Do you believe in God?

[Eiger]

Ok, here's one for you. So play nice, ok? Sensitive topic here...

I'm just curious so I'm putting up a poll. It's anonymous of course. I'll probably forget a category so I apologize in advance. Enjoy - but remember - play nice! :lol:

[SpiritWalker]

God yes, bible or church no, they have been defiled by men.

[memememe173]

I belive in something more powerful then us...though not a perfect being...

and I though an agnostic was the one that was certain, and an athesit had doubts...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

God yes, bible or church no, they have been defiled by men.

What the fuzzy wolf guy said. :lol: Grrrah! You beat me to it this time SW!

[Galbryn]

Interesting question, however, you are asking the wrong question. The REAL question is, does God (multiple or singular) believe in me. :D For I am GALBRYN ALL MIGHTY!!!!

ok, enough joking on my part. :lol:



p.s. please don't smite me.

[SpiritWalker]

What the fuzzy wolf guy said. :lol: Grrrah! You beat me to it this time SW!
Mwuahahahahahaha.. I know you share my thoughts on religion little gnome dragon person :lol: but fear not I didn't try to hog your glory ;)

[Masamunae]

God yes, bible or church no, they have been defiled by men.
Now by that do you mean you believe in a Judeo-Christian god, but dislike the bible and church? Or do you believe that there is some sort of godlike entity, but it's not the judeo-christian god?

[BhsCrew]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - you like polls don't you? We just discussed this in the religion and abortion threads..

Yes, I believe in one God.

[Eiger]

Eiger - you like polls don't you? We just discussed this in the religion and abortion threads..

Yes, I believe in one God.
Yup, got another one coming, too. Polls are good! Polls are fun!

[SpiritWalker]

Now by that do you mean you believe in a Judeo-Christian god, but dislike the bible and church? Or do you believe that there is some sort of godlike entity, but it's not the judeo-christian god?
Explain your definition of a judeo-christian God please and I can explain what I mean.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Eiger - you like polls don't you? We just discussed this in the religion and abortion threads..

Heh, I mean no offense, but I'm not sure you understand what usually happens when a forum provides an off-topic forum. Heck, I don't understand why it happens myself. We will literally see hundreds of religion threads by the time people stop playing WoW. It is a human imperfection I suppose, certain things just get debated time and time again. I've lost count how many religious debates alone that I've been in and seen. I've seen it on every forum I've ever been on.

What is really bad is when you see 5 or more religion threads on the first page... yes it does happen. :cheesy: :lol:

It's the nature of the beast, we just attempt to not get swallowed by it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?

Just when I thought I had a break from agruing on the off-topics...

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else :p The think to keep in mind with this question is that you understand, as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. Thus, you use the term "creation", as you rightfully posit the creation of the universe. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.

[Jondar]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?

Wurd to that.

George Carlin once said something quite humorous about religion. But since I forgot exactly what it is he said, I wont misquote him, and so I just wrote a pointless sentence right now ;)

[Masamunae]

God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. The holy trinity.

[Qishi]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?


I believe those fall under the "mystery of god" category. You see, the second idea you put there is where it gets weird. A lot of people say that it is in the nature of god to necessarily exist, but not in the nature of the universe. But it's all a matter of faith I guess.

Just wanted to say that I think I'm agnostic, as I know (haha, I'm damn sure about it) that there is something out there, but I'm not sure what it is yet. Hmm, maybe I should find out...
*runs off to the woods to fast for 40 days*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

We will literally see hundreds of religion threads by the time people stop playing WoW. It is a human imperfection I suppose, certain things just get debated time and time again. I've lost count how many religious debates alone that I've been in and seen. I've seen it on every forum I've ever been on.

What is really bad is when you see 5 or more religion threads on the first page... yes it does happen. :cheesy: :lol:

It's the nature of the beast, we just attempt to not get swallowed by it.

Ahh, thx for the tip :thumbsup:

[memememe173]

can God make something so heavy he can't lift it...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else :p The think to keep in mind with this question is that you understand, as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. Thus, you use the term "creation", as you rightfully posit the creation of the universe. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.

The problem is, essentially this all comes down to, "toss out what you think you know and simply believe. God cannot be proven by our normal process of logic" and that is something alot of people simply are not willing to do without proof of existance.

You believe, so what you say makes much more sense to you. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who does not believe and your post basically says "you just have to believe"... and that is what the people in question have a problem with.

I also believe, however there is no way to concretely prove my view to someone else. It makes sense to me, but probably won't to someone else.

[Jondar]

Just when I thought I had a break from agruing on the off-topics...

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else :p The think to keep in mind with this question is that you understand, as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. Thus, you use the term "creation", as you rightfully posit the creation of the universe. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.

OK. I dont deign to be of keen intellect, but here goes..

Essentially, you are defining a whole different dimension in which a "higher" being is, and always will be, "be." However, it is impossible for a human to comprehend another dimension other than the four currently that exist (X,Y,Z and time), so then we cannot realize exactly what is in that other dimension, thus we cannot define it. Or so I believe.

I do not see why human beings feel we need to justify our existence by saying we were created by something greater than ourselves. Maybe we're here by freak chance, and nothing but incomprehensible darkness awaits us after death (which doesnt seem so bad to me).

[Eiger]

Just when I thought I had a break from agruing on the off-topics...

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else .
Just trying to keep you busy! :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The problem is, essentially this all comes down to, "toss out what you think you know and simply believe. God cannot be proven by our normal process of logic" and that is something alot of people simply are not willing to do without proof of existance.

You believe, so what you say makes much more sense to you. Put yourself in the mindset of someone who does not believe and your post basically says "you just have to believe"... and that is what the people in question have a problem with.

I also believe, however there is no way to concretely prove my view to someone else. It makes sense to me, but probably won't to someone else.

I don't believe I've presented a dogmatic argument for God's existence, nor have I stated that I could prove it. I however did assent to the fact that by the use of human reason, the existence of one God can be demonstrated by the use of reason. There is a difference between "proven" and "demonstrable".

I'd be disinclined to agree with your tone that "you just have to believe", also, to the notion that others would have a problem with these posts. I dont believe I have ever gave a blanket-dogmatic post, or left my posts unanswered. Take a look at some of the other threads, the debates went on for days. I offer people perspectives based on reason. If indeed it did come down to a cold hard notion of faith at the end of this long thread, after the necessary argumentation had been completed, than I would have no sympathy for those who left this thread feeling that the explanations of reason did not serve their agendas.

[Catorius]

Yes I believe in God :worship:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

OK. I dont deign to be of keen intellect, but here goes..

Essentially, you are defining a whole different dimension in which a "higher" being is, and always will be, "be." However, it is impossible for a human to comprehend another dimension other than the four currently that exist (X,Y,Z and time), so then we cannot realize exactly what is in that other dimension, thus we cannot define it. Or so I believe.


Hey Jondar, welcome to dimension X.

Im my argumentation on the abortion thread - which mutated into a debate on God :flip: , I mentioned that the knowledge we can have of that which is above and beyond this world is not "directly" apprehended, but is pointed to by the negation of "inconsistent principles". This demands proper use of speculative reason. The selection criteria in this process comes from an investigation into this present realm, with the assistance of metaphysics.


I do not see why human beings feel we need to justify our existence by saying we were created by something greater than ourselves. Maybe we're here by freak chance, and nothing but incomprehensible darkness awaits us after death (which doesnt seem so bad to me).

I wouldn't call it "justification" per se, I would simply call it intellectual honesty. After studying science, psychology and philosophy for years, I can't really see anything as being "of chance". It really is not subjective, as there are universal laws underpinning everything. But then again, that incomprehensible darkness does promise rest from a semmingly confusing and chaotic world...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

That's not what I'm saying.

When someone takes the side in a debate in opposition of the existance of God, they want the counter arguement proven, sometimes by even scientific means(those are fun). I am simply saying because of this, the existance of a god is not proven, hence the pop up of another thread within a day or so. When it is not proven, don't be surprised to see a certain person you have debated the subject to death with, bring it up in another thread.

The disbelief can simply be written off as simply as saying "I have never seen God, and neither has anyone I know. Therefore if no one has seen or touched God, it must not exist.". If you or I try and debate the existance, we have to work ten times harder.

Heck, I could just be stating the obvious here, if I am then so be it. I am seriously in need of sleep.

There is actually another point to this, but it would probably be better for me not to bother with it unless this thread turns out like the others. It would unfortunately require me to argue against your points, hence making me argue in part against the existance of god, which would then make me a hypocrit. I really don't feel like doing that.

[Eiger]

as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.
I don't understand how humans have access to knowledge of perfect actuality and eternity. What higher powers of intellect grant this access?

[SpiritWalker]

Just when I thought I had a break from agruing on the off-topics...

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else :p The think to keep in mind with this question is that you understand, as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. Thus, you use the term "creation", as you rightfully posit the creation of the universe. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.
Jolly good sir, I think you got it :)

Anyway back to as what 'kind' of God I believe in. I think as it as kind of both you mentioned. I believe God gave us a soul, gave us reason and all the other multiple things that seperate us from animals.

The bible says God is omnipotent and omniscient, ok let's believe that, it also says God is loving and caring. Christians believe in this with their whole heart. Ok let's look at some stories also written in the bible.
Example, the story of Moses. Now Moses was chosen by God to represent him you know, so when 1 man stood between him and his people's freedom he just through plague after plague on many innocent, yes innocent they had never heard of God, they have had been taught there whole life about Ra etc, people and animals, yet the bible describes this act as heroic. Excuse me this doesn't sound much different as todays terrorism to me.
But Moses and 'God's people' don't stop there, they have to get land to live in right? So what do they do, they walse into some country destroy city after city and expect every city to surrender, because "hey God's people want it and you should give up even if you never in your entire life heard of the one God". Yet these people and the bible says it is all justified by God himself. Doesn't sound as a very compasionate God to me.
Now take a step back in time, Adam and Eve, I mentioned omniscient? God creates man, creates woman to keep man company, God forbids man and woman to eat from a certain tree, knowing damn well they are gonna eat from it and thus damning the whole human race to a life of mostly pain and such other bad things. God is compasionate and omniscient, yet knowingly he damns his entire creation, bible excusing God of this by saying he gave man free will.. free will vs omniscient compasionate God = unlogical and bs (excuse my french). I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
New Testament, yay and they all rejoiced the coming of the Messiah. Okay, God send his son to die for all humans for their sins.. our sins.. our sins? Oh ya, it was Adam and Eve who screwed us all, and now the whole human race has to pay what 2 dumb****s of people did, which was eat a freaking apple (come on if it was like kill someone, but an apple?!). Okay so anyway Jesus on the cross and we are all forgiven of our sins. But.. wasn't it God according to the bible who made us and gave us free will and planted that damn tree in that paradise? So him being omniscient (there is that word again) and all, still went through with his plan, knowing they'd eat the apple, knowing he'd damn us all, knowing he has to sacrifce his son in the future. I already said that the damning us part wasn't very compasionate, but knowing by creating us and giving us free will and the choice of good and bad by eating that apple, he has to send his own son to be murdered by us, isn't very compasionate either.

Ok, I can mention dozens more flaws in the bible, but I'd like you people, who I know will counter these arguments, and counter them with some good arguments please. No "but God wants it" and "God says it's so".

Anyway my subjective and more objective arguments on why I believe in God. I like to believe God created us to love us, to have us live with him after we die, the bible doesn't explain this God to me, nor does any other God religion. How do I know God exists? Chemistry, something (energy) can't be created out of nothing (no energy). Something aka God set in motion a chemical reaction known to most as the big bang and is relatively a solid theory as to how the universe came into existence, but there had to be something or someone to set it off, I point to God again.
Also, the soul, human reasoning, emotions everything that seperates us from humans. Scientists have found out that we are like 1% different in DNA from some primates, yet we have incredible intelligence and all the things mentioned before. I highly doubt scientist will find any way to proof why we have what makes us human and above animals. (extra fact, most humans even only use 10% of their brain capacity) So who/what gave us these unique properties? I believe God did.

I hope I explained what I believe and how I believe in God appropriately enough for you :)

Please if you have any comments, only post well argumented ones and no "because it is like that" and "because it says so in the bible" or "God says it is like that", like I said before.

[Eiger]

I mentioned that the knowledge we can have of that which is above and beyond this world is not "directly" apprehended, but is pointed to by the negation of "inconsistent principles". This demands proper use of speculative reason. The selection criteria in this process comes from an investigation into this present realm, with the assistance of metaphysics.

That's the problem - the reasoning is speculative rather than proved or demonstrated. A couple definitions:
speculative

\Spec"u*la*tive\, a. [Cf. F. sp['e]culatif, L. speculativus.] 1. Given to speculation; contemplative.

The mind of man being by nature speculative. --Hooker.

2. Involving, or formed by, speculation; ideal; theoretical; not established by demonstration. --Cudworth.

3. Of or pertaining to vision; also, prying; inquisitive; curious. [R.] --Bacon.

speculative

adj 1: not financially safe or secure; "a bad investment"; "high risk investments"; "anything that promises to pay too much can't help being risky"; "speculative business enterprises" [syn: bad (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bad), insecure (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insecure), risky (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=risky), high-risk (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=high-risk)] 2: not based on fact or investigation; "a notional figure of cost helps in determining production costs"; "speculative knowledge" [syn: notional (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=notional)] 3: showing curiosity; "if someone saw a man climbing a light post they might get inquisitive"; "raised a speculative eyebrow" [syn: inquisitive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inquisitive), questioning (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=questioning), wondering(a) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wondering%28a%29)]

[AgeOfAbnegation]

When someone takes the side in a debate in opposition of the existance of God, they want the counter arguement proven, sometimes by even scientific means(those are fun). I am simply saying because of this, the existance of a god is not proven, hence the pop up of another thread within a day or so. When it is not proven, don't be surprised to see a certain person you have debated the subject to death with, bring it up in another thread.


Well noted. It is true, people want closure. As Augustine said "the soul is restless till it rests in God" ;)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - thought you were going to stay out of the debate :p Welcome aboard. You started to answer your first question to me on page 2, by finding the "speculative" nuance in another post. Well done, I only wish my other readers could search as dilligently as you do. In your last post, you left out the word "reason", focusing on only the speculative aspect, being one that's "risky business". Theoretical knowledge is not without solid grounds. Rather than emipricism, it has its grounds on a priori concepts and ideals that are objectively so. Kant's text "critique of pure reason" is a recommended reading. Indeed, the practical knolwedge we have today rests upon a theoretical knowledge framework that underpins its proper interpretation. I can assure you, the same amount of clarity can be achieved in speculative reason, as is present in practical reason.

Spirit walker - I've gotta run for now bud, I'll reply to that long thread of yours later. ciao..

[Mad_One]

I dont believe in religions,but i do believe in god,another thing i dont like is people that humanize god,saying things like who created him?,i dont blame you for thinking like that,maybe you are correct and im not but anyway,as i've said in another thread i dont believe in time,i think its a creation of human beings(aliens too probably :P),probably we create it or some being does it for us(god?).so if time doesn't exist there is no reason why there couldn't be a supreme god,cause hes just there,hes always been there and always be there,without time there is no need for anyone to have created him,and if we say that someone must have created him before then we are just seeing god as a normal person,and i really doubt that if there is a god he is just a normal joe,his existance is not like ours.Well i guess someday we will know the answers or maybe we will never know about them.

[Eiger]

Theoretical knowledge is not without solid grounds. Rather than emipricism, it has its grounds on a priori concepts and ideals that are objectively so. Kant's text "critique of pure reason" is a recommended reading. Indeed, the practical knolwedge we have today rests upon a theoretical knowledge framework that underpins its proper interpretation. I can assure you, the same amount of clarity can be achieved in speculative reason, as is present in practical reason.
I certainly agree that empirical knowledge is based on a theoretical framework and that many aspects of our knowledge can have the rug pulled out from under them overnight and we see the world and our experiences in a new way. When we once thought that our world was flat and then it was shown to be round for example. The discovery of the atom. The advent of microbiology.

However, I disagree that the same amount of clarity can be achieved with speculative reason as it does not have any basis outside the human mind.

[ishbu]

To go a bit off topic (but not too far, I swear!), Aristotle made "causes" for everything, going up to the Prime Cause, God, who set the universe into motion. The Prime Cause itself had no cause. I thought, "well, why does the universe need a cause then? Maybe it's the Prime Cause." All I'm saying is that if God can exist without a reason, or at least without our understanding, so can the universe. Basically, I agree with BhsCrew.

Furthermore, if there is a God, then my reason has lead me to the following conclusions: either he didn't see what's wrong with the world coming, and isn't omnipotent; this is the best possible world in spite of its flaws, but if this is the best he can do (no offense!) then he's not omnipotent; or he just doesn't care as much as many say and he's not as compassionate as most religions would have us believe. In other words, I believe that any God wouldn't fit into the framework of most religions. At the least, there would have to be an opposing force messing God's work up, but if he was omnipotent he'd be able to fix it effortlessly.

But I'm not trying to disprove anything, just expressing my thoughts. I have no idea what I believe; I read religious texts and debates like this to try to sort through my thoughts and figure it out.

