waste time investigating whether I am right, because I can offer you no evidence (not any that I think you should accept rationally, anyhow). Nonetheless, my failure to provide you with any evidence doesnt establish that theism is not possibly true.

revots33

07-10-2006, 11:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, my failure to provide you with any evidence doesnt establish that theism is not possibly true.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this statement, isn't it impossible to prove that anything nonverifiable isn't true? Why then do we discount some (heaven's gate spaceship, the tooth fairy) and not others (heaven/hell, benevolent creator of the universe, etc.)?

I am not trying to be closed-minded. In fact, I appreciate your open-mindedness. But if you say lack of evidence does not prove something is not true, then what is the point of even considering the question? We can't prove it, and we can't disprove it. Surely in order to rationally consider the verity of something, the burden of proof has to be on SOMEONE. If it cannot be proven either way, then how can you even debate the question, and why bother?

bunny

07-10-2006, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, my failure to provide you with any evidence doesnt establish that theism is not possibly true.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this statement, isn't it impossible to prove that anything nonverifiable isn't true? Why then do we discount some (heaven's gate spaceship, the tooth fairy) and not others (heaven/hell, benevolent creator of the universe, etc.)?

I am not trying to be closed-minded. In fact, I appreciate your open-mindedness. But if you say lack of evidence does not prove something is not true, then what is the point of even considering the question? We can't prove it, and we can't disprove it. Surely in order to rationally consider the verity of something, the burden of proof has to be on SOMEONE. If it cannot be proven either way, then how can you even debate the question, and why bother?

[/ QUOTE ]
OK we're definitely talking at cross purposes. I am distinguishing between possibly true and likely to be true. Also, I do think it can be proven either way - if a claim is refuted through contradictory evidence it should be discarded.

What I do not accept is that no evidence implies the claim is false.

bunny

07-10-2006, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By this statement, isn't it impossible to prove that anything nonverifiable isn't true? Why then do we discount some (heaven's gate spaceship, the tooth fairy) and not others (heaven/hell, benevolent creator of the universe, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reasons are diverse, but do not rest on some of them being prima facie impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to be closed-minded. In fact, I appreciate your open-mindedness. But if you say lack of evidence does not prove something is not true, then what is the point of even considering the question? We can't prove it, and we can't disprove it. Surely in order to rationally consider the verity of something, the burden of proof has to be on SOMEONE. If it cannot be proven either way, then how can you even debate the question, and why bother?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the burden of proof is clearly with the party making the claim with no evidence. Once that proof is produced - the claim is deemed true. Once contradictory evidence is produced - the claim is deemed false. Until then...it is possibly true.

Our knowledge is uncertain, most of our beliefs are only possibly true (and many of those we believe with no evidence).

revots33

07-10-2006, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK we're definitely talking at cross purposes. I am distinguishing between possibly true and likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we're at cross purposes. I am not debating the likelihood of something being true. I am debating the utility of even considering whether an unverifiable belief is possibly true or not. Isn't it a wasted mental exercise if there can never be any proof either way?

I'm going to try one last example, and I'd really like to hear your opinion about it.

In the Catholic faith (the faith I am most familiar with), the cathechism states unequivocably that the bread and wine is turned into the REAL body and blood of Christ during the eucharistic celebration. It is not a symbolic change - it is an actual change in the bread and wine's properties.

This is a belief shared by millions of Catholics. But there is no proof for it. In fact, I'd assume there is proof AGAINST it. If you did a chemical analysis of the host and wine after the priest consecrates it, it would certainly not have the chemical properties of human blood or flesh. So, all available evidence points to the fact that it is still just a piece of bread and some wine.

So my question is, since millions are willing to believe such a fantastical claim in spite of all available evidence, what is the point of considering whether it is true or not? The likelihood of it being true is besides the point, since evidence is irrelevant.

Also, I think simply acknowledging the possibility of something being true is giving it some (perhaps infinitesimal) likelihood of being true. So I don't know if the 2 questions can be totally separated anyway.

andyfox

07-10-2006, 12:47 PM

It's not impossible there's some kind of "higher power." It's very unlikely any of the Gods worked out by people exist though, as their ideas of God match their environment and conditions.

Lestat

07-10-2006, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are several reasons why man invented gods. But the biggest one, was a way to explain the incomprehensible.

Is a higher power possible? Of course. Are there compelling reasons to think there is a higher power? Of course not. It is only compelling to those who MUST have answers to things not understood at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Ephesians 4:10-16

[/ QUOTE ]

??? - I have no idea how this response relates to my comments.

Btw- I believe you should be capitalizing the H in "He" when referring to Christ.

txag007

07-10-2006, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not impossible there's some kind of "higher power." It's very unlikely any of the Gods worked out by people exist though, as their ideas of God match their environment and conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen. Romans 16:25-27

Lestat

07-10-2006, 04:05 PM

Check out txag007's response above and the one to my post below. Why wouldn't you ban a user who makes posts with no purpose other than to preach? Certainly these posts contain no substance whatsoever.

madnak

07-10-2006, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it is very propable that there is a higher power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think probability is really relevant per se. We speak in those terms, but aren't we really discussing the inherent appeal (through simplicity or parsimony or aesthetic value or personal resonance) rather than the actual "chances" that a higher power exists?

If an event is randomly chosen from an infinite series, the probability of any specific event being chosen is 0. Similarly, if there are an infinite number of possible realities, the likelihood of actual reality is also 0. Probability really falls apart where infinity is involved. Unless we can somehow assign finite weights to different possibilities, reason has virtually nothing to say about the likelihood of anything in such a vast idea space.

To the mathematicians out there - if I choose a nonzero real number at random, is there a 50% it's greater than 0 and a 50% it's less than 0? If that is true, doesn't it stand to reason that for any real n, for any non-n real number there's a 50% chance it's greater than n and a 50% chance it's less than n? Probably the "non-n" clause wouldn't even be necessary. And if you take real numbers n1 and n2, isn't the probability of a random real number falling somewhere between those two numbers 0?

That's my understanding. For any dichotomy, any strict division in which there are infinite elements on either "side," it seems the strict probability is always 50%, however contradictory it seems from an algebraic standpoint. So there's a 50% chance that God exists in some form, there's a 50% chance a flying spaghetti monster exists, there's a 50% chance of a unicorn in my room. Meanwhile, there's a 0% chance of any specific outcome or of any continuum of outcomes specified within a finite range. So there's a 0% chance of "the" Catholic God (while there's a 50% chance of "a" Catholic God), etc. Maybe this changes if one "side" is of a different cardinality of infinity? I'm not sure.