[ishbu]

Just when I thought I had a break from agruing on the off-topics...

Here we go again Bhs.. Yet, I think I'm doing this for Eiger more than for anyone else :p The think to keep in mind with this question is that you understand, as a human being, with human "faculties", that are ordered to understand concepts within the realm of time and space. Thus, you use the term "creation", as you rightfully posit the creation of the universe. However, beings outside this continuum cannot be defined in this terminology. Outside this realm, there is only the perfect actuality and eternity, which cannot be defined in terms of time, space, movement, or creation. Moreover, an infinite regress of contingent beings would deny the existence and sustainence of a universe. God essentialy, eternally "is". It's a hard pill to swallow for beings who exist in terms of temporality and spatiality, but we have access to this knowledge by virtue of the higher powers of the human intellect.

I believe, mathematically, in other dimensions that we can't perceive, but they must, mathematically, obey the laws of physics, even if the laws are unknown and undiscovered (or unknowable and undiscoverable) to us. Things in higher dimensions must still have time, space, movement, and creation. Think of it this way: imagine some intelligent stick figures that exist in only two dimensions. We write some messages to them, using advanced science. So, suppose, that whoever we're talking to has stick figure cancer (bear with me here). We 3-D people could just pick up the tumor into our third dimension and drop it somewhere else on their second dimension. Suddenly, the tumor is gone. Imagine: we could do all sorts of things that would seem utterly impossible to them. Pick up a glove, turn it over, wham--a left glove just became a right glove. Furthermore, because they can't perceive the third dimension, when we pick up the glove, if they're watching, it must have vanished before their eyes. However, we still obeyed the laws of physics. Regardless of how it may look to them, we're not really gods, at least not to ourselves.

Imagine a 4-D (or 5-D if you want to count time) alien who came before us. He could do all sorts of seemingly impossible things. He could turn left gloves into right gloves. He would be the miracle cure for cancer. But he, too, would obey the laws of physics for higher dimensions. Though it may seem that way to us, he wouldn't be a god, at least not to himself (though between that and the tech an alien who came to our world would probably have, it would certainly seem like it to us). I think this sort of thing may be able to account for a lot of unexplained phenomena, but the aliens still couldn't have created the universe.

My two cents.

[Masamunae]

I like to believe God created us to love us, to have us live with him after we die......
Ok you still have no answered my question. By "God" are you refering to the god of the bible, or are you talking about some presence you believe is "out there"?

[Jondar]

I see what youre saying Ishbu. But those laws of physics would be much different if they existed in another dimension, methinks.

But that says nothing in regard to the religious debate, so Im going to bed now.

[e-string420]

as a devoted catholic let me just clear up a few things for you guys.

God is the perfect entity that created our dimension a long time ago. God is not of this universe, he is in a perfect "area" which we call heaven. this place we call heaven is a place that is not affected by time, sin, action, and hatred, it is a place of complete bliss.(and this place is not above us in the clouds.) there is also a place where pain and suffering rule which we call hell, where sinners are supposed to go. this realm, is supposed to be ruled by a rengade angel that revolted against God's rule.

now, why are these places there you ask? earth was created to test our resolve and to test the kind of people we are. people who make the right decisions go to heaven, and the people who make wrong decisions go to hell. these places serve as your ultimate path which is based on the person you are.

now, there is only one God and i can tell you from my own experiences, and i am 110% sure, that there is a God. you guys can debate this but i just needed put my 2 cents in.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

In other words, I believe that any God wouldn't fit into the framework of most religions.

True that God doesn't fit our framework, but we fit his. That's why religion can be a nebulous issue.

In response to your laws of physics outside space and time. This is inerently erroneous. Space and time is the theatre of physics - it is the lifeblood of physics.

Eiger - You were right in agreeing with me that practical knowledge has a theoretical underpinning, yet then you turned around and said that you werent sure of its certainty. If that's the case, than even practical knowledge is fallacy. If that were true, skepticism would be the only possible way out, which ironically, is the path most take. However, if this were true, the universe would not be possible.

[Johanass "Johan" Tassen]

Oye.... my head. <takes two aspirins> All this pseudo-fact and physcometiolic-theolobabble is makin' me a bit dizzy. Anyways.

We've got a bunch of theories. We've got different forms of monotheism, we have polytheism, we've got fate, we've got science, we've got philosophical religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto...), and we've got guys like me who simply have no friggin' clue.

The question is this. In all these religions and such the main point is death. What happens after we kick the bucket, buy the farm, shuffle off this mortal coil, and ultimately bite the big one? We've got Heaven, we've got Hell, we've got Valhalla, Nirvana, Limbo, Purgatory, Reincarnation, we've got absolutely nothing, and we've got playing the saxophone for an all girl cabaret in New Orleans....
....just to name a few.

Now in my opinion if there is anything other than oblivion, which I at times hope as an afterlife would be interesting, how exactly can I know until I die? Pretty much I can't. Let's say that the Christians have it right. Okay, so I'm a fairly good person, no murders, no serious crimes or major sins, I think, so I got a chance in Heaven, mebbe some Purgatory first but oh well. Or alternately, the extremist Christians who approach you on subways and such are right. K', so I never actually admitted to belief in God so I was never "saved" so I burn in Hell. Or, I die and am reborn as a Chihauhau or something, aight.

Well, until then I got my whole life in front of me. Why waste my lifetime, the only time that is actually gauranteed to me, by attempting to prepare for the afterlife, a life I have no gaurantee of getting, and all the while I might be preparing for the wrong afterlife and it turns out Heaven/Valhalla/Whatever only takes one-eyed Vegans who dress in neon chartruce, drive '86 Chevy Impalas, and have severe obsessions over David Bowie? :lol:

I guess I'm trying to say that I've got no friggin' clue and I doubt anyone else really knows 'exactly' what's going on themselves. My point? Believe what you will and let others believe as they will.

If people would only put aside their differences...

[blindcside]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?

God has always existed and always will according to the bible which i believe in, but i don't believe in church. and the universe can't just exist becuase of the first law of thyrmodynamics; matter can't be created or destroyed by natural causes.

now, why are these places there you ask? earth was created to test our resolve and to test the kind of people we are. people who make the right decisions go to heaven, and the people who make wrong decisions go to hell. these places serve as your ultimate path which is based on the person you are.

earth was not created to test us, God already knows every single choice we will make and thought we think becuase He is the one who created us. and on top of that we can't make the "choice" to do right or wrong anyways. as a human we have no "free will" but we do have a "will" and those who live in sin and are ignorant to the truth of Jesus thier will is bound to sin, they can't chose anything else, when you give your life to Jesus the Holy Spirit works through you and chooses good or the right thing, it is never us who chose it and if it is it is by accident because our will is bound to sin.

and ishbu time doesn't exist its just something created by man. its not a physical thing that is always the same, as you go faster and approach the speed of light time slows down becuase the light is going the same speed as you, at the speed of light time stops so you can't see anything infront of you or behind you i'm not sure which. this is just me pretending becuase nothing is actually certain but if you were to go faster than the speed of light you could catch up with the light and in that see "time" happen backwards.

Furthermore, if there is a God, then my reason has lead me to the following conclusions: either he didn't see what's wrong with the world coming, and isn't omnipotent; this is the best possible world in spite of its flaws, but if this is the best he can do (no offense!) then he's not omnipotent; or he just doesn't care as much as many say and he's not as compassionate as most religions would have us believe. In other words, I believe that any God wouldn't fit into the framework of most religions. At the least, there would have to be an opposing force messing God's work up, but if he was omnipotent he'd be able to fix it effortlessly.

just because there are things wrong with the world how does that make God non-omniptent? you need sin to show the glory of Him. w/o bad you can't recognize the good in things. isn't that pointed out in the book utopia? if every thing was fine then no one would know that it was they would just be like bleh and not appreciate thier perfect life. God can do much better than this world, its called Heaven. He can fix everything effortlessly, its called the rapture when a buncha' stuff will happen and the people that devoted thier life to Jesus will be taken to worship God for eternity. i haven't read revalations in a super long time and its hard to understand anyways so i don't know of course what is going to happen. but i will be here with the rest of you guys or in hell already because although i believe that He is the truth, i'm agnostic and i could care less what happens to me. stopped caring about life after i tried to commit suicide several years ago. i still believe but i'm indifferent.

[Booms]

God has always existed and always will according to the bible which i believe in, but i don't believe in church. and the universe can't just exist becuase of the first law of thyrmodynamics; matter can't be created or destroyed by natural causes.

But thats the point...the universe didn't just appear out of nowhere, it just always was there. No beginning and no end. As people we generally like to think about beginnings and ends, but an enternal universe is just as conceivable as a God.

and ishbu time doesn't exist its just something created by man. its not a physical thing that is always the same, as you go faster and approach the speed of light time slows down becuase the light is going the same speed as you, at the speed of light time stops so you can't see anything infront of you or behind you i'm not sure which. this is just me pretending becuase nothing is actually certain but if you were to go faster than the speed of light you could catch up with the light and in that see "time" happen backwards.

Time does exist. How it works (present future type stuff) is a subject I don't know much about, but the time slowing down stuff just further more proves times existence. Space and time are both relative things, but that doesn't mean they're not real. And its impossible to go faster than the speed of light, because what would happen is you would achieve infinite energy and all kinds of things that would break some universal laws of physics and whatnot.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Man, why is this forum called the "off-topic" forum.
It should be called the "boiler room" or the "ultimate fighting championship":)

Anyways...
Maybe there is only one thing true in this world

Fate.

[blindcside]

Time does exist. How it works (present future type stuff) is a subject I don't know much about, but the time slowing down stuff just further more proves times existence. Space and time are both relative things, but that doesn't mean they're not real. And its impossible to go faster than the speed of light, because what would happen is you would achieve infinite energy and all kinds of things that would break some universal laws of physics and whatnot.

its just created by us to measure existance as it passes. nothing can be proven anyways such as gravity or that we even exist. so you can't say that it is real and i can't say that it is, because no one truely knows. mebe we will when we die or mebe not.

[Booms]

its just created by us to measure existance as it passes.

In that very sentence you imply that existance is moving, or travelling. We are moving through time, going forward every instant. You're going to have to try very hard if you want me to believe that there is no time.

nothing can be proven anyways such as gravity or that we even exist. so you can't say that it is real and i can't say that it is, because no one truely knows. mebe we will when we die or mebe not.

So what you're basically saying is that absolutely nothing is proven. For example, this post doesn't really exist, nor do the atoms that make up my body. I may be a bit skeptical when it comes to God, but I at least believe that we humans exist.

Yes, we may all just be brains in a jar dreaming this existance, but that has very little relation to the subject at hand. Just like saying gravity doesn't exist.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Interesting positions Blindcside - I'll make you my new disciple :P (just joking hahah) I agree with you that time is a measurement we are aware of.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

earth was not created to test us, God already knows every single choice we will make and thought we think becuase He is the one who created us. and on top of that we can't make the "choice" to do right or wrong anyways. as a human we have no "free will" but we do have a "will" and those who live in sin and are ignorant to the truth of Jesus thier will is bound to sin, they can't chose anything else, when you give your life to Jesus the Holy Spirit works through you and chooses good or the right thing, it is never us who chose it and if it is it is by accident because our will is bound to sin.

Ok, correct me if I am taking this wrong here. We have no free will. Therefore our lives are already pre-destined, every decision we make is already laid out before us. Now, do you believe those who reject or are ignorant of Jesus are rejected from heaven? Those who refuse God are delivered to hell?

So, someone who does not believe in God is pre-destined by God to go to hell. Some people are simply born to murder, reject God, and go to hell? They have no help of salvation or forgiveness?

Now I ask you, if we are pre-destined to hell, how exactly do we give our life to Jesus? Without free will, we cannot choose to ask forgiveness for our sins, so who gives thier lives to Jesus? Only the people who were pre-destined to go to heaven anyway? Obviously everyone doesn't, so some people are created by God with the intention of them going to hell and never having hope of reaching heaven?

Sounds like a pretty cruel God to me, one I am glad to believe the opposite of.

[Andarcel]

Wow, time to try a whirlwind of responses.

According to General Relativity at least, time has objective existence.

God can be omnipotent and still be restricted. We cannot ask, for example, for a world in which both the AIDS virus exists as such and in which organisms do not have diseases. Nor can we ask for a world of free will in which people never hurt each other. See the beginning of C.S. Lewis' "the Problem of Pain" for a more thorough explanation.

Additionally, God's goal is not, by Christian theology, to create the perfect world devoid of suffering. God created beings with independent decision-making capability and set out to draw them back to the divine. Thus for Christians the existence of pain in the world is not an automatic argument against God.

Booms, I refer you to the Big Bang theory, which states pretty definitely that the universe had a beginning.

Statements about God are as unspeculative as any statement could possibly be. They have the entire universe to take into account. For example, we have the problem of the Strong Anthropomorphic Principle; either we must posit an infinite array of universes with an infinite number of laws, or we have to accept intelligent design. Now, at present, we have no way to decide between the two; each is equally likely. We may, however, eventually be able to test the Inflationary Universe model and see if there really are other universes.

AoA's point is not that God exists in some other dimension - it is that God exists outside of dimensions, and therefore is not subject to causality.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

This thread was created today and it's already on page 2, interesting..

Well this will be my first time postin gin the Off-topic's forums, so bear with me if I don't do as good at explaining my reasonings as everyone else has. (BTW, I didn't finish reading all the posts becuase I was afraid I would lose my train of thought).

Well I voted atheist, and I don't mind telling everyone that. This topic has bugged me for many years because my best friends parents seem like the most religious people in the world. Following everything precisely..

Well here's my 15 year old logic behind this. I do not believe in god, heaven, hell, Jesus, or anything of those sorts.. And what puzzles me is why other people do. And not to offend anyone but it almost pisses me off too. I can't understand why poeple believe in god! Religion start hundreds of years ago because early men had to have a reason for everything to get through the day.. They couldn't prove it they just made it up per say. And what bugs me is that people still believe that. Do humans need something to believe in to get through the day? I mean it doesn't make logical sense to me in any way shape or form.

Yes, I know the most common come back is to have faith.. well what is faith?? It's just another word that humans made up..

Age, I'm only 15 and I didn't quite get your whole post on page 1, but I got enough to understand this. All of those are just words made by humans, you can't use words made by humans this. You also said it was beyond human intellect to understand this "perfect reality" or other dimension. Well if it's beyond our comprehension then how did you come to speak of it? And what makes you so sure about it??

This whole discussion boils down to one question (if you are atheist). Prove that God exists! And unfortunately I have heard the only answer too that.. HAVE FAITH!! This discussion can't end, because there is no answer too it, you either believe or you don't.

Now I will take my leave before I seemingly start posting hateful things.

~SoC~

[frostbite199]

ok im probolly going to be hated on the fourms for saying this but i dont know if i belive in god because im like how did he get created how did he live by his self with like nothing to use i mean its wierd ok and how would there be a saten i just belive people live on as spirits and they dont go to heaven or hell they just wonder untill its there time again and get reincarnated thats my thoughts please dont hate me

[Minnesotaman]

No, faith is not some imaginary thing that only certain people have. Whether you believe it or not everyone uses faith by walking through a normal day. When you get in your car you have faith that the other drivers will not do anything crazy and kill you. You have faith that when you leave home your oven will not malfunction and start your house on fire. Everyone has some type of faith in their life.

[Killing Frenzy]

I'm not really sure if I believe in god or not. For the most part I don't think he exists. But then theres this part of me that doesn't want death to be the absolute end. So im undecided i guess. Maybe ill get babtised (don't know if i spelled that right) at age 93 right before I die just in case. :lol:

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I'm not really sure if I believe in god or not. For the most part I don't think he exists. But then theres this part of me that doesn't want death to be the absolute end. So im undecided i guess. Maybe ill get babtised (don't know if i spelled that right) at age 93 right before I die just in case. :lol:

Only problem is you actually have to believe in order to be sincere, at which point you would still be doomed to an eternity in hell. A "just in case" doesn't really cut it. :lol:

For the sake of clarification, it is baptised.

[Booms]

Booms, I refer you to the Big Bang theory, which states pretty definitely that the universe had a beginning.


The Big Bang Theory may say that there was a beginning to the universe (and I'm not saying there wasn't one, but that its just as plausible as there being God), but the BB theory also has a lot of gaps in it. It can't explain some super-clusters of galaxies, nor why some planets and moons spin one way and others spin the opposite way. Also, since it was after the "Bang" that time and space were created, where did the explosion occur if there was no space? And how did it occur when there was no time (and therefore no possibility for change)?

Right now I don't think that there are any truly convincing theories, although I would take an alteration of the Big Bang theory over an omnipotent being from another dimension as an explanation for the universe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

SOC - I thought it funny in your post that you couldn't conceivably imagine how anyone could believe in God - that made me chuckle. For my part, I can't conceivable imagine how anyone "can't" believe in God. Why do our positions differ?

I propose that belief in God, or refusal has to do with elements of desire - what we're focused on gives assent to faith and belief. I like what minnesota posted - there are elements of faith in all our daily activities. Nice post. But hey, if I encounter a God who I feel would rob me of the things I love most, I'd be disinclined to place my trust in that.
Furthermore, everyone has their own "god". I'll offer the point that we don't really see God in terms of creator per se, but rather in terms of a heart or love connection. Indeed, after chatting with atheists for a bit, after deflating their weak arguments as to how God simply "cannot exist", it always comes down to some emotional issue. They cry "how can there be a God with all the killing that goes on", or something of like tone. My personal favorite is when I asked a psychology professor why he was an atheist. He remarked "I asked God for a TV when I was 13, and I didnt get one". I nearly collapsed.. Such sillyness, yet it speaks to our needs. I can't count how many times on this forum I've noted people mentioning preferences regarding the attributes of God. Usually, we like a god who will give us love and freedom, etc., which is what God does give us, though we sometimes forget our place as creatures in regard to creator. What we love and serve are our gods. Of course, this can sometimes be apart from the objective consideration of the "prime mover", which we can say is God. I'll hold that the objective reality is most important.

That being established, I'll try to be as objective and honest as can be about rational and affective considerations as I allow myself to be guided by reason and the principle of love to the creator.

[Andarcel]

The Big Bang Theory may say that there was a beginning to the universe (and I'm not saying there wasn't one, but that its just as plausible as there being God), but the BB theory also has a lot of gaps in it. It can't explain some super-clusters of galaxies, nor why some planets and moons spin one way and others spin the opposite way. Also, since it was after the "Bang" that time and space were created, where did the explosion occur if there was no space? And how did it occur when there was no time (and therefore no possibility for change)?

Right now I don't think that there are any truly convincing theories, although I would take an alteration of the Big Bang theory over an omnipotent being from another dimension as an explanation for the universe.
Direction of spin has nothing at all to do with the Big Bang. There was some controversy over the existence of superclusters, but I believe that's since been solved by minor adjustments to gravity - and once again, it has nothing to do with the Big Bang. And space and time came into existence with the Big Bang, not after it.

The Big Bang is practically universally accepted now. As to how it's possible... well, now isn't that an interesting question? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? An apparently causeless event, sitting right there in the middle of science.

And, once again, God is not in another dimension. God is extradimensional. That's why God is such an apt explanation for the Big Bang, as well as the stunningly convenient arrangement of natural laws and constants we find in the world for the creation of organized matter.

[ishbu]

just because there are things wrong with the world how does that make God non-omniptent? you need sin to show the glory of Him. w/o bad you can't recognize the good in things. isn't that pointed out in the book utopia? if every thing was fine then no one would know that it was they would just be like bleh and not appreciate thier perfect life. God can do much better than this world, its called Heaven. He can fix everything effortlessly, its called the rapture when a buncha' stuff will happen and the people that devoted thier life to Jesus will be taken to worship God for eternity. i haven't read revalations in a super long time and its hard to understand anyways so i don't know of course what is going to happen. but i will be here with the rest of you guys or in hell already because although i believe that He is the truth, i'm agnostic and i could care less what happens to me. stopped caring about life after i tried to commit suicide several years ago. i still believe but i'm indifferent.

If God is omnipotent, why not simply put us all in Heaven and then plant gratefulness and appreciation in our hearts? Surely such a feat would be trivial for someone that could do anything?

[ishbu]

God is not in another dimension. God is extradimensional. That's why God is such an apt explanation for the Big Bang, as well as the stunningly convenient arrangement of natural laws and constants we find in the world for the creation of organized matter.

Exactly what I meant about extra dimensions, but what I was getting at in my post was that one's existence in extra dimensions (and therefore access to higher powers) doesn't imply godhood. As I said, we could do amazing, seemingly impossible things for those 2-D people. Does that make us gods?

Also, regarding the part about the convenience of natural laws, there are other explanations. Random chance is my own favorite. If you flip a coin long enough, it will land on its side, but that chance is the same the very first time you flip it. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. And who's to say this is the first and only universe that exists or ever has? We don't understand the creation of our own universe, so we can't understand whether or not another universe could be created, possibly with different natural laws.

What I want is a reason, a proof why God must exist, or something equally compelling to the contrary. Until I get it (and I realize I probably never will), I'm going to theorize and rationalize.

[Minnesotaman]

There is no way to prove God exists. It is completely a matter a faith of which no one can also give to you. You must find that in yourself.

[Darkwolf44]

Agnostic. Hail Agnos <--- its the agnostics god, hehe. :)

[GreenPenInc]

I really don't know what I am. I've been a Christian -- a genuine, happy Christian without a chink in the armor -- for my entire life, up until a few days ago. I was startled to realize that I was searching. I've been reading voraciously, whatever I can get my eyes on, though concentrating mainly on ex-Christian and atheistic papers simply because it's what I haven't known, up until now.

I think I still believe in a personal loving God, but I no longer wish to say that I am "sure" of things, or "know" things, which in fact I only believe.

It all started when I became sick about a month ago. I started looking up sites on the internet about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and stumbled across one discussing its (mis)use in trying to disprove evolution. "What a fantastically wrong argument!" I thought. "I wonder what valid arguments there are for a literal interpretation of Genesis?"

I found none. Shockingly, it seemed every argument, every counter-proof, in which I'd ever put my faith had torn to shreds a straw man caricature of evolution, and not the theory itself. As I sought to quench my insatiable thirst for reading, it became apparent that I'd been wrong for my entire life: evolution and common descent were facts, and it was only in my ignorance that I ever denied as much.

I can't remember precisely how I stumbled upon the other websites, but once I began to read there truly was no going back. The various inconsistencies with the Faith I'd learned, so easily brushed aside before, loomed before me. Joining them were new ones which I'd never even imagined. (Did you know, for example, that according to Deuteronomy, Isaiah is a false prophet?) I really haven't been at all sure what to think.

The timing's what really kills me on this. First off, I haven't remotely got the time for this. I have a 60% group project due Wednesday and an exam that morning; I wrote two others today. I already have to spend all day tomorrow just putting things together. Worst of all, things are finally starting to come together for me and a wonderful Christian friend of mine; we'd dated before, and it didn't work out, but everything that made it fail has been corrected. I've thought it through and thought it through, and there's simply no way for me not to devastate her. This really, really sucks.

But in spite of that, intellectual honesty compels me not to hide my doubts and questions, but to bring them to the forefront. As Einstein put it, ever so aptly, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." I believe that conflicts arise when religion tries to tell us how things are, and when science tries to tell us why. So, I search for meaning and hope to find God.

And I find I'm much more appreciative of others who share the Search, whereas before, I was frankly dismissive.

[BhsCrew]

I really don't know what I am. I've been a Christian -- a genuine, happy Christian without a chink in the armor -- for my entire life, up until a few days ago. I was startled to realize that I was searching. I've been reading voraciously, whatever I can get my eyes on, though concentrating mainly on ex-Christian and atheistic papers simply because it's what I haven't known, up until now.
...
IAnd I find I'm much more appreciative of others who share the Search, whereas before, I was frankly dismissive.

Wow. That was deep. I hope you find what you're looking for. More importantly I hope you find a way to be happy whatever you find or decide. Good luck to you.

As for the girl you don't have to unload your whole search on her right now. Find out some more yourself. Let the relationship get settled. Of course I'm speaking entirely without context, but I figure that there must be some way to continue your search without upsetting her reality. Hope it works out.

[Sage the Mage]

It improvable either way. I personally like infinite chains.

[Dark Reaper]

Its strange that an argument envolving religion and God find its way to every Off Topic forum I seem to visit.

I do believe that it is an argument that can never be won by either side. I do believe that ones beliefs are the truth, for them, and no one can deny them of that. The only person that needs to know what you know is you.

I do believe in God, but I have no dedicated religion. I've heard many times that it is believed that God had every individuals life planned out from birth until death. I cannot see any possibility in this, it doesnt mean im right, however if it is true that an unborn child is damned before they even take their first breath for God knows the sins that will be commited in its lifetime. I think that my decisions are my own, and if I need guidance I shall find it in myself.

I cant explain my reasons for believing in God, most of my family does not. I say its not good or bad if you do or do not believe in god, but I do think that people must believe in something, what ever it may be.

[theseus]

I am a Christian.

What I don't understand is how people can believe in Christianity and The Big Bang. I think someone said that the Big Bang is generally accepted, I must say that I disagree, I know heaps of people who don't beleive it happened.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I really don't know what I am. I've been a Christian -- a genuine, happy Christian without a chink in the armor
I think I still believe in a personal loving God, but I no longer wish to say that I am "sure" of things, or "know" things, which in fact I only believe.


If I could offer any advice, I'd say it was only a matter of time. I'd say it was the armor that was the trouble the whole time. The armor which protected you from the outside world. Time to cast aside "knowing about God" in favor of "knowing God". Now it's time to be destroyed and reconstructed anew in him. It's a tough grind kid, but stick with him through it all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I am a Christian.

What I don't understand is how people can believe in Christianity and The Big Bang. I think someone said that the Big Bang is generally accepted, I must say that I disagree, I know heaps of people who don't beleive it happened.

I'm a christian who sees no inerent problem with the big bang. It could well be a means of starting the temporal process. As the narrator says in Genesis "and God separated the light from the darkness". One essence of creation, expanded into multiplicity. I see no problematic in science - it can only demonstrate the truth.

[theseus]

I'm a christian who sees no inerent problem with the big bang. It could well be a means of starting the temporal process. As the narrator says in Genesis "and God separated the light from the darkness". One essence of creation, expanded into multiplicity. I see no problematic in science - it can only demonstrate the truth.
But didn't God create the world in 7 days? As i recall big bang took "billions of years". And why would God need to blow up nothing? God is the most powerful being ever 2 existed. Changing God's word to match the world's is wrong. It says something in the bible about it but I can't remember where.

[SaroDarksbane]

But didn't God create the world in 7 days? As i recall big bang took "billions of years". And why would God need to blow up nothing? God is the most powerful being ever 2 existed.
If he is omnipotent, then why did it take him 7 days?

Possible Answer: Because he wanted to take 7 days to finish.

Could he not have done the same with the Big Bang?

You ask why; I ask why not. :D

[Dark Reaper]

Now im not saying i believe in either or but exactly how long did it take to write the bible? Could be possible that exagerations may have occured in that time period as they do now? My true question is, Do you believe in it or did someone tell you to believe in it. There is a great difference between the two, and it can be very, very, difficult to differentiate between them. All the answers you seek you already know, its just finding them is what takes the time. A book only offers your true self something to hide behind.

[theseus]

Now im not saying i believe in either or but exactly how long did it take to write the bible? Could be possible that exagerations may have occured in that time period as they do now? My true question is, Do you believe in it or did someone tell you to believe in it. There is a great difference between the two, and it can be very, very, difficult to differentiate between them. All the answers you seek you already know, its just finding them is what takes the time. A book only offers your true self something to hide behind.
I believe in the bible, God etc because thats what I believe. You can't explain it, its not "if you be good I reward you with eternal happiness" its deeper than that. The bible is God talking 2 you, not a religous code on how to live or whatever.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But didn't God create the world in 7 days? As i recall big bang took "billions of years". And why would God need to blow up nothing? God is the most powerful being ever 2 existed. Changing God's word to match the world's is wrong. It says something in the bible about it but I can't remember where.

Yes, and as scripture says, "To the Lord, a day is like a thousand years". Much of the old testament is written in figurative language.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I believe in the bible, God etc because thats what I believe. You can't explain it, its not "if you be good I reward you with eternal happiness" its deeper than that. The bible is God talking 2 you, not a religous code on how to live or whatever.

Amen, brother.

[theseus]

Yes, and as scripture says, "To the Lord, a day is like a thousand years". Much of the old testament is written in figurative language.
It also says "To the Lord, a thousand years is like a day" (or words to that effect). What the passage means is that God is not bound by time.

Some people say that the seven day could refer two seven ages, each age being long enough for everything 2 evolve. But I reckon that these is a load of crap because there was no sin, or death before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, therefore all the billions of dinosaurs and trilobyte etc would still be alive.
Forgive me if I read two much into your words

[Mad_One]

Well i dont think that the non-existance of time,means that nothing exists and nothing really happens.Im sure i exist and things that happen to me are real(you may call it faith :P ),but i dont think time is needed for everything to exist,its just for us to understand whats going on,just try thinking about everything happening at the same "time"this moment,your death,your first school day,maybe past and futures lives if you believe in them,i dont think our mortal minds could handle it,thats why time exists for us.
I also think that our choices change everything,even if it was already told that we would do something,its still our choice and always have been our choice.
As some of you say we will never get to a supreme answer to these things the only thing we can do is think by ourselves,and find whats right for each one of us,just enjoy your time in this world,and dont harm other people(you will alwas hurt people anyway,but just do your best to avoid it),and you can be sure that if there is a heaven(anyway you see it)you will go to it,cause does believing in god makes you a better person?i dont think so,your actions are what makes the difference, not what you say,think or believe in, i dont see any difference between a good person that its a believer and one that its not.If god would blame you for not believing in him instead of for your actions,i dont think i would like believing in him or going to heaven while knowing good people its burning in hell.

[ScytheNoire]

god = false answers to the unexplained or unknown

science = mostly true answers to the unexplained or unknown

[AgeOfAbnegation]

god = false answers to the unexplained or unknown

science = mostly true answers to the unexplained or unknown




reason > unexplained or unknown

skepticism/dogmatism < unexplained or unknown

laziness = unexplained or unknown

[ScreamingFire]

You'll all find out when you die!!

Your like Sure - i dont need an eternal afterlife!!

Well you my friend are a risk taker - like all of us

But who is willing to die a second time instead of living in God's Radiance??? All you have to do is live a happy casual life, have a relationship with what you would call "your consience" and thats about it.

You might be willing to risk dying again. But i certanly dont!
Visit this site all you atheists - http:\\of-god.spillersite.net

You dont really know until you die eh?? Well i dont really want to find out when i die, as then it'll be too late! Is it really worth the risk? Why risk it?

[GreenPenInc]

Ah, Pascal's gamble. Though it was never my reason for being a Christian, I always espoused it. It's based on the shortness of this life compared to eternity, and if Christianity is true, then we supposedly do not risk anything at all compared to what we gain. But, the problem is this -- if Christianity is wrong, then we have lost something! If this is the one shot we get, then it would be foolish to devote all of this time to the worship of a being which doesn't even exist! Life's simply too short. In fact, St. Paul effectively undercuts the gamble in 1 Corinthians 15, saying, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

There's a huge risk involved either way, to be sure. But I hope that answers your question of "why risk it"; the answer is of course that you're risking it either way.

[Sage the Mage]

Grr quit bringing Pascal's Wager in here. If you are simply playing the odds, which are undefined, then you aren't really believing.

[Drec The Darkone]

I'm an Athiest.

[Essex]

You'll all find out when you die!!

Your like Sure - i dont need an eternal afterlife!!

Well you my friend are a risk taker - like all of us

But who is willing to die a second time instead of living in God's Radiance??? All you have to do is live a happy casual life, have a relationship with what you would call "your consience" and thats about it.

You might be willing to risk dying again. But i certanly dont!
Visit this site all you atheists - http:\\of-god.spillersite.net

You dont really know until you die eh?? Well i dont really want to find out when i die, as then it'll be too late! Is it really worth the risk? Why risk it?
This is a repost from the other religion thread (jesus Eidger we needed two... anyway) I wanted to post it here as well seeing as some people might not read both, if you have read and or replied to the other please don't pay attention to this one.

that's what i always disliked about Judeo-Christian faith. Lots of other faith too mind you but especially these last two. If you don't follow their code exactly your gonna burn in hell. I've never understood that concept why would an all loving God condem half (if not more) of the world to go to hell?

I mean sure you can say everyone has had the chance to hear The Word, but do you really think it's safe for some poor women in an Islamic houshold in Afghanistan or Iran to all the sudden decide she's going to be Christian? Of course not, they will abuse her and disown her and hell maybe even kill her in some of the more backwater areas. So becomeing Christian for her is impossible. Oh well sorry girlie your going to hell.

Then take me for example I'm g.ay I don't think anyone is shocked by that anymore, I feel that I was born this way, because I always take the path of least resistance, I always go for the easy way out and trust me being *** is not the easy way out, why in the hell would I choose this? So lets just say that it is something your born as, well it goes against the bible, well that means i'm going to Hell.... but i was born this way... oh well sorry kiddo burnination for you.

I like faiths that realize you can't convert everyone. In Buddhism even if your aren't Buddhist you are still treated kindly by karma, I ask the other people who study it here, do you all not think that Mother Teresa probably got one of the best reincarnations possible due to all the good work she did? Anyone who is good will be rewarded by karma even if they don't belive it. In fact there is no God to follow in Buddism, so if you wanted to you could still be Christian (zen christians like Phil Jackson for instance) there are other religions that are tolerant and you'd be surprised.

In Islam your still going to go to heaven (or your time in hell is very short don't remember) but either way so long as you are Jewish or Christian your still going to wind up in heaven. In fact Islamic hell is not an eternal damnation, it's like prison however bad you are is how long your in hell but eventually you'll get out.