But I don't think reason is a useful tool for evaluating these kinds of questions, except as it's used to establish that they can't be answered within any logical context that doesn't accept some element of them as an initial premise.

bunny

07-10-2006, 07:23 PM

Sorry for the verbose reply, but it really seems like I'm not saying what I want to, since I agree with almost everything you are writing, yet we still seem to be arguing... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to try one last example, and I'd really like to hear your opinion about it.

In the Catholic faith (the faith I am most familiar with), the cathechism states unequivocably that the bread and wine is turned into the REAL body and blood of Christ during the eucharistic celebration. It is not a symbolic change - it is an actual change in the bread and wine's properties.

This is a belief shared by millions of Catholics. But there is no proof for it. In fact, I'd assume there is proof AGAINST it. If you did a chemical analysis of the host and wine after the priest consecrates it, it would certainly not have the chemical properties of human blood or flesh. So, all available evidence points to the fact that it is still just a piece of bread and some wine.

So my question is, since millions are willing to believe such a fantastical claim in spite of all available evidence, what is the point of considering whether it is true or not? The likelihood of it being true is besides the point, since evidence is irrelevant.

Also, I think simply acknowledging the possibility of something being true is giving it some (perhaps infinitesimal) likelihood of being true. So I don't know if the 2 questions can be totally separated anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
My position is not that evidence is irrelevant - in your example of transubstantiation (?) I think there is evidence against it and so I dont think it is likely to be true. In this case I expect I would discard the belief, if I held it.

I would suggest that you have considered the possibility the belief is true (by thinking about bread/wine, blood/flesh and what we know of their properties) and you have then concluded that the belief is logically inconsistent with the rest of your beliefs. Hence you have decided it is not actually true, but you have allowed the possibility that it is true (by even considering whether there is any evidence).

To reiterate - the fact that millions believe is a fact of the world. I agree with luckyme (I think) that an important question is "Why do they believe?" I also think that "Are they right?" is a reasonable question to ask - it's what I ask when anyone proposes some bizarre theory to me. I am not suggesting it provides any grounds for accepting the belief as true, nor do I think an unbeliever has some kind of obligation to investigate. My only point is that you dont have the right to declare it "impossible" with no evidence (if you look and find contradictory evidence, that is another thing altogether).

With regard to possibly true vs likely I think possibly is a binary question - it either is possible or it is impossible (ie zero chance of being true). I dont think "Is it likely?" is qualitatively the same as "Is it possible?"

txag007

07-10-2006, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Check out txag007's response above and the one to my post below. Why wouldn't you ban a user who makes posts with no purpose other than to preach? Certainly these posts contain no substance whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is about God, is it not? What better answer to your post then straight from the Word of God? Every scripture I have quoted is topical in direct response to the post to which I replied. For instance:

Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6

chezlaw

07-10-2006, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about God, is it not? What better answer to your post then straight from the Word of God?

[/ QUOTE ]
because you are discussing with people who don't believe god exist so it kinda follows that claiming that stuff is the word of god is senseless.

anyway welcome back

chez

MidGe

07-10-2006, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
claiming that stuff is the word of god is senseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

In many ways!

txag007

07-11-2006, 01:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
claiming that stuff is the word of god is senseless.

[/ QUOTE ]
In many ways!

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Chez! Glad to be back.

Just because many of you do not yet believe in God will not keep me from referring to the Bible as the Word of the Lord. As Paul writes in the first chapter of Romans, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes...for in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'"

That last part is key: the righteous will live by faith. As smart as you guys are, you cannot think your way to God. That's not how you find him. That is not to say that there is no objective evidence for God, as I read elsewhere in this thread. There is objective evidence, but you don't find God through the scientific method. You must first follow the advice in Proverbs chapter 3: Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your path.

You must first believe. Then God will open your eyes.

MidGe

07-11-2006, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You must first believe. Then God will open your eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the problem. How do you know that what you believe in, is what you think it is? After you have made the decision to beleve, it is too late, you are deluded and may never know it!

txag007

07-11-2006, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must first believe. Then God will open your eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]
And therein lies the problem. How do you know that what you believe in, is what you think it is? After you have made the decision to beleve, it is too late, you are deluded and may never know it!

[/ QUOTE ]
So play it safe and therefore don't believe in anything? Is that the best way to go through life?

God gifted each of us with a brain and reason for a purpose. Paul writes in the New Testament to test everything and hold on to the good. Doing this will point you in the right direction (or away from the wrong direction), but it's not how you find God. Not through proofs.

MidGe

07-11-2006, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So play it safe and therefore don't believe in anything? Is that the best way to go through life?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you may as well throw the dice to decide what you are going to believe in! LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

madnak

07-11-2006, 02:08 AM

Wow. Talk about circular. Do you have any arguments that don't rely on what you're trying to prove?

How about this: explain Thomas.

Or explain why someone should work hard to believe in God with no reason to do so and no tendency toward that belief. Or the people who do work hard trying to believe in God and just can't do it.

Or explain the process by which a person may come to some "revelation" that will make the existence to God clear to them in an extrarational sense. Because so far no such process seems to work.

Lestat

07-11-2006, 02:09 AM

As I've said before: Diatribes such as yours are the equivelant to discussing what color basket the Easter Bunny carries his eggs in. You must first establish the existence of an Easter Bunny. You haven't done that. So anything that follows is utterly senseless and contains no more substance than outright preaching.

It's nothing personal... This is a philosophy forum. NOT a religious or mystical forum, meaning that some semblance of logic should accompany your posts here. I wouldn't think it's appropriate to go on about the mystical powers of numerology or astrology either.

Lestat

07-11-2006, 02:14 AM

God gifted each of us with a brain and reason for a purpose. 

Why can't you see that the above statement creates a myriad of additional complications to answer a single problem? IN other words, it creates more questions than it answers.

yukoncpa

07-11-2006, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
but it's not how you find God. Not through proofs

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with proofs? Folks 200 years ago had all sorts of proof that God existed. The sun never ran out of energy, plants opened their petals in the morning, etc. These were wonderous things only explained by God. But now, there are scientific explanations for many things attributed to God. Why is it only now, that we're told not to rely on proofs? Were folks 200 years ago told not to rely on proofs? Doubting Thomas, after all, actually knew God. So this doesn't count. The rest of us don't have the opportunity to actually talk to and associate with God.