How can the all loving philosphy of Jesus and the like mesh with the eternal damnation part of Chrisitanity? I'm very curious as to the answer there. If God is all loving how can he allow for the exisitance of hell? Because when you think about all the various sins in the bible and the fact that you have to be totall absolved of all them before you die there will probably be about 4 people in heaven when all is said and done.

I lost my place somewhere in there so please forgive any grammar and spelling, and it is not my intent to upset anyone :)

[Andarcel]

Exactly what I meant about extra dimensions, but what I was getting at in my post was that one's existence in extra dimensions (and therefore access to higher powers) doesn't imply godhood. As I said, we could do amazing, seemingly impossible things for those 2-D people. Does that make us gods?

Also, regarding the part about the convenience of natural laws, there are other explanations. Random chance is my own favorite. If you flip a coin long enough, it will land on its side, but that chance is the same the very first time you flip it. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. And who's to say this is the first and only universe that exists or ever has? We don't understand the creation of our own universe, so we can't understand whether or not another universe could be created, possibly with different natural laws.

What I want is a reason, a proof why God must exist, or something equally compelling to the contrary. Until I get it (and I realize I probably never will), I'm going to theorize and rationalize.
No, you still misunderstand. God does not exist in any dimensions AT ALL. No dimensions for God. None whatsoever. Extradimensional doesn't mean extra dimensions, it means outside all dimensions. Being inside dimensions of any kind would, in fact, mean that God was not God.

And the coin flip notion is precisely the argument of the Strong Anthropomorphic Principle, and like I said it may be subject to test eventually which will clear a lot of things up. (I think there are other problems with the SAP, but it would take a while to explain). If there was only one roll of the cosmic dice, and the odds were infinitely against a universe where matter could organize (which they were), then arguing that we're just lucky obviously doesn't go very far.

[SpiritWalker]

Ok you still have no answered my question. By "God" are you refering to the god of the bible, or are you talking about some presence you believe is "out there"?
I believe God exists, but he's not all like described in the bible and he certainly didn't choose any people to be his so called people.

So God yes, he is God, he created the universe and later us, sorta like a science experiment for whatever reason he had.

[Eiger]

Eiger - You were right in agreeing with me that practical knowledge has a theoretical underpinning, yet then you turned around and said that you werent sure of its certainty. If that's the case, than even practical knowledge is fallacy. If that were true, skepticism would be the only possible way out, which ironically, is the path most take. However, if this were true, the universe would not be possible.
No, I'm saying that what we know to be true today is incremental knowledge based on what we've learned and how we've ordered it thus far. A new discovery which changes one of our bedrock principles, re-orders our reality. This has happened time and again over history and will certainly happen later today, tomorrow and the next day as new discoveries are made and that knowledge communicated and new theoretical underpinnings are derived. It's not skepticism as much as it is a realization that our knowledge of the world and the universe is not perfect - and that it changes with progress.

[SpiritWalker]

But thats the point...the universe didn't just appear out of nowhere, it just always was there. No beginning and no end.
Actually, no, the universe wasn't always here, science has proven this..

[SpiritWalker]

I really don't know what I am. I've been a Christian -- a genuine, happy Christian without a chink in the armor -- for my entire life, up until a few days ago. I was startled to realize that I was searching. I've been reading voraciously, whatever I can get my eyes on, though concentrating mainly on ex-Christian and atheistic papers simply because it's what I haven't known, up until now.

I think I still believe in a personal loving God, but I no longer wish to say that I am "sure" of things, or "know" things, which in fact I only believe.

It all started when I became sick about a month ago. I started looking up sites on the internet about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and stumbled across one discussing its (mis)use in trying to disprove evolution. "What a fantastically wrong argument!" I thought. "I wonder what valid arguments there are for a literal interpretation of Genesis?"

I found none. Shockingly, it seemed every argument, every counter-proof, in which I'd ever put my faith had torn to shreds a straw man caricature of evolution, and not the theory itself. As I sought to quench my insatiable thirst for reading, it became apparent that I'd been wrong for my entire life: evolution and common descent were facts, and it was only in my ignorance that I ever denied as much.

I can't remember precisely how I stumbled upon the other websites, but once I began to read there truly was no going back. The various inconsistencies with the Faith I'd learned, so easily brushed aside before, loomed before me. Joining them were new ones which I'd never even imagined. (Did you know, for example, that according to Deuteronomy, Isaiah is a false prophet?) I really haven't been at all sure what to think.

The timing's what really kills me on this. First off, I haven't remotely got the time for this. I have a 60% group project due Wednesday and an exam that morning; I wrote two others today. I already have to spend all day tomorrow just putting things together. Worst of all, things are finally starting to come together for me and a wonderful Christian friend of mine; we'd dated before, and it didn't work out, but everything that made it fail has been corrected. I've thought it through and thought it through, and there's simply no way for me not to devastate her. This really, really sucks.

But in spite of that, intellectual honesty compels me not to hide my doubts and questions, but to bring them to the forefront. As Einstein put it, ever so aptly, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." I believe that conflicts arise when religion tries to tell us how things are, and when science tries to tell us why. So, I search for meaning and hope to find God.

And I find I'm much more appreciative of others who share the Search, whereas before, I was frankly dismissive.
Beautifull post man, serious.

[Eiger]

earth was not created to test us, God already knows every single choice we will make and thought we think becuase He is the one who created us. and on top of that we can't make the "choice" to do right or wrong anyways. as a human we have no "free will" but we do have a "will" and those who live in sin and are ignorant to the truth of Jesus thier will is bound to sin, they can't chose anything else, when you give your life to Jesus the Holy Spirit works through you and chooses good or the right thing, it is never us who chose it and if it is it is by accident because our will is bound to sin.
I don't know about that. According to Islam, humans have free will and are must choose between right and wrong. While not a practitioner of Islam I believe that this is a more reasonable approach. I've known many people who have a strong faith in God and Jesus who are big time sinners - and conversely I've known quite a few atheists who are lead exceptional lives in doing good deeds. Don't know about their private lives of course, but this experience does lead towards a different conclusion.

[Killing Frenzy]

Wait, SW says that science has proven that the universe wasn't always here. Im curious as to what proved that? Im not saying that I don't believe it, I just don't recall ever hearing this and now Im very curious. Could you explain to me SW? You can give a very brief explanation if you want. Thanks :thumbsup:

PS: How do you quote someone? Im still very new to forums and posting and stuff.

[Eiger]

its just created by us to measure existance as it passes. nothing can be proven anyways such as gravity or that we even exist. so you can't say that it is real and i can't say that it is, because no one truely knows. mebe we will when we die or mebe not.
Here's a couple websites on time and the thinking behind it: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm
http://www.coffeebreak-thrillers.com/Unified%20Theory.html
http://dragonstar5.com/gravity.htm

I'd argue that without gravity, we'd all be zooming towards space. Kinda keeps us on the ground you know...

Anyway, we may not exist and everything we know may be bunk, or we may be a little world inside someone's fingernail, but the greater likelihood is that we exist in some form or another. I think we can generally agree on that. hehe

[SpiritWalker]

Wait, SW says that science has proven that the universe wasn't always here. Im curious as to what proved that? Im not saying that I don't believe it, I just don't recall ever hearing this and now Im very curious. Could you explain to me SW? You can give a very brief explanation if you want. Thanks :thumbsup:

PS: How do you quote someone? Im still very new to forums and posting and stuff.
WHen you hit the little reply button in the post of the person you will get quote tags automatically, but to quote someone or something just type [ quote = "name person"]text[ /quote ] without spaces, or just click textcloud icon in the top bar when you're in the "new reply" section (posting something).

Lemme try and find you a link, I saw it on Discovery actually, so may take me awhile to get it on the net.

But here's a brief thing on how it sorta went. Some things even smaller than atoms came together at precisely the exact temperature and caused a chemical reaction which created hydrogen I believe, from there on the gas started expanding like hell (still is) creating all sort of other stuff, later other elements, creating suns, which then didn't last very long, they collapsed etc, anyway the beginning of the universe. Also it's like this the universe keeps on getting bigger as time passes (let's keep the time is irrelevant thing outta this one), so it'd be logical to think that going back in time the universe had to be 'nothing'.

[Eiger]

SOC - I thought it funny in your post that you couldn't conceivably imagine how anyone could believe in God - that made me chuckle. For my part, I can't conceivable imagine how anyone "can't" believe in God. Why do our positions differ?

I propose that belief in God, or refusal has to do with elements of desire - what we're focused on gives assent to faith and belief. I like what minnesota posted - there are elements of faith in all our daily activities. Nice post. But hey, if I encounter a God who I feel would rob me of the things I love most, I'd be disinclined to place my trust in that.
Furthermore, everyone has their own "god". I'll offer the point that we don't really see God in terms of creator per se, but rather in terms of a heart or love connection. Indeed, after chatting with atheists for a bit, after deflating their weak arguments as to how God simply "cannot exist", it always comes down to some emotional issue. They cry "how can there be a God with all the killing that goes on", or something of like tone. My personal favorite is when I asked a psychology professor why he was an atheist. He remarked "I asked God for a TV when I was 13, and I didnt get one". I nearly collapsed.. Such sillyness, yet it speaks to our needs. I can't count how many times on this forum I've noted people mentioning preferences regarding the attributes of God. Usually, we like a god who will give us love and freedom, etc., which is what God does give us, though we sometimes forget our place as creatures in regard to creator. What we love and serve are our gods. Of course, this can sometimes be apart from the objective consideration of the "prime mover", which we can say is God. I'll hold that the objective reality is most important.

That being established, I'll try to be as objective and honest as can be about rational and affective considerations as I allow myself to be guided by reason and the principle of love to the creator.
Interesting - I'd suggest those atheists are struggling with a variety of issues (one at least quite insanely materialistic) for which they are searching for some meaning, but not quite finding it.

I've been an atheist since as early as I can remember. Before kindergarten in fact. I was raised Catholic, but just never bought into any of the concepts - the existence of a god has just never made sense to me. I don't know any other way to explain it. I remember at my first communion where the priest asked a bunch of these little first or second graders whether they believed in God or not (before we went in to the church). I was just amazed. Being an honest little fellow, I started to raise my hand, but Steven Whitaker beat me to it. His parents (and everyone else) were horrified and they whisked him out of there so fast.... I never saw him again either. Being reasonably smart, too, I lowered my arm and went on with it.

I've never been a searcher, never looked for the meaning of life. Over time I've come to understand the world as chaotic and fascinating in its chaos. I see order as an artificial concept that humans place on a world which does not need it or really even want it. Humans need order however to create a world which is predictable and understandable and secure. Many need to look forward to a better place to go once they've passed from this one, and rewards or punishments for the acts they've done.

There could be a god which created the world and then just let it run, dabbling in here or there whenever he felt like it. And then again, it could be that the Earth just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right resources at just the right distance from the sun to spawn life and have it evolve over many millennia. With all the galaxies and planets, there's a reasonable probability that at least one would be properly situated to sprout life. That tends to make more sense to me than a creator.

I've always lived my life as if it's the only one I've got and seek to experience as much of what life has to offer as I can. I try to be kind to my fellow humans as well as all animals and minimize my impact on other species. If I'm wrong and there is a God, I figure that he'll understand. If he doesn't, I guess I'm screwed, eh?

[Eiger]

You'll all find out when you die!!

Your like Sure - i dont need an eternal afterlife!!

Well you my friend are a risk taker - like all of us

But who is willing to die a second time instead of living in God's Radiance??? All you have to do is live a happy casual life, have a relationship with what you would call "your consience" and thats about it.

You might be willing to risk dying again. But i certanly dont!
Visit this site all you atheists - http:\\of-god.spillersite.net

You dont really know until you die eh?? Well i dont really want to find out when i die, as then it'll be too late! Is it really worth the risk? Why risk it?
Hmm, that's an America's Army clan website with no info relating to the existence of God. I guess it's not too important in the gaming world where you basically get a new life with the next round, eh? hehe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, I'm saying that what we know to be true today is incremental knowledge based on what we've learned and how we've ordered it thus far. It's not skepticism as much as it is a realization that our knowledge of the world and the universe is not perfect - and that it changes with progress.

I agree that the usual way of learning is by incrememntal steps, yet I would disagree that our foundational belief systems must necessarily change with time.

p.s. - I'll answer that long post of yours later - I'm in a rush.

[Eiger]

I agree that the usual way of learning is by incrememntal steps, yet I would disagree that our foundational belief systems must necessarily change with time.What do you define as foundational beliefs?

PS - the longer post isn't intended to require a response, but go ahead if you like.

[ishbu]

There could be a god which created the world and then just let it run, dabbling in here or there whenever he felt like it. And then again, it could be that the Earth just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right resources at just the right distance from the sun to spawn life and have it evolve over many millennia. With all the galaxies and planets, there's a reasonable probability that at least one would be properly situated to sprout life. That tends to make more sense to me than a creator.

That's what I think about Earth. The odds of everything turning out well enough to support intelligent life may pretty small, but with the universe as big as it is, it was bound to happen somewhere, right? The odds here as good as anywhere else.

Also, as I was thinking about God, I thought it would actually be pretty boring to be God without at least someting to do. I think that I was God, then I would probably set the universe in motion and then watch what happened, intervening in only the most extreme cases. But please, no one jump all over me with "You're not God! You don't know what He'd do!" No, I'm not and I don't. But I don't buy into "Who can fathom the mind of God?" I can try, at least, and if he doesn't like it, he can be bothered to stop it, if he's omnipotent (and existent). And if he is, and he really wants me to come to him, then he can fathom mine and convince me. If God laid out everything the way he wanted it, then he made me inquisitive and skeptical. And if he's damning me to hell for it, then that seems a pretty cruel god to me. (Though while I may think myself to have the moral higher ground, that still leaves me the problem of being in hell, possibly for eternity).

[Andarcel]

Really? And how about the fact that a slight change to any of the four fundamental constants would make not just life but any kind of organized matter impossible? Those are the same the all over the universe, you know.

Evidence of the BB is that everything is accelerating away from everything else, and when we look back in time we find everything closer together. For more detail you'll have to talk to an astronomy guy.

[e-string420]

earth was not created to test us, God already knows every single choice we will make and thought we think becuase He is the one who created us. and on top of that we can't make the "choice" to do right or wrong anyways. as a human we have no "free will" but we do have a "will" and those who live in sin and are ignorant to the truth of Jesus thier will is bound to sin, they can't chose anything else, when you give your life to Jesus the Holy Spirit works through you and chooses good or the right thing, it is never us who chose it and if it is it is by accident because our will is bound to sin.

what you have just said makes absolutely no sense. if you say you believe in the Bible then why do you think we have no free will. free will is mentioned more times than anyone can count in the Bible. and we do have free will. why do you think you have a thought process? if we didn't have free will we wouldn't be able to think, we would be just zombies. so, don't say you believe in the bible but we don't have free will.

[BhsCrew]

Andarcel, The odds for life to exist are pretty small, but I think what he was saying is that when you realize that the tiny percentage for life is multiplied by the size of the universe, there is a pretty good chance that life would happen somewhere.

[Battletorn]

Please chill people.. its just a thread. :howdy:

[Frekke]

I'm a hopeful agnostic. Basically, I hope theres something out there greater than ourselves, but at the same time I have to admit that I don't have THE answer and it's entirely possible there isn't. Personally I hope God doesn't turn out to be the way most organized religion presents he/she/it. I think the problem is that in any organized religion, it has been shaped by men to serve their purposes. Since you can't tell the difference between someone who is speaking to God and someone who is just pretending, evil men have used it as an excuse to put their will upon others.

Frekke

"Eternity is too long for a loving god to condone the torture of his children." -Holly Lisle

"I've allways said theres nothing an agnostic can't do if he's really not sure whether he believes in anthing or not." -Graham Chapman

[SoujirouTheTenken]

SOC - I thought it funny in your post that you couldn't conceivably imagine how anyone could believe in God - that made me chuckle. For my part, I can't conceivable imagine how anyone "can't" believe in God. Why do our positions differ?

I propose that belief in God, or refusal has to do with elements of desire - what we're focused on gives assent to faith and belief. I like what minnesota posted - there are elements of faith in all our daily activities. Nice post. But hey, if I encounter a God who I feel would rob me of the things I love most, I'd be disinclined to place my trust in that.
Furthermore, everyone has their own "god". I'll offer the point that we don't really see God in terms of creator per se, but rather in terms of a heart or love connection. Indeed, after chatting with atheists for a bit, after deflating their weak arguments as to how God simply "cannot exist", it always comes down to some emotional issue. They cry "how can there be a God with all the killing that goes on", or something of like tone. My personal favorite is when I asked a psychology professor why he was an atheist. He remarked "I asked God for a TV when I was 13, and I didnt get one". I nearly collapsed.. Such sillyness, yet it speaks to our needs. I can't count how many times on this forum I've noted people mentioning preferences regarding the attributes of God. Usually, we like a god who will give us love and freedom, etc., which is what God does give us, though we sometimes forget our place as creatures in regard to creator. What we love and serve are our gods. Of course, this can sometimes be apart from the objective consideration of the "prime mover", which we can say is God. I'll hold that the objective reality is most important.

That being established, I'll try to be as objective and honest as can be about rational and affective considerations as I allow myself to be guided by reason and the principle of love to the creator.

I have to agree with you, that's kind of funny to see someone break down and say "how can there be a God with all the killing that goes on" ... that's just sad. Things die because it's a fact of life you can't change it so just go on about your life.

But what seems interesting to me is that you refer to "creator" alot... Does it make you feel better to think that there is some "superior" creature that made you. That there is some "superior" creature that controls what goes on in your life? I think one of the main problems I have with religion is that they say he decides what's going to happen to you... and I don't like thinking someone else decides what I'm going to do.

But with that being said there isn't much else I can argue. You either believe in him or you don't.

~SoC~

[Eiger]

Andarcel, The odds for life to exist are pretty small, but I think what he was saying is that when you realize that the tiny percentage for life is multiplied by the size of the universe, there is a pretty good chance that life would happen somewhere.Yup, that's pretty much the concept.

[Minnesotaman]

Essex: that's what i always disliked about Judeo-Christian faith. Lots of other faith too mind you but especially these last two. If you don't follow their code exactly your gonna burn in hell. I've never understood that concept why would an all loving God condem half (if not more) of the world to go to hell?
In Christianity you do not have to follow the rules exactly, there is room for mistakes in the forgiveness we can find in God. If you slip up it is not going to cost you eternal life. God IS loving and understanding and sent Jesus as a way to make up for our sins.

[Booms]

People have "proven" the big bang...but they still can't answer some of the most fundamental questions. For example, where exactly were these two sub-atomic particles combining if there was no space? Or how exactly did they combine when there was no time?

And, although it has already been said before me, the chances of life happening on this Earth were incredibly small, but in the entire universe chances are it would happen somewhere. We just happened to get lucky.

[Minnesotaman]

I am Christian and believe the big bang is a possibility for how everything was created. If it was how it happened it was God's way of creating what he wanted and how he wanted it to happen,

[The_Iron_Raven]

It all comes down to one thing to end all things: An finite mind, like all human, canot grasp the infinite, or God. We cannot grasp that God never "was" or "will be" or "was created". He has existed and always will. We as humans cannot grasp timlessness. Seeing all time in less than the blink of an eye cannot be comprehended. Power without limits is impossible to imagine. All of these are infinites, or God.

No world religion has reached perfection, becuase none can reach perfection, aside from the infinite, or God.

God is love. killing exists in the world because someone deems himself to be as the level of God, who is the only one who can judge.

Remember this as a summary: God is love, and God wills nothing bad to happen to anyone. He however gave us free choice, which allows us to do bad things.

Oh, and good points minnesotaman.

[Essex]

It all comes down to one thing to end all things: An finite mind, like all human, canot grasp the infinite, or God. We cannot grasp that God never "was" or "will be" or "was created". He has existed and always will. We as humans cannot grasp timlessness. Seeing all time in less than the blink of an eye cannot be comprehended. Power without limits is impossible to imagine. All of these are infinites, or God.

No world religion has reached perfection, becuase none can reach perfection, aside from the infinite, or God.

God is love. killing exists in the world because someone deems himself to be as the level of God, who is the only one who can judge.

Remember this as a summary: God is love, and God wills nothing bad to happen to anyone. He however gave us free choice, which allows us to do bad things.
God is love, but if you don't do pretty much exactly what he says he sends you down to some jerk he didn't like who gets to torture you for the rest of eternity. Sorry i'm not seeing the love there.

[The_Iron_Raven]

God is love, but if you don't do pretty much exactly what he says he sends you down to some jerk he didn't like who gets to torture you for the rest of eternity. Sorry i'm not seeing the love there.


Did God send us down there, or did we damn ourselves?
Did the "jerk" you are refering to damn himself as well?

[Essex]

If things go like Christians belive they will then yeah it was God's choice I go down there. How many people on this earth have no chance at all to be christian either because of location, upbringing, ect. They go to hell automatically, what about the cavemen? What about people who were around before Moses and the like. Thats a lot of people who never heard the Word and are going to burn in hell.

I can't be christian because if I was I'd know for a pretty good fact that I was going to go to hell. Based on things i've done alone today i'm going to go to hell (no not that dirty minded people)

Its far too easy to get into hell and far to hard to get into heaven from the christian point of view. IT may be easy for a person in Western society to become a christan but you can't apply that to all of the world.

Yeah the devil sent himself down there, but I always figured God would hate him, they are like bitter rivals, so why does he send people down to the guy he hates? If I don't like Tommy Jones down the street, I don't send all the people I don't like to see Tommy Jones because chances are they will become friends and i'll just have a larger united group of peolpe who don't like me who live down the street

[The_Iron_Raven]

Essex, My religion may argue with me, but i believe that God dosen't give a rat's *** what religion you are. He likes it when you are good, and dislikes IT NOT YOU when you are bad. You damn yourself, you reach heaven not by God allowing you, but by allowing youself a higher state being. Death is not the end, its the beginning of a beautiful path of enlightenment.

Also, God doesnt "send" anyone anywhere. you chose your own path. God doesn't hate the devil, he just doesn't like the things he does.

[Qishi]

If things go like Christians belive they will then yeah it was God's choice I go down there. How many people on this earth have no chance at all to be christian either because of location, upbringing, ect. They go to hell automatically, what about the cavemen? What about people who were around before Moses and the like. Thats a lot of people who never heard the Word and are going to burn in hell.

I can't be christian because if I was I'd know for a pretty good fact that I was going to go to hell. Based on things i've done alone today i'm going to go to hell (no not that dirty minded people)

Its far too easy to get into hell and far to hard to get into heaven from the christian point of view. IT may be easy for a person in Western society to become a christan but you can't apply that to all of the world.

Yeah the devil sent himself down there, but I always figured God would hate him, they are like bitter rivals, so why does he send people down to the guy he hates? If I don't like Tommy Jones down the street, I don't send all the people I don't like to see Tommy Jones because chances are they will become friends and i'll just have a larger united group of peolpe who don't like me who live down the street


Ok, lots a stuff there. First of all, in the Catechism, it says that people of other faiths ARE NOT condemned to hell. That wouldn't make sense at all. I guess God gives them time to "convert" (come to terms with the reality of the universe) and as long as they lived without commiting mortal sins (stuff that most other religions prohibit too, like murder), then they are allowed into heaven. Even if mortal sins are commited, then there is a time for repentance, no matter your religion.

Also, I don't think God hates Lucifer, he just chose to break away from God, and I was taught that God forgave him, but Lucifer chose not to accept his forgiveness. I've always been told (12 years of Catholic school talking) that Hell was reserved for those who refuse to accept God after death. Something along the lines of "for those of stubborn will and hardened hearts". The Christian God really is forgiving, people just get hung up on this stuff and aren't able to get past it. But that's just what I've been taught, not sure if I believe any of that anymore.

[Essex]

hey if i die and i'm wrong and god's like "Look dude, you were wrong but that's ok there are some pretty f-ed up people out there claiming to talk for me, so come on whaddya say?" Yeah I have to agree I"d like that god a hell of a lot, number one because he called me dude, and 2. because he isn't such a hard ***.

so if what you two are saying is true then good. However i know a lot of people probably don't have that same view.

[Eiger]

I am Christian and believe the big bang is a possibility for how everything was created. If it was how it happened it was God's way of creating what he wanted and how he wanted it to happen,
The concept of the big bang, evolution, etc. and their congruence with the bible and religious belief have been bandied about by scientists for a long time. In a similar fashion as to what Minnesotaman notes, many scientists reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific discoveries as being the mechanisms for how God accomplished his creation. Of course, to do this you can't read the bible literally, but rather must interpret it as such. For example, the world was created in seven days. Well, that obviously wasn't so because man wasn't created on the 6th earth day, it took about 4 billion years or so. But if you look at it from God's perspective, perhaps 7 days of his "time" was all it took to get around to humans. If looked at in this fashion, evolution among other things begins to fit into more traditional religious frameworks.

This link talks about evolution and creation a little with a nice faq: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Of course, there's an opposing view and you can find it here from John MacArthur Jr., the pastor of the Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E-2.htm

Here's kind of a rebuttal of Pastor MacArthur, I just glanced at it, can't vouch for it though: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

[The_Iron_Raven]

Essex, you're getting on the right track. But you need to remember that God is smarter than all the sages and wise men in the world of all time. He knows that compassion is the path, this path leads to pure happiness and bliss eternal.

i like your quote earlier Eiger about evoultion and such, very well thought out.

[Essex]

Essex, you're getting on the right track. But you need to remember that God is smarter than all the sages and wise men in the world of all time. He knows that compassion is the path, this path leads to pure happiness and bliss eternal.

i like your quote earlier Eiger about evoultion and such, very well thought out.
God sounds a lot like Yoda.

[theseus]

The concept of the big bang, evolution, etc. and their congruence with the bible and religious belief have been bandied about by scientists for a long time. In a similar fashion as to what Minnesotaman notes, many scientists reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific discoveries as being the mechanisms for how God accomplished his creation. Of course, to do this you can't read the bible literally, but rather must interpret it as such. For example, the world was created in seven days. Well, that obviously wasn't so because man wasn't created on the 6th earth day, it took about 4 billion years or so. But if you look at it from God's perspective, perhaps 7 days of his "time" was all it took to get around to humans. If looked at in this fashion, evolution among other things begins to fit into more traditional religious frameworks.

This link talks about evolution and creation a little with a nice faq: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Of course, there's an opposing view and you can find it here from John MacArthur Jr., the pastor of the Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E-2.htm

Here's kind of a rebuttal of Pastor MacArthur, I just glanced at it, can't vouch for it though: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm
People will allways try to change what the Bible says to fit their views.

Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

I believe that the bible is not a collection of stories and is the truth.

[Essex]

so you belive the planet to be some 4000years old? Not the 4.4 billion that science has seemed to prove? What about dinosaurs and other fossils? Things like that that show a lot of history that isn't provided for in the bible

[Minnesotaman]

I still believe the earth is millions of year old. The Bible in many places was written figurativly. The seven days it says God took in creating the Earth could be figurative and really mean thousands or millions of years. The Bible was not written immediatly after the earth was created also, so that acounts for the lack of dinasoures (it does say God created animals, which could include dinasoures, it is just not that specific).

In any case how the world was creat really has nothing to do with the Christian faith. It does not really matter how long it took, or how God did it, but that he did do it. It is just not one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

[The_Iron_Raven]

I still believe the earth is millions of year old. The Bible in many places was written figurativly. The seven days it says God took in creating the Earth could be figurative and really mean thousands or millions of years. The Bible was not written immediatly after the earth was created also, so that acounts for the lack of dinasoures (it does say God created animals, which could include dinasoures, it is just not that specific).

In any case how the world was creat really has nothing to do with the Christian faith. It does not really matter how long it took, or how God did it, but that he did do it. It is just not one of the cornerstones of Christianity.

I agree with Minnesotaman. I enjoy reading your comments on this disscussion.

[theseus]

I beleive it is a cornerstone, it test your faith in God. You can say, I guess the worlds right this time God, or you could say I understand that it may not make sense, but I beleive you and your word.

Its a matter of faith. Who would you beleive, All powerful God, or fallen humans?

[Minnesotaman]

Sorry that wasn't very clear. By saying that it is not one of the cornerstones I meant that it does not matter how God created everything. He did it, end of story. I meant that our biggest priority is of other matters such as following God's will, and caring for our neighbors etc.

Sorry I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with a deeper principle, I thought i'd just clear that up just in case.

[Black Knight84]

I was going to post a big argument here but I'm putting it in a new thread.

[theseus]

Its a matter of faith. Believe the world, or believe God. Your choice

[Minnesotaman]

Good stuff there Black Knight. I sorta skimmed because it was pretty long, but I think I got everything and I agree 100%.

Another good book I've found is Letter's from a Skeptic, but it takes some patience to sit down and read it.

[theseus]

Somehow we bear the stamp of God himself! Jellyfish, dogs, and rocks cannot know God but you and I can and should ackowledge the one who has made us.

Evolution says that we were not made, but happened to evolve from a boiling soup of chemicals.

The bible says that God knows everyone of us before we were born, and that he made us different from the animals. directly oppisite from what evolution teaches. Its like saying, I beleive that the red hat is blue. Just doesn't make sense.

[Brasuca-RJ]

Theoretical knowledge is not without solid grounds. Rather than emipricism, it has its grounds on a priori concepts and ideals that are objectively so. Kant's text "critique of pure reason" is a recommended reading. Indeed, the practical knolwedge we have today rests upon a theoretical knowledge framework that underpins its proper interpretation. I can assure you, the same amount of clarity can be achieved in speculative reason, as is present in practical reason.

Spirit walker - I've gotta run for now bud, I'll reply to that long thread of yours later. ciao..
The *a prioris* in Kant, Critique of the pure reason, refers to the form of the knowledge, it can´t be considered a knowledge per si; a hipotetical pure - as it´s impossible to conceive this but only as a model - speculative reason is empty, and just the empirism(senses) without the reason is meaninless. All this said I think I can quote: "All knowledge begins in the experience." - Kant. Anyway, Kants book is outdated in many aspects we could discuss I fell so but I don´t think it´ll be of interest of those who don´t take philosophy seriously.
Backing to the theme, when you argue that you can assure "the same amount of clarity can be achieved in speculative reason, as is present in practical reason", you haven´t provide the means to back up your assumption. "All X is understood under a Y pattern, so I can assure that only by examing Y I can have the same amout of clarity of the things." It´s what I understood of your *argument*. But, you affirms that Y - the speculative reason - is or produces a knowledge (of the world?). That´s the point I disagree. Let´s make an analogy, a chess game; X is the current game being played and Y is the chess game rules; one that play chess knows that just knowing the rules don´t give you a real perspective of the game itself. But the life isn´t like a chess board, is it? Anyway, as far as this is true it also means that the life can´t have their mechanics understood so easily as the chess rules. So, imagine, one that can´t know all the rules (or forms, or *a priori* in a sense) of life also can´t undertand the mechanics of the things to the point of saying whats write and whats wrong without doubts in all situations. I´ll stop by here but I hope I´ve shown that arguments don´t lack anyside and that´s because a comom reason... that is explicit(I believe) in this few lines. If not, let´s argue!

[Illidan]

"You maka fool of tha pope... SMITE THEM!!!!!

... he'sa cookin somethin up..."

Hell was created by Roman Catholics a little before the split of the church (I would imagine before, since Orthodox believe in it as well). I don't know how to explain the Bible, my brother in law is a theologian and a priest, currently working on his PhD. I'm sure he could explain it a little better but he doesn't like message boards.

Most Bibles you guys know have been altered since the original text which was written by far from perfect humans that wrote it from memory, not previous text. Anyway my point is humans are pretty vain, animals and babies can sense disasters before they happen. Science can't really tell us why, they can only guess at shockwaves in the ground, or changes in the air. I don't really have a point in this because I'm pretty hung over right now, but I'm a firm believer that there are more things in heaven and hell than are dreamt of in our philosophies. So there.

[theseus]

Most Bibles you guys know have been altered since the original text which was written by far from perfect humans that wrote it from memory, not previous text.

Could you plz prove this

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The *a prioris* in Kant, Critique of the pure reason, refers to the form of the knowledge, it can´t be considered a knowledge per si; a hipotetical pure - as it´s impossible to conceive this but only as a model - speculative reason is empty, and just the empirism(senses) without the reason is meaninless. All this said I think I can quote: "All knowledge begins in the experience." - Kant. Anyway, Kants book is outdated in many aspects we could discuss I fell so but I don´t think it´ll be of interest of those who don´t take philosophy seriously.


For someone who would be so bold as to quote Kant, you certainly have not grasped the true essence of his philosophy. Your position of a text being "outdated" is one of the silliest notions I've heard of in a while, ESPECIALLY in reference to Kantian thought. Kant rejects a history of thought, as provided for us in his categorical imperative. He seeks to find the transcendental thinking, the true a-priori reason, which is a "pure reason". It is immuible and transcendental, and underpins his concepts for the understanding, which is summed up in his transcendental deduction. All knowledge begins in experience of course, yet the process of knoeldge depends on the transcendental deduction and his categorical imperative. You've totally misread the text. Speculative reason is the ultimate, transcendental reason. If you've missed that in Kant, our great teacher in reason, you've missed his whole project.

[Andarcel]

Andarcel, The odds for life to exist are pretty small, but I think what he was saying is that when you realize that the tiny percentage for life is multiplied by the size of the universe, there is a pretty good chance that life would happen somewhere.
And how about the fact that a slight change to any of the four fundamental constants would make not just life but any kind of organized matter impossible? Those are the same the all over the universe, you know.

And, although it has already been said before me, the chances of life happening on this Earth were incredibly small, but in the entire universe chances are it would happen somewhere. We just happened to get lucky.

And how about the fact that a slight change to any of the four fundamental constants would make not just life but any kind of organized matter impossible? Those are the same the all over the universe, you know.