Morrek

07-11-2006, 06:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The sun never ran out of energy, plants opened their petals in the morning, etc. These were wonderous things only explained by God. But now, there are scientific explanations for many things attributed to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements do not have to contradict each other

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of us don't have the opportunity to actually talk to and associate with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure about this? Have you tried talking and/or listening to God?

MidGe

07-11-2006, 06:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so sure about this? Have you tried talking and/or listening to God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, many times. There is no one out there or he is in hiding!

Duke

07-11-2006, 06:58 AM

BIG ASSUMPTION THAT HAS A VERY GOOD CHANCE OF BEING FALSE: gravity is weak in our universe because it's acting in multiple dimensions/multiple spacetimes, and we only get a sliver of it in our 3d+time world.

Assuming this, gravity is a good candidate for a higher power. Being able to touch other universes/dimensions/whatever is pretty powerful indeed.

~D

Piers

07-11-2006, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it is possible that there is a higher power?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming this, gravity is a good candidate for a higher power

[/ QUOTE ]

Which illustrates why I think the OP’s question is meaningless. It can be roughly paraphrased as

[ QUOTE ]
Does something exist that you feel OK attaching the label higher power to.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only meaning an answer to this question has, is to say something about the answerer.

What you believe a ‘higher power’ is says something about you; it does not say anything about the indicated ‘higher power’, which is completely unaffected by you’re labelling.

txag007

07-11-2006, 09:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Talk about circular. Do you have any arguments that don't rely on what you're trying to prove?

How about this: explain Thomas.

Or explain why someone should work hard to believe in God with no reason to do so and no tendency toward that belief. Or the people who do work hard trying to believe in God and just can't do it.

Or explain the process by which a person may come to some "revelation" that will make the existence to God clear to them in an extrarational sense. Because so far no such process seems to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just it! I'm not trying to prove anything. As I said before, you cannot think your way into God's presence. You cannot, as you put it, work hard to believe in God. There are no rules you must follow to be accepted by God. There is no process one follows for God to be revealed like it's some sort of fraternity initiation. The reason people work hard to believe in God and just can't do it is because you don't get to God by working hard. Work as hard as you want, but that's just not how to get there. You'll never, ever get to God that way.

Every other religion has rules and laws that must be met in an effort to reach God or to be acceptable in his presence. What makes Christianity different from all other "religions" is the concept of grace. Jesus Christ gave up his life as an answer to the Father for your sins. And my sins. And the sins of the world. This is his gift, and all you have to do is accept it.

All you have to do is tell God that you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins, and ask Jesus to come live in your heart, to dwell inside you. See, I put the word religion in quotes earlier because that isn't really what Christianity is. It's a relationship.

If you have a Bible, you can learn more about this grace by reading the book of Romans. You can learn more about Jesus by reading the book of John. If you don't have a Bible, PM me. I'll send you one.

MidGe

07-11-2006, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What makes Christianity different from all other "religions" is the concept of grace. Jesus Christ gave up his life as an answer to the Father for your sins. And my sins. And the sins of the world. This is his gift, and all you have to do is accept it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have accepted it in the past and got zilcho for it.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a Bible, you can learn more about this grace by reading the book of Romans. You can learn more about Jesus by reading the book of John.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read the bible numerous time.. never got graced. Of course, auto-suggestion is not my forte but it is probably yours.

revots33

07-11-2006, 09:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All you have to do is tell God that you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you don't believe that, what is the point in telling God (who you don't believe in either) that you do believe it?

I think these debates are largely academic (although I enjoy them on that level). I think a person is either the type who can suspend all reason and accept something with zero proof - or he can't. Talking about "letting Jesus dwell in you heart" is just another way of asking people to believe in something while offering no proof to back it up. You could just as easily tell people to let Allah dwell in their heart, or Zeus, any other god man has worshiped throughout the ages.

I am not sure why religion is the ONE thing in the universe that people are willing to accept unquestioningly, with zero proof. My guess as to the reason, is that believing can be very comforting (especially in hard times). And that payoff of comfort is enough to make people "turn off" their rational mind out of wishful thinking.

If you can't think your way to God, then the only other solution is to turn off your reasoning in this one area of your thinking, and I don't think you can turn reason on and off like a switch.

txag007

07-11-2006, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All you have to do is tell God that you believe Jesus was the Son of God who died for your sins

[/ QUOTE ]
Talking about "letting Jesus dwell in you heart" is just another way of asking people to believe in something while offering no proof to back it up. You could just as easily tell people to let Allah dwell in their heart, or Zeus, any other god man has worshiped throughout the ages.

If you can't think your way to God, then the only other solution is to turn off your reasoning in this one area of your thinking, and I don't think you can turn reason on and off like a switch.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did Allah ever ask to enter your heart? Did Zeus? I didn't think so. Christianity stands alone in that regard.

You don't have to "turn off your rational mind" to become a Christian. Far from it! What you must do, though, is give up control of your life and admit that you don't have all of the answers. You'll never get there on your own.

revots33

07-11-2006, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to "turn off your rational mind" to become a Christian. Far from it! What you must do, though, is give up control of your life and admit that you don't have all of the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the first to admit I don't have all the answers! No one does. (And FWIW I was a practicing Catholic until a few months ago.) But isn't putting a name and a human face on the mystery of the universe an attempt to HAVE all the answers? The Universe is a lot less mysterious when you can picture a benevolent God in heaven, orchestrating it all.

Isn't simply accepting it as unknowable, a better appreciation of the mystery?

testaaja

07-11-2006, 10:35 AM

txag007

07-11-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to "turn off your rational mind" to become a Christian. Far from it! What you must do, though, is give up control of your life and admit that you don't have all of the answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am the first to admit I don't have all the answers! No one does. (And FWIW I was a practicing Catholic until a few months ago.) But isn't putting a name and a human face on the mystery of the universe an attempt to HAVE all the answers? The Universe is a lot less mysterious when you can picture a benevolent God in heaven, orchestrating it all.

Isn't simply accepting it as unknowable, a better appreciation of the mystery?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think knowing the Creator induces a better appreciation of the mystery. :-)

bluesbassman

07-11-2006, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
God gifted each of us with a brain and reason for a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which immediately implies you are going against his will by believing in him.