People have "proven" the big bang...but they still can't answer some of the most fundamental questions. For example, where exactly were these two sub-atomic particles combining if there was no space? Or how exactly did they combine when there was no time?

I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither, I suspect, do you. BB theory does not require particles to combine before it occurs. Actually, it doesn't require particles to combine at all.

[theseus]

People have "proven" the big bang
The only way to prove is to go back in time. The big bang is a guess.

[Andarcel]

The only way to prove is to go back in time. The big bang is a guess.
All science is a guess.

[Brasuca-RJ]

For someone who would be so bold as to quote Kant, you certainly have not grasped the true essence of his philosophy. Your position of a text being "outdated" is one of the silliest notions I've heard of in a while, ESPECIALLY in reference to Kantian thought. Kant rejects a history of thought, as provided for us in his categorical imperative. He seeks to find the transcendental thinking, the true a-priori reason, which is a "pure reason". It is immuible and transcendental, and underpins his concepts for the understanding, which is summed up in his transcendental deduction. All knowledge begins in experience of course, yet the process of knoeldge depends on the transcendental deduction and his categorical imperative. You've totally misread the text. Speculative reason is the ultimate, transcendental reason. If you've missed that in Kant, our great teacher in reason, you've missed his whole project.
Kant "though" he could list all the a priori but now-a-days it´s not acepted as you are trying to believe it is - they seem to be infinite and therefore can´t be listed but as general rules, what´s not the first purpouse of Kant; you pertain to a minority, no problem with that as I also do in other subjects, but during this thread have shown you really thinks that there is a kind of consensum in this and other subjects amongest the people who likes philosophy or have an improved analitical though, but there isn´t. I don´t know where or in which enviroment you got started in philosophy that you seems to believe that there is One supreme reason - or The Truth, you have archieved it or is in the way to, and who doesn´t agree lack analitical process thinking or something like that - This is not philosophy, this is the negation of it! Again, no problem, you´re not alone, but if you want to know why I say this and don´t have a clue why I perceived your thoughs as that, we can discuss. To finish this post, you usually talk about 1 liners bible quoters; but there are those 1 liners philosophy quoters too. If you don´t want to be seem like one, don´t mix everything in one big "soup" and present it to base your argument expecting they are anyway near the thinking of some great minds.

- A theory that proves everything does prove anything at all? -

[Cenkrill]

All science is a guess.
God is also a guess. For all we know the bible could have been written by a drunk bum.

[Jondar]

God is also a guess. For all we know the bible could have been written by a drunk bum.

:lol: Wouldnt that be an eye-opener...

No, but seriously... I dont think anyone can know for certain.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Kant "though" he could list all the a priori but now-a-days it´s not acepted as you are trying to believe it is

One thing you'll find about me Brasuca, is that I argue from the actual texts. I have 6 thick volumes of Kant's texts 3 feet away on my shelf, and I'll be glad to whip them out if you want to get into it.

You say that Kant's arguments are not accepted? Idiocy. I've just lectured this term on the reaction to kant in post modernism. The greatest critic of Kant, Michel Foucault, did not provide an argument against Kant's position - indeed, he could not! His structure and argumentation are solid as can be. Rather, Foucault offered a new position, namely "ontological personalism", which is different than Kant's "analytic of truth". Foucault offered this perspective not because he found Kant problematic as such, but in order to offer readers an "updated" perspective that is in accord with a more individualist understanding. He's good at what he does, but he's just another poet when compared to Kant. You really should read the texts. Kant demonstrated the transcendental properties of reason.

[George Bush]

heh.
why oh why did you make this thread?

of course there is a god.

tell me kids what holds all of infinity togeather but infinity itself?

god = infinity
infinity = unquestioned as fact
god = unquestioned as fact

gg :D

[Halcyon's Dawning]

heh.
why oh why did you make this thread?

of course there is a god.

tell me kids what holds all of infinity togeather but infinity itself?

god = infinity
infinity = unquestioned as fact
god = unquestioned as fact

gg :D
LoL. That is great.
I could pummel Eiger for all these bloody threads. If he'd just read them he'd get a good idea of what the hells going on instead of having to start a new thread whenever he feels left out on the stats.
Everything just keeps getting repeated and split apart everytime. Its much better if it all stays together. But too late now. If they were all put together, everyone would be more confused than they are right now.
*shakes fist at Eiger and his damn poll threads*

[SpiritWalker]

Could you plz prove this
The fact that we have like 20 or more versions of christianity, catholicism etc, perhaps?

[Eiger]

The bible says that God knows everyone of us before we were born, and that he made us different from the animals. directly oppisite from what evolution teaches. Its like saying, I beleive that the red hat is blue. Just doesn't make sense.
Humans are animals though. Not much doubt about that one...

[Eiger]

Could you plz prove this
I'm thinking the apostles didn't know English... The old testament was written in ancient Hebrew. The new testament was written in Greek. Then it was translated into Latin and later into Old English, then modern English. Translation rarely being perfect I think it's safe to assume there were some changes and different versions along the way depending on which scholar was doing the translating.

Here's a quick and easy link on the history of Bible translation: http://www.wycliffe.org/history/BibleTranslation.htm

This site has 100+ versions indexed: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/
This site talks about the controversy over different bible versions: http://www.dtl.org/versions/

[Eiger]

Speculative reason is the ultimate, transcendental reason.
Transcendental reasoning relates to experience as determined by the mind's makeup - you can transcend experience, but not human knowledge. I'd say speculative reasoning is entirely different from transcendental reasoning as speculative reasoning goes beyond human knowledge.

[Eiger]

LoL. That is great.
I could pummel Eiger for all these bloody threads. If he'd just read them he'd get a good idea of what the hells going on instead of having to start a new thread whenever he feels left out on the stats.
Everything just keeps getting repeated and split apart everytime. Its much better if it all stays together. But too late now. If they were all put together, everyone would be more confused than they are right now.
*shakes fist at Eiger and his damn poll threads*hehe, neener neener! Don't you mean "both" rather than all? I only did two somewhat distinct threads. How they morph is not my doing. And no one's forcing you to participate...

[JadedFalcon]

This avoids the point of the question, but belief is irrelevant. Whether I believe that the sun is a mass of combusting gasses, or some type of yellow beach ball that circles the planet does nothing to change what it is.

Belief in one's self is what matters.

~J~F~

[Sweetpea]

I'm new here and you guys are really serious. You're not like a lot of other forums - sheesh! I guess I'll jump right in and say that I don't really believe in God or participate in organized religion, but I do believe that there's something that guides the universe. I spend a lot of time in the mountains and really seem to connect out there. Not sure what with, but there seems to be an energy running through the forest, the rocks, and so forth. Doesn't make any sense, but I like it.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

This avoids the point of the question, but belief is irrelevant. Whether I believe that the sun is a mass of combusting gasses, or some type of yellow beach ball that circles the planet does nothing to change what it is.

Belief in one's self is what matters.

~J~F~

That is of course unless you are actually curious as to the way things work. But ignorance works too I guess.
:uhhuh:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Transcendental reasoning relates to experience as determined by the mind's makeup - you can transcend experience, but not human knowledge. I'd say speculative reasoning is entirely different from transcendental reasoning as speculative reasoning goes beyond human knowledge.

As Halcyon noted earlier, you really should read the posts. I mentioned before that speculative reason begins with sense data and empirical knowledge. Toot your horn to an ignorant crowd.

[JadedFalcon]

That is of course unless you are actually curious as to the way things work. But ignorance works too I guess.
:uhhuh:

Although ignorance can usually be bliss, it has nothing to do with belief. Faith and knowledge are two very different issues (althought both are more often than not merely perceptions).

My point was only that beleive for or against anything (in and of itself) changes nothing. God will or won't exist regardless of my belief (opinion).

Faith only seldom proves how or even that something works.

~J~F~

[Eiger]

As Halcyon noted earlier, you really should read the posts. I mentioned before that speculative reason begins with sense data and empirical knowledge. Toot your horn to an ignorant crowd.
But I did read all the posts in this thread. I'm not searching for a needle in the haystack of the abortion thread however. If you want to give me some post numbers for reference I'll give it a try, but otherwise forget it.

I recognize that speculative reason begins with sense data and empirical knowledge, but then it diverges and it's that divergence that doesn't allow me to accept it for anything other than musing. Musing is fine, but to use it to validate an argument just doesn't wash. Speculation is speculation. It may be founded in reality, but ultimately it just ain't real. Of course it could be, but could isn't good enough.

[Brasuca-RJ]

One thing you'll find about me Brasuca, is that I argue from the actual texts. I have 6 thick volumes of Kant's texts 3 feet away on my shelf, and I'll be glad to whip them out if you want to get into it.
Perhaps you should take a breath, you´re taking things too personal. But I know it´s to ask too much and you can even become angrier by this being suggested by me; If so, you really should take a breath and restart fresher. Some people will always disagree with you no matter how right you think you are. Even Kant wasn´t so displeased of being outdated but misunderstood as you(making it clear, you´re not alone) seen to be about his work contestation - CPR 10LIII.
Reading a philosophy proposal isn´t like reading a romance or a poem - by the way, I laugh to death when you compared Foucault to a a poet cause then I know that means you wanted to make a personal attack, anyway... - to explain a position (that is not mine, but of a student of the great minds), when reading a text we assume everything is right and we are not allowed to disagree with the author during that studing/reading. Of course, there are a rethorical function to saying this and that but if not timed up correctly and said by someone that have proven has the "right" it sounds foolish.
Having the books is a small piece for starting to understand and discover the great meanings, but thats not enough; you also have to have healphy confrontations with people with opposing thoughts and even change sides in the light of enlightment, even if just as an exercise. But who am I to tell you how to read or study your books? Now that you seems to have something personal against me or thinks that I have against you; how could you possibly accept that I can be right in this matter? I´ll try not to start talking too much about psycological states cause I assume you will take over it eventualy.
And finally, you could use trying sounding less pedant!

[Bible]

To the people suggesting that existence is a small chance deal: if there is so much chance that nothing could have existed, it could have. The instances of reality that would result in nothing could have all happened, a thousand times and more, and still there is room for existence because nothing exists yet. So you can kinda say that life on earth is a far more probable and likely thing than it might seem at first.
As for believing in God or not, what could be more arrogant than believing in something you don't know? And who bothers to believe in something they do know?
And philosophy peoples, philosophy never addresses motivation. Because if it did it would have to address the motivation to be philosophical, which would quickly (or slowly) lead to the conclusion that philosophy is a waste of time. There's far more exciting things to be done between meals, if you can ride with the meaninglessness of life.
Speaking of exciting, I'd better get off the computer. Ole!

[e-string420]

let me just say that a few years ago i went to a healing session at a church. i was a bit skeptical at first beacause the priest that was offering this session was believed to knock a person out cold with the holy spirit by puting his thumb on your head. but when i got there i could not believe it. i saw him put a finger on a hundred peoples' heads and they all fell to the ground instantly. so, when my turn came he asked me what or whom i would like to pray for. i said i would like to pray for my uncle who had diabetes. he then placed his thumb on my forehead and i felt a strong shock throughout my body and i was knocked out. during my sleep i had dreams i cannot and will not describe. most of them were of my early childhood and when i was very young, otherswere of places and people i did not know. i awoke about half an hour later and i was completely relaxed. i had not felt like this in a long time. every muscle in my body was completely loose, my mind was not thinking but it was just calm. when i got up to leave i literally felt like i was walking in mid-air. i just can't really describe the feeling because it was so peaceful and calm. this feeling lasted throughout the night and in the morning i just realized that there was a God in heaven, and i was never more sure in my entire life that there is a God.

i did not do drugs before, which is probably what most of you are thinking. this was the most real experience i have had and i was at St. Louis Church in Fairport, NY.

[BhsCrew]

let me just say that a few years ago i went to a healing session at a church. i was a bit skeptical at first beacause the priest that was offering this session was believed to knock a person out cold with the holy spirit by puting his thumb on your head. but when i got there i could not believe it. i saw him put a finger on a hundred peoples' heads and they all fell to the ground instantly. so, when my turn came he asked me what or whom i would like to pray for. i said i would like to pray for my uncle who had diabetes. he then placed his thumb on my forehead and i felt a strong shock throughout my body and i was knocked out. during my sleep i had dreams i cannot and will not describe. most of them were of my early childhood and when i was very young, otherswere of places and people i did not know. i awoke about half an hour later and i was completely relaxed. i had not felt like this in a long time. every muscle in my body was completely loose, my mind was not thinking but it was just calm. when i got up to leave i literally felt like i was walking in mid-air. i just can't really describe the feeling because it was so peaceful and calm. this feeling lasted throughout the night and in the morning i just realized that there was a God in heaven, and i was never more sure in my entire life that there is a God.

i did not do drugs before, which is probably what most of you are thinking. this was the most real experience i have had and i was at St. Louis Church in Fairport, NY.

I hope your uncle is ok. :)

[e-string420]

we all know that diabetes is just one of those things we cannot change right now. but hopefully someone will find a cure soon enough.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Although ignorance can usually be bliss, it has nothing to do with belief. Faith and knowledge are two very different issues (althought both are more often than not merely perceptions).

My point was only that beleive for or against anything (in and of itself) changes nothing. God will or won't exist regardless of my belief (opinion).

Faith only seldom proves how or even that something works.

~J~F~

First off, I am glad to see you didn't take my last post as rude. I looked back at it and it did seem to be a little rude after I typed it. I was hoping you would just take it for face value which you did. With that being said:

Point taken. I wouldn't say faith and knowledge are differently entirely, only by definition. I have faith in God, but at the same time all of me whys and whats are not answered. So in order to fully understand my faith in God I am constantly seeking answers for all the questions that I don't know the answers to.

Faith in something without knowledge can be considered blind faith. I can believe my car is sitting outside my house, but unless I go out and look at it, touch it, I am blindly believing that it is there. It could have been stolen, a meteor could have somehow fallen from the sky and left a crater where my car was. If I question my belief that it is there, I have a better understanding and a more valid belief that it is there.

The search for God can be no different. If someone never thought to question why God exists and was happy to just sit back and say "yeah he exists. I don't need to bother wondering.", that is blind faith. Basically I am just trying to find out why exactly I have reason to believe he exists in the first place. I would love to be able to prove to myself without the shadow of a doubt that God really does exist. While it may be futile in the end, at least it brings me to a better understanding.

Back to the car, if I believe the car is outside of the house, that is belief. However if I prove and provide evidence to myself it is there, then I have much more belief in the fact that the car is actually there than I had before. Degrees of belief if that makes sense.

Edit: On the flipside, faith without knowledge can be dangerous. Hitler had an army of followers who were quick to take every word he spoke as truth and yet never actually stopped to wonder why they were killing jews. Not all, but quite a lot.

I myself was born and bred a racist. I hated black people. They were evil, dirty, violent criminals. I believed this for at least the first half of my life, until I took the time to actually wonder WHY I hated black people. I quickly found that my old beliefs were not correct, therefore I was able to toss out false belief and replace it with a more truthful belief. I hope that makes sense...

[CowPokeJim]

can God make something so heavy he can't lift it...

Yes He can. But then he would still be able to lift it!!

[CowPokeJim]

Just wondering.

If God exists because someone had to create the universe, then who created God?

If God can exist without being created then can't the universe exist without necessarily being created by God?


God and Creation cannot be proven by science. They have to be accepted by Faith!!!!!

[Booms]

Faith in something without knowledge can be considered blind faith. I can believe my car is sitting outside my house, but unless I go out and look at it, touch it, I am blindly believing that it is there. It could have been stolen, a meteor could have somehow fallen from the sky and left a crater where my car was. If I question my belief that it is there, I have a better understanding and a more valid belief that it is there.


But there is a large difference then believing that your car is in the driveway than believing in God. If you drove your car and left it on the driveway, even if you are currently not seeing/touching/hearing/smelling/tasting it you still have the initial knowledge that it was there. You have a reason to believe that your car is in the driveway. Now, chances are you didn't put God in the driveway and are just leaving him there, which makes your belief in God very different than your belief that your car is in your driveway.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

But there is a large difference then believing that your car is in the driveway than believing in God. If you drove your car and left it on the driveway, even if you are currently not seeing/touching/hearing/smelling/tasting it you still have the initial knowledge that it was there. You have a reason to believe that your car is in the driveway. Now, chances are you didn't put God in the driveway and are just leaving him there, which makes your belief in God very different than your belief that your car is in your driveway.

That doesn't change the point. You are just nitpicking here, or you are missing my point. I could just have easily said "I believe there is a rock in my back yard", "I believe the sun shines on Ethiopia", "I believe there is something buried in my yard", "I believe in the existance of woodchucks", "I believe in the existance of Pee Wee Herman dolls". Pick any of those you like, I had no prior knowledge of them.

The point is it is still a search for truth. You are still looking for answers to something you don't fully understand. Whether it be the existance of God, or the existance of a chocolate cherry watermelon fruit roll up, it is the same idea.

[Minnesotaman]

[QUOTE=Illidan
Most Bibles you guys know have been altered since the original text which was written by far from perfect humans that wrote it from memory, not previous text.

Absolutely false. There have been a huge number of transcripts of ancient texts found that are almost exactly word for word identical to todays texts. In fact the Bible has the most historical documents of any ancient text.

As for reasons why we know God exists.
1). For most people there is a feeling of what is morally right and wrong we have. We know it is wrong to walk up to some one and kill him for no reason. If there was not some supernatural superior to all of us, we would not have this sense and would walk around doing anything we liked.

2.) Look around you. Where did it all come from. Some claim the big bang created all of this from a small ball of molecules. Then where did those come from. Someone had to have created them, AKA God. So whether you believe in the Big Bang or in everything coming from no where God had to be behind it.

If you then make the argument that something would then have had to created God, I would have to disagree. God is a supernatural being that has always been and always will be. It cannot be explained but just is.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I recognize that speculative reason begins with sense data and empirical knowledge, but then it diverges and it's that divergence that doesn't allow me to accept it for anything other than musing. Musing is fine, but to use it to validate an argument just doesn't wash. Speculation is speculation. It may be founded in reality, but ultimately it just ain't real. Of course it could be, but could isn't good enough.

Your clause on divergence being a problematic is irrelevant. As I mentioned previously, the laws of the nature of practical and pure reason are the same. Reason is an inherent power, which operates by the same logic be it the analysis of empirical data or the concepts it brings forth. Please Eiger, I know what I'm talking about. Speculative reason offers the same clarity as practical reason so long as you follow its procedure properly. Read Ernst Cassirer's "the philosophy of the enlightenment", chapers 2 and 3 on "the mind", and "nature and natural science".

[JadedFalcon]

Edit: On the flipside, faith without knowledge can be dangerous. Hitler had an army of followers who were quick to take every word he spoke as truth and yet never actually stopped to wonder why they were killing jews. Not all, but quite a lot.

I myself was born and bred a racist. I hated black people. They were evil, dirty, violent criminals. I believed this for at least the first half of my life, until I took the time to actually wonder WHY I hated black people. I quickly found that my old beliefs were not correct, therefore I was able to toss out false belief and replace it with a more truthful belief. I hope that makes sense...

And now we come to my point: All faith, (particularly blind faith) is dangerous.

****s had faith in their leader.
Romans had faith in their righteousness.
The Spanish had their Inquisitors.
The Earth was flat for a very long time (and proven in the available ways).

When you talked of proving that your car was still there, thereby strengthening your belief of it, you were no longer talking about faith, but knowledge (and one is exclusive of the other).

To beleive in something you do not know if faith.

To believe in something that you do know is knowledge.

Mixing the two becomes subjective and pontentially dangerous. What you know or think you know begins to affect what and how you believe.

I'm losing my train of thought and am not particularly good at being breif so I'll stop with these points:

Magic is what knowledge has not turned into science.
Faith is what knowledge has not turned into myth.

~J~F~

____________________________________________________
ASIDE:

Miricles start within yourself.

I do not think for an instant that you can pray to win sports, to win money, or to get better health. Anyone who tells me that is possible truely thinks too much of themselves. To define God in any commonly accepted way and applied to this form of belief means that because you asked, God removed your canser, but for some reason God can not seem to hear the screams of hundreds of thousands of third world country children.

Don't get me wrong, I know a miricle when I see/hear it. I just have much greater faith in the (untapped) human potenial than divine intervention.

[JadedFalcon]

As for reasons why we know God exists.
1). For most people there is a feeling of what is morally right and wrong we have. We know it is wrong to walk up to some one and kill him for no reason. If there was not some supernatural superior to all of us, we would not have this sense and would walk around doing anything we liked.

2.) Look around you. Where did it all come from. Some claim the big bang created all of this from a small ball of molecules. Then where did those come from. Someone had to have created them, AKA God. So whether you believe in the Big Bang or in everything coming from no where God had to be behind it.

Obviously I can't prove or disprove your statements, but I don't see how they are definitive (particularly number one). I doubt that any form of divinity instills in us morals. I think fear does more than anything else. As a society, we define what is right and wrong. "God's Laws" are conveniently changed whenever it suites the masses.

As for killing other people, please keep in mind that in all of history, organized relignion (and thereby God, as God is a construct of organized religion) has always and remains the number one taker of human life. Moreso than AIDS, Canser, Heart Desease or taxes.

Having faith can be good for a person's well-being, acting on it however is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

Besides, if God exists in Heaven and you live with Him into eternity after death, isn't killing people simply deliverying them? If people truely believed in God, they would live their lives that way. We have stronger laws against theft than r@pe! THEFT: someone took some stuff. R@PE: someone viloated anyone human being. Which would you rather have happen to you, which would you rather have happen to your daughter? Most people who say that they believe in God to so out of fear and convenience, but it never rolls into the rest of their life.

Self-preservation; that's what you'll find at the core of any living being.

~J~F~

[Eiger]

Your clause on divergence being a problematic is irrelevant. As I mentioned previously, the laws of the nature of practical and pure reason are the same. Reason is an inherent power, which operates by the same logic be it the analysis of empirical data or the concepts it brings forth. Please Eiger, I know what I'm talking about. Speculative reason offers the same clarity as practical reason so long as you follow its procedure properly. Read Ernst Cassirer's "the philosophy of the enlightenment", chapers 2 and 3 on "the mind", and "nature and natural science".Well I'm disagreeing with you and I'm not interested enough to go find Cassirer's work. Feel free to provide a link or to paraphrase if you need to make your point better, because your argument is not working yet.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

JadeFalcon ~ I think faith and knowledge lie much more closely than you do. I suppose we'll just have to chalk it up as "agreeing to disagree". There isn't much more we can do to debate that particular subject without repeating ourselves, your mind hasn't changed and neither has mine. I think now we hit a brick wall. :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well I'm disagreeing with you and I'm not interested enough to go find Cassirer's work. Feel free to provide a link or to paraphrase if you need to make your point better, because your argument is not working yet.

lol - reminds me of a toddler who had his lollipop wrenched from his grasp. If you're "not interested" enough to learn, Mr. "nothing" (on the test forum), you're not worth my time. I will not be replying to anymore of your posts.

[Booms]

That doesn't change the point. You are just nitpicking here, or you are missing my point. I could just have easily said "I believe there is a rock in my back yard", "I believe the sun shines on Ethiopia", "I believe there is something buried in my yard", "I believe in the existance of woodchucks", "I believe in the existance of Pee Wee Herman dolls". Pick any of those you like, I had no prior knowledge of them.

The point is it is still a search for truth. You are still looking for answers to something you don't fully understand. Whether it be the existance of God, or the existance of a chocolate cherry watermelon fruit roll up, it is the same idea.

There is a difference between all of the things that you could have said (maybe aside from the Pee Wee Herman dolls) and saying that you believe in God. Now, maybe if you had not ever seen a rock or a chipmunk before (and not have used your other senses to detect the rock/chipmunk) they would be the in same realm as "I believe in God," but otherwise they are seperate. The sun rising in Ethiopia and something being buried in your backyard (although this could depend on what you believe is buried) are on the same level as the chipmunk/rock statments as well.

A chocolate cherry watermelon fruit roll up I would consider to be closer to the realm of the statement "I believe in God," but I'm saying that because I've never seen/tasted or heard of such a strange fruit roll up. On the other hand, I think there is a still a higher chance of there being that fruit roll up than there being a God, because I know that there are fruit roll ups while I have no previous knowledge of God.

[Illidan]

Thanks for proving my point, it takes me a while to get back on the boards with school and finals and *********s trying to get in my pants even though they're skanks...

Anyway to anyone who thinks Christians have this belief in the bible that's unbreaking and b.s. etc i'd like to post some facts, I don't have all of them like I said my bro in law has more but I'm tired of his long explanations.

The original Hebrew bible uses numbers for certain (if not all) referances if I am not mistaken in my understanding. The way Hebrew is translated can mean several things and certain numbers have various meanings. My point is the Bible was at no point written by Jesus and so we can't expect it to be perfect.

Secondly.. and lastly since I have no more points: Most people don't change their faith to Christianity after reading the bible or going to some B.S. church community that reads the gospels and says SINNERS GLAH!!!! *tosses holy water*. Most converters and believers have had a certain unexplainable in their opinion event that they wouldn't have gotten through without their faith. That same event which many people stop believing in God because a family member died or w/e has helped many people believe in God even more. It's hard to explain.

Speaking from my own experiences... A church is only as faithful/holy/good/ w/e you want to call it as it's Priest/reverend/spiritual leader. I know as a fact that most of the Orthodox converters in my Bro in laws church did so after attending a wedding or church service. There are really bad priests don't get me wrong, the ones that read instead of chant in Byzantine verse piss me off the most, but when done right Church can be a magical thing for many believers. Anyway I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, and in fact if you've read my previous posts I am currently against ever attending church again, and do in fact respect everyones faith and opinion, but I'd have to say to most anti-christian sentiment people that wish to just convert everyone else into atheism... you're a hypocrite.

This is, in my opinion, the only rude comment in my post, but it needs to be said, many people make fun of Jehovas witness' for trying to spread the word of God, as well as Catholics/missionaries etc. I haven't really seen any Orthodox trying to do so but w/e that's another story. You want others to convert to your faith (atheism) just as much as they want you to convert back to Christianity. This doesn't apply to everyone, but please to those who will give one liner replys to someones belief that they've spent their life practicing have a little more respect. How would you feel if you were a surgeon and out of 100 patients one dies so the persons wife comes to you and sues you to such a degree that you have to quit your lifes work despite all the lives you've saved because of one angry victim. I'm really bad at allegories (right term?) I admit, but I hope you understand my point.

[JadedFalcon]

Just for sh!ts and giggles, let's see what all the "big-mouths" voted.

I'm spiritually confused (otherwise known as Agnostic), in that I'm comfortable with the fact that there are many things out there that I do not and will not know, but refuse to simply discredit.

And the rest of you frequent posters?

~J~F~

[BhsCrew]

[QUOTE=Illidan
Most Bibles you guys know have been altered since the original text which was written by far from perfect humans that wrote it from memory, not previous text.

Absolutely false. There have been a huge number of transcripts of ancient texts found that are almost exactly word for word identical to todays texts. In fact the Bible has the most historical documents of any ancient text.

As for reasons why we know God exists.
1). For most people there is a feeling of what is morally right and wrong we have. We know it is wrong to walk up to some one and kill him for no reason. If there was not some supernatural superior to all of us, we would not have this sense and would walk around doing anything we liked.

2.) Look around you. Where did it all come from. Some claim the big bang created all of this from a small ball of molecules. Then where did those come from. Someone had to have created them, AKA God. So whether you believe in the Big Bang or in everything coming from no where God had to be behind it.

If you then make the argument that something would then have had to created God, I would have to disagree. God is a supernatural being that has always been and always will be. It cannot be explained but just is.

These two proofs can have other explanations.

The first one can be explained by a simple evolutionary instinct of self preservation. We make laws preventing people from killing others because that gives us some protection from being killed ourselves. If I walk up and kill a person I will face the wrath of his friends and family and will most likely end up dead myself even if there aren't laws against murder. By being peaceful I increase the chance of living and having kids.

The second one is nice but it's just as easy to believe that the universe sprang from nothing or always existed then it is to believe that God sprang from nothing or has always existed. Whether you believe in God or not you still have to believe that something either came from nothing or has always existed.

I'm not saying that I have any proof that God doesn't exist. I'm not sure. But those two proofs you offered aren't as absolute as you believe.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

There is a difference between all of the things that you could have said (maybe aside from the Pee Wee Herman dolls) and saying that you believe in God. Now, maybe if you had not ever seen a rock or a chipmunk before (and not have used your other senses to detect the rock/chipmunk) they would be the in same realm as "I believe in God," but otherwise they are seperate. The sun rising in Ethiopia and something being buried in your backyard (although this could depend on what you believe is buried) are on the same level as the chipmunk/rock statments as well.

A chocolate cherry watermelon fruit roll up I would consider to be closer to the realm of the statement "I believe in God," but I'm saying that because I've never seen/tasted or heard of such a strange fruit roll up. On the other hand, I think there is a still a higher chance of there being that fruit roll up than there being a God, because I know that there are fruit roll ups while I have no previous knowledge of God.

No, again that still wasn't the point I was trying to get across. It may just be a case of me not explaining myself well enough. It is simply the process of discovering the truth behind something. Plain and simple.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The second one is nice but it's just as easy to believe that the universe sprang from nothing or always existed then it is to believe that God sprang from nothing or has always existed. Whether you believe in God or not you still have to believe that something either came from nothing or has always existed.


Remember our discussion on time and eternity? The world as we know it cannot have been existing in infinity - it needed a beginning. The argument for this has to do with motion. To have a realm of eternity is to have a realm of actuality and simplicity. Development, definition, and motion are denizens only to a temporal world that had a beginning, and will have an end.

[Sage the Mage]

/me Looks at the time till the update finishes for FFXI...15 mins.

Your clause on divergence being a problematic is irrelevant. As I mentioned previously, the laws of the nature of practical and pure reason are the same. Reason is an inherent power, which operates by the same logic be it the analysis of empirical data or the concepts it brings forth. Please Eiger, I know what I'm talking about. Speculative reason offers the same clarity as practical reason so long as you follow its procedure properly. Read Ernst Cassirer's "the philosophy of the enlightenment", chapers 2 and 3 on "the mind", and "nature and natural science".

Speculative reason, unless I can get a better definition from you...involves stating an empyrical premise, and then arguing from there? Definately need to get a clear definition of this since you are so keen on using it.

[BhsCrew]

Remember our discussion on time and eternity? The world as we know it cannot have been existing in infinity - it needed a beginning. The argument for this has to do with motion. To have a realm of eternity is to have a realm of actuality and simplicity. Development, definition, and motion are denizens only to a temporal world that had a beginning, and will have an end.

Yeah I go with the theory of a universe starting from nothing or something very small. I just included 'always existing' because I gave both options for God and I wanted symmetry. It was sloppy.

Anyway the point was that God would have to either exist forever or spring from nothing. It would be just as easy for the universe to spring from nothing.

Edit- Oh right I had a question. How do we know that the universe is going to end? We know that it began partly because it is continously expanding. How do we know that it will end?

[Booms]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither, I suspect, do you. BB theory does not require particles to combine before it occurs. Actually, it doesn't require particles to combine at all.

I got the whole particle thing from SpiritWalker's post:

But here's a brief thing on how it sorta went. Some things even smaller than atoms came together at precisely the exact temperature and caused a chemical reaction which created hydrogen I believe, from there on the gas started expanding like hell (still is) creating all sort of other stuff, later other elements, creating suns, which then didn't last very long, they collapsed etc, anyway the beginning of the universe. Also it's like this the universe keeps on getting bigger as time passes (let's keep the time is irrelevant thing outta this one), so it'd be logical to think that going back in time the universe had to be 'nothing'.

Now, I realize SpiritWalker may be wrong, but when I stated my opinion I was jumped on by both of you and then you both provided conflicting arguments as of why.

On the other hand, If you go here (http://www.astronomy.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=518) and scroll down you'll find an excerpt from a book which both combines the BB theory and an eternal universe. Just thought I'd point it out.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Anyway the point was that God would have to either exist forever or spring from nothing. It would be just as easy for the universe to spring from nothing.


Well, I can't answer all questions.. (duh).. But, I'll say that the way we understand things is in terms of temporality. As such, it is beyond our comprehension to scope out an infinite being, BUT, we can understand that by the laws of nature and reason, that this realm is temporal, finite, and needs a creator and sustainer.


Edit- Oh right I had a question. How do we know that the universe is going to end? We know that it began partly because it is continously expanding. How do we know that it will end?

It is the nature of anything not infinite, to be what it is - "not infinite". Anything that had a beginning, MUST have an end, as process demands an end in actuality. As your life on earth began and will end, the process is one of attaining "actiality". Thus, life on earth can be dubbed "the world of becoming".


Sage the Mage - Speculative reason is reasn that continues by virtue of the natural activity of reason per se, which is "combining and dividing" concepts. Reason applies its powers to empirical data, which comes from the senses. Indeed, all knowledge comes from the senses. Speculation follows the prognisis of empirical data and combines its conclusions, and so on, so forth. Hence, from the notions or concepts that we uncover by means of empiricism and common sense practical reason, we can, by the natural law of reason, arrive at other concepts by applying the power of reason to these things. Ever mix the primary colors of paint? Like when you mix blue and yellow, you get green. It's like that.

[Essex]

lol - reminds me of a toddler who had his lollipop wrenched from his grasp. If you're "not interested" enough to learn, Mr. "nothing" (on the test forum), you're not worth my time. I will not be replying to anymore of your posts.

AoA in all these debates I've tried never to get personal, this isn't just to you either but I replyed to this post. People if we are going to remain civil we can't result to insults. Calling Eiger a toddler is an insult, and in fact its a pretty damn stupid one. As far as I can tell you've had serious replies from him and maybe two other people, so why alienate him unless you just want to pick on the people who aren't as good debaters as you are.