The concept of "god" is irrational, so by the consistent exercise of my reason, I reject such nonsense.

luckyme

07-11-2006, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure why religion is the ONE thing in the universe that people are willing to accept unquestioningly, with zero proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that exclusive, it's perhaps the major shared one, that's all. Think about the Bushian 'beliefs' that had to overcome reason when it comes to the Irag invasion. Just the one about "they'll welcome us as liberators and are eager for democracy", all contrary to even a glance at the reality in Iraq at the time.

The "I want it to be true ( at a subconscious level) so it is true" pattern shows up in everyday choices. Sexual attraction can make people overlook obvious ( to others) major flaws in a person. Flaws they would see in an instant if they weren't involved.

Heck, even "those shoes will make me sexy" falls in this category.

revots33

07-11-2006, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The "I want it to be true ( at a subconscious level) so it is true" pattern shows up in everyday choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very true. The interesting thing about religion is the extents people will take it, and how unquestioning they are.

I know from experience because I was a believing Catholic until recently. That piece of bread is really someone's flesh? OK! If you don't get baptised you have some dirt spot called "original sin" on your soul? No prob! Jesus was a man yet his mother was a virgin? Sign me up! God says don't masturbate? OK, God!

I would believe anything, absolutely anything they dreamed up, because I wanted to believe I would go to heaven when I die.

txag007

07-11-2006, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "I want it to be true ( at a subconscious level) so it is true" pattern shows up in everyday choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very true. The interesting thing about religion is the extents people will take it, and how unquestioning they are.

I know from experience because I was a believing Catholic until recently. That piece of bread is really someone's flesh? OK! If you don't get baptised you have some dirt spot called "original sin" on your soul? No prob! Jesus was a man yet his mother was a virgin? Sign me up! God says don't masturbate? OK, God!

I would believe anything, absolutely anything they dreamed up, because I wanted to believe I would go to heaven when I die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Breaking bread, being baptized, all that stuff is symbolism. While important, none of that has anything to do with being saved or getting to heaven. The only way to heaven is through Jesus.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Lestat

07-11-2006, 04:22 PM

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6


Which begs the question: What happens to all the billions of people who lived on earth BEFORE Jesus? And what happens to all the billions of people who never heard of Him? And the billions who die as babies? And the billions of people who are just as sure to believe in something else, as you are sure of Jesus?

That's a lot of burning souls for such minor (or zero), offenses. Are you SURE the religion you believe in is a good, and not evil one?

_TKO_

07-11-2006, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To the mathematicians out there - if I choose a nonzero real number at random, is there a 50% it's greater than 0 and a 50% it's less than 0? If that is true, doesn't it stand to reason that for any real n, for any non-n real number there's a 50% chance it's greater than n and a 50% chance it's less than n? Probably the "non-n" clause wouldn't even be necessary. And if you take real numbers n1 and n2, isn't the probability of a random real number falling somewhere between those two numbers 0?

[/ QUOTE ]

This peaked my interest. Your argument relies on the real number system being uniformly distributed. A number system in itself is superset of reality, so, while you may draw the conclusions you wish from the above argument, they don't have any practicality in the real world. If our world was in fact infinite, then some of your arguments would stand, and would be very intriguing. However, there is no mathematical proof of infinity. Similarly, there is no mathematical proof of God. The idea of God is based on the same logical foundation as the mathematical concept of infinity. God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing; God transcends time and space; God is infinite.

As for the math above, you've made a critical, yet common, misinterpretation of the meaning of "0". In the situations above, you are not describing something that is not-existent, but rather something that is infinitely small. This is kind of what humanity is like in relation to God - infinitely small.

EDIT: To extend that point further, I might add that humanity probably would not matter much to God, whereas God would matter very much to humanity.

txag007

07-11-2006, 04:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6


Which begs the question: What happens to all the billions of people who lived on earth BEFORE Jesus? And what happens to all the billions of people who never heard of Him? And the billions who die as babies? And the billions of people who are just as sure to believe in something else, as you are sure of Jesus?

That's a lot of burning souls for such minor (or zero), offenses. Are you SURE the religion you believe in is a good, and not evil one?

[/ QUOTE ]
Great questions! (except maybe the last one) :-)

I don't have all the answers, but here is what Christians typically believe:

Before Jesus walked the Earth, people were saved through faith in God just as they are now.

What happens to people who have never heard of Jesus? We don't know. The Bible doesn't say. That's why Christians are desperately trying to take the gospel to all the unreached people groups who have not heard about Jesus.

As for babies, Christians believe in an age of accountability in which they become accountable to God for their sins. This isn't as much a defined age as it is a point in the maturation process at which a child is able to understand right and wrong and realize who Jesus is and what He did on the cross.

What about people of other religions? As painful as this is for me to type, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Bible says that if you have chosen to reject the grace Jesus offers then you are destined to eternal separation from God in Hell.

I realize that perhaps you weren't asking those questions in anticipation of serious answers from me, but I pray that my post will help someone who is reading this come to a greater understanding and knowledge of Christianity and what we believe, as well as who Jesus really is.

revots33

07-11-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What about people of other religions? As painful as this is for me to type, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Bible says that if you have chosen to reject the grace Jesus offers then you are destined to eternal separation from God in Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone somewhere is posting the exact same message, just replace Jesus with Allah and The Bible with the Quran. Had you been born in Iraq or Afghanistan, you'd likely be posting it yourself.

Everyone is utterly convinced that their religion is the one path. Given all the death and bloodshed, I think it is likely one of the greatest tragedies of our world that they are all wrong.

madnak

07-11-2006, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This peaked my interest. Your argument relies on the real number system being uniformly distributed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that true? Again, calling the math people. I was under the impression that so long as the cardinality is the same, the distrubution doesn't have to be. If there's a one-to-one correspondence between the elements on one side and the elements on the other side, the probability will be 50%.

[ QUOTE ]
A number system in itself is superset of reality, so, while you may draw the conclusions you wish from the above argument, they don't have any practicality in the real world. If our world was in fact infinite, then some of your arguments would stand, and would be very intriguing. However, there is no mathematical proof of infinity. Similarly, there is no mathematical proof of God. The idea of God is based on the same logical foundation as the mathematical concept of infinity. God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing; God transcends time and space; God is infinite.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a logical argument at all; it's circular. A number system is a purely logical structure, not a "superset of reality." Pure math has nothing to do with reality, many branches presumably don't apply to the real world at all. Mathematics is as fundamentally logical (given its axioms) as the statements "All blorps are horps. Norg is a blorp. Therefore, Norg is a horp." This is trivially true regardless of any reality. Furthermore, if you suggest that mathematics is based on reality, then you can't use mathematics to define reality. If the nature of quantitative reasoning stems from reality, then you can't use quantitative reasoning to describe the nature of reality, and it's meaningless to speak of the "probability" of God.

It's equally easy to prove that the number of hypothetical configurations of reality is infinite. Imagine a single universe with a heretofore unknown constant that has a value of 1. Now imagine an alternate universe in which that constant has a value of 2. Now imagine an alternate universe in which that constant has a value of 3. By extending this process we see that there are an infinite number of hypothetical universes based on this constant alone. Similarly I can say that my unicorn has a 2-inch horn, or a 2.1-inch horn, or a 2.3436898347371-inch horn. Again, that hypothetical unicorn alone provides an infinite number of possible universes, regardless of the existence of God. As a result, there are an infinite number of hypothetical universes containing a God, and an infinite number containing no God.

Any way you spin it, there's a necessary inference that it's meaningless to speak about God in terms of the probability of his existence.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the math above, you've made a critical, yet common, misinterpretation of the meaning of "0". In the situations above, you are not describing something that is not-existent, but rather something that is infinitely small. This is kind of what humanity is like in relation to God - infinitely small.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Infinitely small" means 0. There's no more difference between the two than there is between 0.999... and 1. This subject has been discussed at length. Of course, a probability of 0 doesn't indicate an impossibility - otherwise there would be no universe. But it does indicate, very firmly, that it's meaningless to use probability to describe the situation in question.

madnak

07-11-2006, 05:35 PM

If your posts simply weren't logical, that would be one thing. But they are illogical. Reason may not be the way to find God, but it's a good way to identify falsehoods. Contradictions aren't something I'll accept. So far you're doing a very good job of making poor arguments that are circular, contradictory, or nonsensical. Whether or not you believe reason can lead to truth, it would certainly help your credibility.

By the way, Christianity is far from the only faith-based religion out there. There is very little in Christianity that's unique, in fact. The Christian idea of "Grace" may be unique (does anybody know of any theological counterparts?), but the idea of "taking Jesus into your heart" isn't. I'd say that most of the religions that ask you to discover God in your heart are different from Christianity primarily in that they don't threaten a brutal hell if you fail to do so. As a result, they tend to be much less contradictory.

If I'm to choose a single religion to have faith in for no reason, then I may as well choose a faith founded on compassion, in which torture and suffering are wrong and everyone goes to heaven, rather than a religion in which the majority "belongs" in a place of torture and the very God describes himself as jealous and visits plagues and torture and slaughter even on his own chosen people.

Morrek

07-11-2006, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is utterly convinced that their religion is the one path. Given all the death and bloodshed, I think it is likely one of the greatest tragedies of our world that they are all wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree. I think we should just screw all religions we have today and start anew, with a new spirituality without "hell" and "God's will" and other stuff that man has made up throughout the years. This way we could combine the good things about religion(because there are some) and remove the one's that don't suit us anymore.

bunny

07-11-2006, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is utterly convinced that their religion is the one path. Given all the death and bloodshed, I think it is likely one of the greatest tragedies of our world that they are all wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I realise this was probably unintended but to say everyone and utterly convinced is clearly too strong. Many find it easy to be religious while still accepting the possibility they are mistaken.

Lestat

07-11-2006, 07:36 PM

What about people of other religions? As painful as this is for me to type, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Bible says that if you have chosen to reject the grace Jesus offers then you are destined to eternal separation from God in Hell. 

Seriously txag007... If you were born to parents of the Islamic faith, do you really think you'd believe in Jesus? Or would we be hearing from you about Allah? What if your parents were Jewish? So...

What you're really saying is: God rewards those who were a). born into the Catholic religion, AND b). Believe in it.

Everyone else who has ever lived (the majority of God's children), are doomed to eternal suffering. Many through no fault of their own.

I know you didn't like the question, but I have to ask it again: Are you SURE your belief system revolves around good and not evil?

txag007

07-11-2006, 08:19 PM

txag007

07-11-2006, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What about people of other religions? As painful as this is for me to type, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Bible says that if you have chosen to reject the grace Jesus offers then you are destined to eternal separation from God in Hell. 

Seriously txag007... If you were born to parents of the Islamic faith, do you really think you'd believe in Jesus? Or would we be hearing from you about Allah? What if your parents were Jewish? So...

What you're really saying is: God rewards those who were a). born into the Catholic religion, AND b). Believe in it.

Everyone else who has ever lived (the majority of God's children), are doomed to eternal suffering. Many through no fault of their own.

I know you didn't like the question, but I have to ask it again: Are you SURE your belief system revolves around good and not evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said I was Catholic?

Morrek

07-11-2006, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is utterly convinced that their religion is the one path. Given all the death and bloodshed, I think it is likely one of the greatest tragedies of our world that they are all wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I realise this was probably unintended but to say everyone and utterly convinced is clearly too strong. Many find it easy to be religious while still accepting the possibility they are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never really heard much from those kinds of people. Maybe there are more than I think, but most religious people(if not all) I hear from are alot like "our way is the only way and that's final, everyone else goes to hell"

vhawk01

07-11-2006, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm to choose a single religion to have faith in for no reason, then I may as well choose a faith founded on compassion, in which torture and suffering are wrong and everyone goes to heaven, rather than a religion in which the majority "belongs" in a place of torture and the very God describes himself as jealous and visits plagues and torture and slaughter even on his own chosen people.

[/ QUOTE ]
That brings up an interesting point. Why would man invent a religion like Christianity anyway? Wouldn't a man-made religion be more like the one you would join?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Christianity seems like a great type of religion to invent for certain people. Lets take a look at some of the salient points, from a certain perspective.

Salvation is through the Grace of Jesus. I can't screw this up even if I try.

Works, while nominally important, aren't necessary or sufficient to guarantee eternal happiness. I can basically be as big of a tool as I want, without repurcussion.

Life on earth, specifically corporeal life, is essentially worthless, at least in comparison to the infinite worth of our soul and afterlife. Makes me feel good about being fat, ugly or stupid, huh?