Plus remeber the whole thing about you not taking this personally (I think it was in the middle of the aborton thread who knows) you seemed to have forgotten this, don't go into these threads as if its a Holy War, it's not it's a damn discussion. To be honest your posts are just making whatever good points you make seem bad in hindsite because of the disrespectful additude you seem to display.

If I come off *****y I'm sorry I've had the worst ****ing day of my life and when I see **** like this going on I just feel like calling people on it.

So EVERYONE if you can't post on these debates in a civil ****ing manner, without resulting to insults or name calling then don't post. Also if we could avoid turning these debates into Intellectual Pissing contestes that'd be great. I really think that some people have stopped talking about the points and are just trying to quote as many philosphers as you can.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Calling Eiger a toddler is an insult, and in fact its a pretty damn stupid one. As far as I can tell you've had serious replies from him and maybe two other people, so why alienate him unless you just want to pick on the people who aren't as good debaters as you are.


True, I'll give him some credit, he did give me a few good responses. Yet, even if I would torture people here, I make it clear that I don't dislike them. I was actually considering inviting you guys on ILM gaming sessions when it comes out. But regardless, he did upset me on the "enemies of christianity thread", and you can head over there for that brawl. Eiger and I may end up being friends, but it will take a good few pages of arguing first lol.


Plus remeber the whole thing about you not taking this personally (I think it was in the middle of the aborton thread who knows) you seemed to have forgotten this, don't go into these threads as if its a Holy War, it's not it's a damn discussion. To be honest your posts are just making whatever good points you make seem bad in hindsite because of the disrespectful additude you seem to display.


Well, the only forums you'll usually see me on are the heavy topic threads and my guild forums. I take both seriously. In regard to these threads however, I'll enter the mud pit, both arms swinging. If I can convince one person not to have an abortion, I'll do my best. Sometimes zealots can step on people's toes, and I won't apologize for doing so if it be for an important issue like abortion for instance. The subject of God is also extremely important, and here my goal is to try to stem the tide of skepticism. It's my hope that people will take what objective substance they can from my posts, regardless of its tone, which is subject to fluxuation. That being said, I'm glad I can come back after a stressful day (in this case week), and still talk to you guys. :buddies:

[Andarcel]

Spiritwalker is talking about events that occurred long after the singularity. During the instant after the BB, there was nothing but light.

Bhs, God is outside time and therefore not subject to either having a beginning or going back forever in time.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What a smart guy that Andarcel is :thumbsup:

[Booms]

Spiritwalker is talking about events that occurred long after the singularity. During the instant after the BB, there was nothing but light.

Bhs, God is outside time and therefore not subject to either having a beginning or going back forever in time.

Okay, it basically comes down to that you seem to know more about the BB theory than I do, and I will respect that.

Could you give me some links that have good information about it? Google seems to be a crapshoot when it comes to getting good information on this subject.

[Illidan]

For ****z and giggles I voted Polytheistic. Maybe I'm a hypocrite but I dunno I can't explain why I chose that instead of monotheistic.

[George Bush]

Well, I can't answer all questions.. (duh).. But, I'll say that the way we understand things is in terms of temporality. As such, it is beyond our comprehension to scope out an infinite being, BUT, we can understand that by the laws of nature and reason, that this realm is temporal, finite, and needs a creator and sustainer.



It is the nature of anything not infinite, to be what it is - "not infinite". Anything that had a beginning, MUST have an end, as process demands an end in actuality. As your life on earth began and will end, the process is one of attaining "actiality". Thus, life on earth can be dubbed "the world of becoming".


Sage the Mage - Speculative reason is reasn that continues by virtue of the natural activity of reason per se, which is "combining and dividing" concepts. Reason applies its powers to empirical data, which comes from the senses. Indeed, all knowledge comes from the senses. Speculation follows the prognisis of empirical data and combines its conclusions, and so on, so forth. Hence, from the notions or concepts that we uncover by means of empiricism and common sense practical reason, we can, by the natural law of reason, arrive at other concepts by applying the power of reason to these things. Ever mix the primary colors of paint? Like when you mix blue and yellow, you get green. It's like that.
lemme point out a few things here.

infinite includes all possibilities . as such this "universe" is only 1 such possibility or for lack of a better term branch of infinity. if this branch is part of infinity or 1 possibility out of all infinity then you could say a huge number of different things about this 1 paticular possibility . However, god himself IS infinite thus spanning all of infinity and the only way to do the is to be INFINITY ITSELF.

everything , everywhere, all knowing, all powerful.
think about it .

you could break things down into their base seeds or possibilities but those possibilities themselves are infinite in nature.

lemme give an example.

a guy walks down the street and goes to the store.
the same guy walks down the street in a different possibility and gets hit by a bus driver that made a decision kill someone that day.
the same guy in a different possibility decides not to walk down the street but instead flies.

each moment things can change in an infinite ammount of ways . even moving a micro second slower could change all of reality.

that is only a small fraction of infinity itself .
when you look at something that vast it boggles the mind.

how could there not be god?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

GB - Were you afirrming or critiquing my post? We are in total agreement on the existence of God.

[JadedFalcon]

Spiritwalker is talking about events that occurred long after the singularity. During the instant after the BB, there was nothing but light.

Bhs, God is outside time and therefore not subject to either having a beginning or going back forever in time.

"Time" is a concept created by man in accordance with its desire to quantify. There is no past (you can't go back in time, the proposition is foolish), there is no future (it hasn't happened yet), there is only now. So savour every moment, because you never know when they'll be gone.

;)

Night All, it's been fun.

~J~F~

[George Bush]

GB - Were you afirrming or critiquing my post? We are in total agreement on the existence of God.
in a way i guess . i think i see something a bit off in some of the things you are saying or mabey we are just stating the same things differently.
i dont believe true thought can be achevied without infinite knowledge.
anything less would be a mockery.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

GB - Infinite knowledge?? What is that? It probably does come down to semantics.

[George Bush]

infinite knowledge would be knowing everything.
of course if you knew everything there would be no need to think at all?

bleh i misstated that previous post. got wrapped up in a thought and wrote it down before thinking about it lol.

yes i agree with you on some points im to lazy to read most of it . however both of us hell this whole board seems to be getting a bit to arrogant for our own good.
we sound like some condecending asshats talking to a child when we are but children ourselves.
mabey we could all take a note of it and turn down the competitive "hey look at how smart i am mommy!" part in our personalities a bit?
i will try and wade through all the posts and see if i can come up with a better post later.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

infinite knowledge would be knowing everything.
of course if you knew everything there would be no need to think at all?


SageTheMage and Eiger - here is a good example of speculative reason at work. I'm impressed.


yes i agree with you on some points im to lazy to read most of it . however both of us hell this whole board seems to be getting a bit to arrogant for our own good.
we sound like some condecending asshats talking to a child when we are but children ourselves.
mabey we could all take a note of it and turn down the competitive "hey look at how smart i am mommy!" part in our personalities a bit?
i will try and wade through all the posts and see if i can come up with a better post later.

Good point once again. That's what happens when when we entwine our stressful lives with elements of truth. I stick by all my posts, but you're right, tone does make a difference.

[Carolus Rex]

Voted for several gods, I don't believe in a God but the coolest were the Aesir tht the vikings believed in, Oden, Tor, Freja and the gang.

[Bartleby]

Please note, the following is my opinion, which will likely not change anyone else’s, nor is it likely that your opinion will change mine, but I am interested in listening. Also I have a job (which I should be doing right now) and a life away from my keyboard, thus I’m not going to get entrenched in some heated debate, so let’s keep this friendly.

The question was asked, “Do you believe in God?” Yes, I do and the following is why:

The 'ex nihilo' argument makes sense to me... something just had to always just "be" otherwise where would the components for the BB have come from?

Plato thought it was matter that is eternal, but scientists have proved otherwise. As for Cosmology, Hawking and some other guy came up with a really fascinating wave theory, which is fundamentally flawed under today's understanding of the universe. Maybe that will change, who knows...

In my opinion, I think the BB continues to gather more merit as we continue to learn more about our origins and I choose to associate that greater power that "willed" those components into existence with God as described by the Lutheran tradition, because to me there is no other reasonable (not the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do) explanation, ontological or otherwise for the origin of the BB.

Besides, the general ethical guidelines set forth by my chosen spiritual association, and most other religions, if followed by most would make this world a happy, shiny place.


Begun the flame wars has. ~Yoda (on anonymity and public opinion)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Nice post Bartleby - that's about the best I've seen it described. BTW, dont fear the flamers, we usually manage to iron out the bumps.

[Andarcel]

"Time" is a concept created by man in accordance with its desire to quantify. There is no past (you can't go back in time, the proposition is foolish), there is no future (it hasn't happened yet), there is only now. So savour every moment, because you never know when they'll be gone.

;)

Night All, it's been fun.

~J~F~
1)That has been said repeatedly, without support, wholly ignoring that an entire branch of physics treats time as real and malleable and has the data to prove it. If time did not exist except as a coordinate system, having time run at different "speeds" would be impossible. Yet, it does.

2)If you define causality, not time, to be the objective field on which events occur (it's gotta be one or the other), then the statement about God translates into "God is a causeless cause."

3)Your Aurelian philosophy really has nothing ot do with the topic at hand.

Booms, try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang)

[Eiger]

lol - reminds me of a toddler who had his lollipop wrenched from his grasp. If you're "not interested" enough to learn, Mr. "nothing" (on the test forum), you're not worth my time. I will not be replying to anymore of your posts.
And conversely, if you're not interested enough to facilitate learning, you're not worth my time either - which is exactly my point in my previous post. I've noticed how you skirt the tough questions, by the way, hehe.

[Eiger]

Speculative reason is reasn that continues by virtue of the natural activity of reason per se, which is "combining and dividing" concepts. Reason applies its powers to empirical data, which comes from the senses. Indeed, all knowledge comes from the senses. Speculation follows the prognisis of empirical data and combines its conclusions, and so on, so forth. Hence, from the notions or concepts that we uncover by means of empiricism and common sense practical reason, we can, by the natural law of reason, arrive at other concepts by applying the power of reason to these things. Ever mix the primary colors of paint? Like when you mix blue and yellow, you get green. It's like that.
Here's some links on natural law in case anyone's interested:
http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/99/evolnatlaw.html
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/schallj/WS7BJVS.html

From the first link:


Putting his ideas about human nature together with his dichotomy of revelation, he essentially claimed that without natural law, which every person had been endowed with by God and which every person could discern by reason, there was no way to translate divine law (which is not Scripture) into human law. Direct revelation from Scripture was rejected, or at least made as equally reliable as reason, making man predisposed to rely on his reason to bring natural law "out" as the mediator between divine and human law--the connection, the bridge, if you will.

Man and his reason become the true source of law, and especially the reason of the "Sovereign" (who could be king or pope or a hybrid). Thus natural law, while appearing to emanate from God, really came from man's mind (or the sovereign Man), for there was no device by which to judge any particular natural law manifestation from the outside. If a certain sovereign were to deem something it could be said to be against natural law; however that is really to say that one person's reason does not agree with another person's reason. If either party introduces Scripture, then he is appealing to a source outside of himself and his opponent, and is, in effect, giving up natural law and the supremacy of reason. For quite some time in Western civilization the Thomistic natural law concept was not as serious a practical problem as it could have been because, despite the appeal to universally recognized natural law and reason, the context of it all was still "Christendom" (with some deviations due to the Enlightenment).2 (http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/99/evolnatlaw.html#note2) Many who claimed to be using their reason to "discover" natural law concepts were really just discovering (or "rationalizing") their own predilections which were as often as not Christian.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And conversely, if you're not interested enough to facilitate learning, you're not worth my time either - which is exactly my point in my previous post. I've noticed how you skirt the tough questions, by the way, hehe.

Indeed, I have facilitated it. I've offered you to read full texts, not merely accrue a grocery list of google-search maxims. The learned in our civilization spend years of digging through texts to uncover truths. I won't spoon feed someone who only wants to stick with pablum.

[Eiger]

Okie dokie. Seems we have agreement. Cool.

[Andarcel]

Eiger, could you perhaps explain the connection between the quote and your response? Because natural law is a moral not apologetic problem, and I don't see the relevance to the thread.

Edit: just figured it out, and almost fell off my seat laughing! Eiger, you're priceless. The "natural law of reason" AoA is talking about as absolutely nothing in common with Aquinas' natural law. That's the problem with Google knowledge: used carelessly, it just makes a fool of you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Thus natural law, while appearing to emanate from God, really came from man's mind (or the sovereign Man), for there was no device by which to judge any particular natural law manifestation from the outside.



lol - natural law cannot emanate from God, as those laws do not compose God. This is what I was telling you about taking things out of context with the "coles notes" of philosophy. Indeed, if you had an erudite education in philosophy, you would understand that "emanation" necessarily connects the subject acted on with God. Thus, in an emination system, we WOULD have directly accessible revelation from God. However, since we do not share God's form, that is not the case.

The "law of reason" was gleaned form the enlightenment, and is not the Aquinean aspect. I find it strange that after my bread and butter explanation of speculative reason - which you asked for - you bring about a critique of aquinas. Not only was that critique not done with elementary care, you also misunderstood my definiton of natural law. I mentioned 2 small chapters in a text you should read - Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of the enlightenment, as he goes through the history and puts things together. He is very much "up to date", if that made any difference in philosophy.

The "natural law of reason" does come from the mind of man, as that's essentially what it is. It did not "emanate from God", as I pointed out above. I have explained earlier that reason composes and divides from empirical subject matter, and uses this same innate process to move beyond that sphere. As useless as coles notes are in philosophy, you even failed to use them properly by directly answering my question. Then again, I fail to see how one could not understand or disagree with that simple definition of reason.

[Eiger]

Eiger, could you perhaps explain the connection between the quote and your response? Because natural law is a moral not apologetic problem, and I don't see the relevance to the thread.

Edit: just figured it out, and almost fell off my seat laughing! Eiger, you're priceless. The "natural law of reason" AoA is talking about as absolutely nothing in common with Aquinas' natural law. That's the problem with Google knowledge: used carelessly, it just makes a fool of you.
Ok, I admit it. I was in a hurry and did a big oops. My bad.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger, our war need not go on forever. If you're up for a truce, it's cool.

[Echod16]

Eiger, our war need not go on forever. If you're up for a truce, it's cool.

this is what happens when i go from page 1 to 11...from nothign to the end of a post war..

now anyways, yes, i do believe in god, but much likse Spiritwalker said, the church has been known to be corrupted, and the bible, though it IS the BIBLE, it has been bound to change little by little with ever version of it, most likely by the churches a long time ago

[Sage the Mage]

Sage the Mage - Speculative reason is reasn that continues by virtue of the natural activity of reason per se, which is "combining and dividing" concepts. Reason applies its powers to empirical data, which comes from the senses. Indeed, all knowledge comes from the senses. Speculation follows the prognisis of empirical data and combines its conclusions, and so on, so forth. Hence, from the notions or concepts that we uncover by means of empiricism and common sense practical reason, we can, by the natural law of reason, arrive at other concepts by applying the power of reason to these things. Ever mix the primary colors of paint? Like when you mix blue and yellow, you get green. It's like that.

Blue + Yellow == Green
Green + Red == Yellow
So, Blue + Green + Red == Yellow

See a problem?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Blue + Yellow == Green
Green + Red == Yellow
So, Blue + Green + Red == Yellow

See a problem?

I used it as an example. It refers to putting 2 concepts together, and thus getting a new one. Any of the above could be examples of the same principle.

[JadedFalcon]

Blue + Yellow == Green
Green + Red == Yellow
So, Blue + Green + Red == Yellow

See a problem?

I don't quite see how your substitution works... shouldn't it be:

Blue + Yellow + Red == Yellow?

Substituting Blue + Yellow for Green. The way you have it written, the third line should equal Green. (Green + Read == Yellow; Yellow + Blue == Green)

~J~F~

Edit: ...or maybe that was your point (do I win a cookie?).

[stuyScale]

Moved to PM.

This is not the post you are looking for.

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah you're right. Maybe I wrote that post later at night?

Blue + Yellow == Green (Primary Color)
Green + Red == Yellow (Light Color)
So, Blue + (Green + Red) == Green

Either way, that's not the point (No cookie for you!) The point was to figure out that these two concepts cannot be put together, even though they are similar in nature.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sheesh! Sage, the color outcomes don't matter. ALL I mentioned was that from combining 2 concepts, you get a NEW concept, it doesn't matter which.

[Bartleby]

red + white = pink
pink = a very purdy color

[Illidan]

I don't see how you can compare mixing colors to concepts people have been arguing over for hundreds of years... Maybe it's just me though.

Colors are stupid anyway, bugs see different colors, and the colors we see are just light the way our brain conceives it. I'm not great with science so don't google colors or whatever and try to prove me stupid. I know the basics are that colors are just what our mind conceives them to be and that it's all really light reflecting off of objects.

So like I said I don't see how you can compare religion and science against an illusion of the eye.

[Bartleby]

This thread was fun for a while but now it's time for me to move on, see you all on other threads.