These are just a few very key ideas that would lead a certain type of person (or group of persons) to invent a religion just like Christianity. In my opinion, they are in fact the exact reasons that it was so popular, eventually.

txag007

07-11-2006, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm to choose a single religion to have faith in for no reason, then I may as well choose a faith founded on compassion, in which torture and suffering are wrong and everyone goes to heaven, rather than a religion in which the majority "belongs" in a place of torture and the very God describes himself as jealous and visits plagues and torture and slaughter even on his own chosen people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something stood out to me just now as I was reading Romans. Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, brings up something that is quite applicable to our discussion: Who are we to question the character of God?

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:14-21

madnak

07-12-2006, 12:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That brings up an interesting point. Why would man invent a religion like Christianity anyway? Wouldn't a man-made religion be more like the one you would join?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity wasn't invented by one man. Christianity as it exists today was invented by the Romans who chose, compiled, and interpreted the gospels among other things. Of course we can go back in the chain to the actual authors of the gospels, and farther back to the earliest followers of "Jesus of Nazareth." Then, if we assume he existed, we have Jesus himself as the seed. Unfortunately we don't have any eyewitness records or anything of the kind - the gospels were all written after the death of Jesus, most of them many decades afterward.

But if we assume some basic facts about Jesus it's easy to speculate on his motivations. Delusion, power, fame, a desire to do good, etc. If we don't assume those facts, for instance if we don't assume that Jesus actually claimed to be the messiah, then it's possibly a matter of misinterpretation, or of his legend growing out of control. Of course, many different people claimed to be messiahs around that time, so there was obviously some real motivation to do so.

But looking at Christianity at a whole? That's exactly the sort of religion I'd expect men to make. Vengeance, torment, obey or be crushed, follow the rules, fear the wrath of God, to me none of that seems rather divine. Men have been using such themes to control other men for millenia, and the respective interpretations of the doctrine make perfect sense for both the Hebrews and the Catholics.

What doesn't seem like an invention of man is Buddhism or Taoism. Compassion and peace? Acceptance and understanding? It's only the rare man who really seeks those things. Most men, like the Christian God, seek vengeance, power, and dominion.

madnak

07-12-2006, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Something stood out to me just now as I was reading Romans. Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, brings up something that is quite applicable to our discussion:

[/ QUOTE ]

Applicable to the discussion? You're trying to shut down all discussion by saying basically "we humans aren't worthy to discuss this subject." Not only that, you're once again presupposing the existence of God in an argument about whether he exists in the first place.

revots33

07-12-2006, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ell, Christianity seems like a great type of religion to invent for certain people. Lets take a look at some of the salient points, from a certain perspective.

Salvation is through the Grace of Jesus. I can't screw this up even if I try.

Works, while nominally important, aren't necessary or sufficient to guarantee eternal happiness. I can basically be as big of a tool as I want, without repurcussion.

Life on earth, specifically corporeal life, is essentially worthless, at least in comparison to the infinite worth of our soul and afterlife. Makes me feel good about being fat, ugly or stupid, huh?

These are just a few very key ideas that would lead a certain type of person (or group of persons) to invent a religion just like Christianity. In my opinion, they are in fact the exact reasons that it was so popular, eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but I think you left out the most seductive part of Christianity. God, who created the universe... took on human form. This is the key. It is probably harder for people to have a "relationship" with some unknowable force than with a human being who shared all our human features.

It's really a stroke of genius that this god-human was invented (that is, if you think he was invented, no offense intended to believers). It allows the religion to have a human face as its center, and lets people feel like they "know god" in a personal way.

Add the fact that he ascended bodily into heaven (an idea I always had a problem with almost more than the resurrection itself, since it sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie), which allows believers to continue to imagine a kind human face somewhere above the clouds, looking down on us and interceding on our behalf with his (let's face it, rather scary) Father.

vhawk01

07-12-2006, 01:13 AM

Support for this idea can be found in all of the ubiquitous paintings and depictions of Jesus as a handsome, blue-eyed white dude.

txag007

07-12-2006, 01:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something stood out to me just now as I was reading Romans. Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, brings up something that is quite applicable to our discussion:

[/ QUOTE ]

Applicable to the discussion? You're trying to shut down all discussion by saying basically "we humans aren't worthy to discuss this subject." Not only that, you're once again presupposing the existence of God in an argument about whether he exists in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this discussion is great! I wouldn't dare try and shut it down. I was merely pointing out that so often our opinions of God are too selfish in their nature:

"I wouldn't follow a God that sends people to Hell."
"Any religion that I would follow would have to be like (insert your favorite prerequisite here)."
"Any god that would allow (insert your worst nightmare) can't be worth following."
"I'd rather go to Hell than follow the god of christianity."

If the God of Christianity is true, and I unequivocally believe that He is, then why should he care about someone like you? If this God created the entire universe and rules over it, why should he even know your name? Why would he care?

How selfish can we be?

OrigamiSensei

07-12-2006, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately we don't have any eyewitness records or anything of the kind - the gospels were all written after the death of Jesus, most of them many decades afterward.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa, hang on just a minute here. Now I recognize that there are a lot of reasons people choose not to believe but permit me to argue against this objection. Two of the four gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John), one was ghost-written on behalf of an eye witness (Mark for Peter) and the last by a man who had access to some of the original disciples and other contemporary eyewitnesses (Luke). Why does the timeframe in which they were written matter? Let's say I have chosen the subject of Martin Luther King and his death and sacrifices and deeds while living. If I lived the events or I have access to key eyewitness sources and write a book about it now in 2006 is it magically falsified and invalid as history? If you want to argue that memories may have faltered that's at least reasonable but the logical conclusion to your argument is to invalidate any history written well after the fact and any autobiography written with the assistance of a ghost writer. That's an awfully large leap in logic.

madnak

07-12-2006, 02:03 AM

That's all under dispute. But yeah, even if it's true, I think a gospel written 20 years after his death by a human being can hardly be considered sacred.

MidGe

07-12-2006, 02:26 AM

Most interestingly for someone appearing so "miraculous", except for the gospels, written by his followers< there is hardly any (one only) reference to him by non-followers. The same is not true at all of others appearing in the gospels (Herod, etc...). If he had been such a remarkable man you would find much more corrobating evidence, imo.

yukoncpa

07-12-2006, 05:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The same is not true at all of others appearing in the gospels (Herod, etc...). If he had been such a remarkable man you would find much more corrobating evidence, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides Herod, also, John the Baptist and Pilate had other corroborating evidence from contemporary historians such as Seneca and Philo,who made no mention of Jesus, even though Philo lived in Jerusalem at the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Jesus who performed many miracles that were witnessed by ten’s of thousands of witnesses, according to John, and who’s death resulted in such things as dead people becoming animated and walking around Jerusalem, was a complete unknown to any historian other than the Greek gospel writers, until about 300 years after his supposed death. No known New Testament bible was written in Hebrew, the original’s were Greek, and the stories, such as the virgin birth, which whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark had no knowledge of, were based on the Greeks understanding of Spirituality and also the Greek writer of the Gospel of Mathew’s complete ignorance of the Hebrew language. ( He misinterpreted a quote from Isaiah that used the word Alma, which means young woman, and thought that it meant virgin, which clearly in context it did not.) But the Greeks took for granted that many God’s were born of a virgin, so the author of the gospel of Mathew, was mistaken because of his ignorance of the Hebrew language and because of his ignorance of the Hebrew scriptures.

revots33

07-12-2006, 09:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's all under dispute. But yeah, even if it's true, I think a gospel written 20 years after his death by a human being can hardly be considered sacred.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention, if you were an early founder of a new faith, would it not serve your cause to exaggerate or create miraculous events, to convince people to join your church?

I think much of the faith of Christians comes from the fact that the gospels were eyewitness accounts of an actual person who existed (although even that is open to debate). But what is a more logical explanation? That Jesus rose dead people from their tombs, fed thousands with a couple loaves of bread, floated up to heaven like a helium balloon after being dead for 3 days, etc? Or that early followers created these stories years later, to convince people to join?

Again, given the magnitude of the incredible feats supposedly performed by Jesus, I'd think his miracles would be recorded in MANY more sources than they are.

revots33

07-12-2006, 09:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the God of Christianity is true, and I unequivocally believe that He is, then why should he care about someone like you? If this God created the entire universe and rules over it, why should he even know your name? Why would he care?

How selfish can we be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused. Isn't Christianity based on the idea that God cares about each and every person individually?

Although I do think the image of a creator who doesn't actually care about us, is much more reasonable than the overly anthropomorhic idea that our human concerns would be of such concern to him.

Morrek

07-12-2006, 09:51 AM

txag007

07-12-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the God of Christianity is true, and I unequivocally believe that He is, then why should he care about someone like you? If this God created the entire universe and rules over it, why should he even know your name? Why would he care?

How selfish can we be?

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, God cares enough to send us to hell if we don't obey? Why the heck would he do that, then? What's in it for him?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point.

Too many people on these boards are using their selfish nature as a reason for rejecting God. When their version of the ideal god does not match the description of God found in the Bible, they disregard it saying, "There is no objective evidence for God's existence (which isn't true) and the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God's existence." You're the one who will be ultimately accountable for your life, so you might want to rethink that burden of proof issue.

I said what I said so that all on these boards may enter into a saving relationship with Him. If you'd like to know how to do that, please PM me.

My prayer for you guys is that God would soften your hearts, change your minds, and give you a burden for wanting to know Him. God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell. It's because of our sinful nature. We need Jesus as our mediator. Is there anyone more holy? Praise be to God!

revots33

07-12-2006, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Morrek

07-12-2006, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not following you here.

Also FYI, I have found God in my own way, and I don't believe christianity has anything to offer me.

Duke

07-12-2006, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the God of Christianity is true, and I unequivocally believe that He is, then why should he care about someone like you? If this God created the entire universe and rules over it, why should he even know your name? Why would he care?

How selfish can we be?

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, God cares enough to send us to hell if we don't obey? Why the heck would he do that, then? What's in it for him?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point.

Too many people on these boards are using their selfish nature as a reason for rejecting God. When their version of the ideal god does not match the description of God found in the Bible, they disregard it saying, "There is no objective evidence for God's existence (which isn't true) and the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God's existence." You're the one who will be ultimately accountable for your life, so you might want to rethink that burden of proof issue.

I said what I said so that all on these boards may enter into a saving relationship with Him. If you'd like to know how to do that, please PM me.

My prayer for you guys is that God would soften your hearts, change your minds, and give you a burden for wanting to know Him. God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell. It's because of our sinful nature. We need Jesus as our mediator. Is there anyone more holy? Praise be to God!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the second post I've read today, and the second time I wasn't sure whether or not it was sarcasm. Time to go back to sleep.

~D

madnak

07-12-2006, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Wow. This is just amazing. If "good" entails torturing your beloved children forever, sign me up for "evil."

txag007

07-12-2006, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is good. All the time. He is the definition of truth and goodness. That is why He sends people to Hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not following you here.

[/ QUOTE ]
God is ever so holy and pure. We cannot be with Him, can't even enter His presence due to our sins. That is why we are banished to Hell, which is eternal separation from God.

Jesus suffered this separation from God for us when He died on the cross. When He said, "My Father, My Father, why have you forsaken me?" he was experiencing this separation. He did this for us, so that all who believe in Him will be with the Father in heaven.

Paul says this in Romans 10:
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:9-13

Morrek

07-12-2006, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God is ever so holy and pure. We cannot be with Him, can't even enter His presence due to our sins. That is why we are banished to Hell, which is eternal separation from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you so sure there's even such a thing as "sin"? I sure don't believe in it, and I think many others here feel the same way. So this really isn't an argument at all, you're basically just saying "this is how it is" as an argument for why it is that way.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus suffered this separation from God for us when He died on the cross. When He said, "My Father, My Father, why have you forsaken me?" he was experiencing this separation. He did this for us, so that all who believe in Him will be with the Father in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you believe even Jesus went to / is in hell? Why would God do this to, well, basically himself?

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, which is eternal separation from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you wrote earlier about this "hell" place, but isn't that supposed to be an eternal place of torment and fires and pain and whatever? Or is it just a seperation from God?

If that's the case, then why can't you allow people to find God in their own way, instead of insisting your way is the only way? Then they won't be in hell at all, as they are no longer seperated from God? Am I getting anywhere with you here?

revots33

07-12-2006, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you wrote earlier about this "hell" place, but isn't that supposed to be an eternal place of torment and fires and pain and whatever? Or is it just a seperation from God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell is whatever people want to believe it is. Same goes for heaven. Ask 100 Christians what hell is like and you'll get 100 answers, depending on how cruel they want to imagine their god can be.

Trying to use scriptures as proof for God's existence is like trying to use colored eggs to prove the easter bunny exists. You are using something created to support your argument, as your argument. It's like saying, of course there's ironclad proof Moses parted the Red Sea - it's right there in the bible!

Ben Young

07-12-2006, 12:59 PM

maybe,
I just don't care.

I wouldn't bow down if God presented proof of his/her own existence

revots33

07-12-2006, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
they disregard it saying, "There is no objective evidence for God's existence (which isn't true) and the burden of proof lies on the Christians to prove God's existence." You're the one who will be ultimately accountable for your life, so you might want to rethink that burden of proof issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give some examples of the objective evidence you mention?

And who IS the burden of proof on to prove the existence of the Christian god, if not Christians? If you are a missionary trying to convert the natives, don't you have to do something to convince them, other than say, "This is how I believe it is, now you believe it too or else you'll go to hell."

txag007

07-12-2006, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you wrote earlier about this "hell" place, but isn't that supposed to be an eternal place of torment and fires and pain and whatever? Or is it just a seperation from God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell is whatever people want to believe it is. Same goes for heaven. Ask 100 Christians what hell is like and you'll get 100 answers, depending on how cruel they want to imagine their god can be.

Trying to use scriptures as proof for God's existence is like trying to use colored eggs to prove the easter bunny exists. You are using something created to support your argument, as your argument. It's like saying, of course there's ironclad proof Moses parted the Red Sea - it's right there in the bible!

[/ QUOTE ]
As I've said before, I'm not trying to prove anything in this thread. I'm simply telling you what Christians believe and how you too can be saved, and I'm using the Bible to do it.

As much as you would like it to be, this is not a debate. It's a discussion.

Carnegie

07-12-2006, 01:54 PM

i believe in a universal higher power.

i dont like the idea that there can be so many different religions and cultures in the world, but where only one is right and the rest are wrong.

revots33

07-12-2006, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

i dont like the idea that there can be so many different religions and cultures in the world, but where only one is right and the rest are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be cool if they could have an "Iron Chef" style faceoff between the major religions, to settle it once and for all. "TONIGHT AT 9... WHO IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!" It could be on pay-per-view. Better than everyone trying to kill each other.

vhawk01

07-12-2006, 02:17 PM

I'd watch it.

Morrek

07-12-2006, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd watch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morrek

07-12-2006, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As much as you would like it to be, this is not a debate. It's a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have started as a discussion about if there is a higher power, but it sure turned into a debate when you started throwing out statements and quotes that we find rather ridiculous. Now if you don't have any arguments for your case that's pretty much exactly what I expected

luckyme

07-12-2006, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't bow down if God presented proof of his/her own existence

[/ QUOTE ]

You're safe. The one thing there can never be is a proof of a god. Regardless of whether there is or isn't, there can never be evidence for it.

txag007

07-12-2006, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as you would like it to be, this is not a debate. It's a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have started as a discussion about if there is a higher power, but it sure turned into a debate when you started throwing out statements and quotes that we find rather ridiculous. Now if you don't have any arguments for your case that's pretty much exactly what I expected

[/ QUOTE ]
You can find evidence that supports Christianity and the existence of God all over the internet. Google it. Read my old posts if you want. (Some are better than others.)

That's not why I'm here.

vhawk01

07-12-2006, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as you would like it to be, this is not a debate. It's a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have started as a discussion about if there is a higher power, but it sure turned into a debate when you started throwing out statements and quotes that we find rather ridiculous. Now if you don't have any arguments for your case that's pretty much exactly what I expected

[/ QUOTE ]
You can find evidence that supports Christianity and the existence of God all over the internet. Google it. Read my old posts if you want. (Some are better than others.)

That's not why I'm here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got proof right here. Jesus' face is in my Cheerio's, plain as day.

ZenMasterFlex

07-14-2006, 04:11 PM

Please refrain from quoting the bible as your evidence.
I am rooting for the believers to convince us all.
But trying to do so in that manner just stalls the discussion, and takes away from the spirit of the discussion, which is to find out what YOU think.
This thread is not interested in a book which does your thinking for you.
thus, why do you "THINK" god doesn't exist.

txag007

07-14-2006, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please refrain from quoting the bible as your evidence.
I am rooting for the believers to convince us all.
But trying to do so in that manner just stalls the discussion, and takes away from the spirit of the discussion, which is to find out what YOU think.
This thread is not interested in a book which does your thinking for you.
thus, why do you "THINK" god doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am going to respond because, although I haven't read the entire thread, I can only assume that this post was directed at me. My purpose in posting in this thread, as I have already stated, is to offer an explanation for why we Christians believe the things we do. I firmly believe the Bible to be the Word of God as told to us by his followers. It does not "think for me", but it does guide my thoughts and is the anchor for my belief system. Therefore, I will continue to quote scripture when it is applicable to the discussion. I am not aiming to be offensive, but I will not apologize for quoting the Bible.

That said, if you want extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of God, the following threads from last year will give you somewhere to start:

What leads you to believe what you believe? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=37 73127&Searchpage=5&Main=3749948&Words=txag007&topi c=&Search=true#Post3773127)

Evidence AGAINST Christianity (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=38 21693&Searchpage=3&Main=3821693&Words=txag007&topi c=&Search=true#Post3821693)

Morrek

07-14-2006, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My purpose in posting in this thread, as I have already stated, is to offer an explanation for why we Christians believe the things we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, you haven't answered any of my questions about your beliefs? I'll quote them again for you so you don't have to scroll up.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, God cares enough to send us to hell if we don't obey? Why the heck would he do that, then? What's in it for him?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so sure there's even such a thing as "sin"?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
so you believe even Jesus went to / is in hell? Why would God do this to, well, basically himself?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you wrote earlier about this "hell" place, but isn't that supposed to be an eternal place of torment and fires and pain and whatever? Or is it just a seperation from God?

If that's the case, then why can't you allow people to find God in their own way, instead of insisting your way is the only way? Then they won't be in hell at all, as they are no longer seperated from God? Am I getting anywhere with you here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, I read through those links (and the rest of the thread) and found a total of 0 pieces of objective evidence supporting christianity.