Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
That's so weird that you look around and see no proof anywhere of God. Yet, I can look around and see it everywhere. Just sitting outside on my porch and feeling the breeze makes me think about God. Maybe you're just not willing to see the Christian idea of God. There are other beliefs out there. And even every individual within those beliefs has their own unique views and experience.
Have you ever considered Deism?
The world from your porch can be explained better by science.
Well, that depends on exactly what you're trying to explain now, doesn't it?
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
Most people turn to dogma in search of God. Its basically "truth" on a silver platter. And once they dont find common sense in them, they turn from God completely. Most people are either born on one side of the fence. Raised religiously, and blot out anything that tries to defy their belief. Or are a agnostic / atheist that use science to backup their "theory" Both sides are only viewing half the picture because they choose to view half the picture. Open minded individuals that just search for truth, are standing on that fence, and they can see farther than others. The truth is both. Seemingly opposite and ironic, both religion and science can show the works of God more than anything else. Its is very hard and easy to understand. Another opposite, because most things in life have an opposite, a major philosophical key. The religion and science im speaking of, are synonymous with philosophy and physics. The key points in religion, and the deepest of sciences. Only few have seen the connection, but Albert Einstein explains it the best in my opinion.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. " "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein Also, most evidence of a God is found in peoples personal lives. Ive heard some incredible stories from relatives that defy reality itself. The truth is, there is God. But the way people view him from whatever scource (bible, koran, ect.), blots out the true nature of who he really is and what is possible in this life and the next.
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Most people turn to dogma in search of God. Its basically "truth" on a silver platter. And once they dont find common sense in them, they turn from God completely. Most people are either born on one side of the fence. Raised religiously, and blot out anything that tries to defy their belief. Or are a agnostic / atheist that use science to backup their "theory" Both sides are only viewing half the picture because they choose to view half the picture. Open minded individuals that just search for truth, are standing on that fence, and they can see farther than others. The truth is both. Seemingly opposite and ironic, both religion and science can show the works of God more than anything else. Its is very hard and easy to understand. Another opposite, because most things in life have an opposite, a major philosophical key. The religion and science im speaking of, are synonymous with philosophy and physics. The key points in religion, and the deepest of sciences. Only few have seen the connection, but Albert Einstein explains it the best in my opinion.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. " "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein Also, most evidence of a God is found in peoples personal lives. Ive heard some incredible stories from relatives that defy reality itself. The truth is, there is God. But the way people view him from whatever scource (bible, koran, ect.), blots out the true nature of who he really is and what is possible in this life and the next.
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
It's not that other people are looking in the wrong places, it's that you want to believe in something without any hard evidence, there is a difference.
Khuzarrz, I'm confused. Are you a theist, or an atheist? By context, it would appear that you're an atheist.
As for your comments about logically proving that God doesn't exist, I thought after two years of philosophy, someone would've told you that you CANNOT logically prove a negative.
Also, Lewis said that God can do anything that is possible to do, however God can't do anything that is intrinsically impossible. I'm not going to pull out my book where he talks about this, but the example you gave of a square circle is one that he used, IIRC. I think he also said that you cannot both see and not see something: either you see it or you don't. But square circle is, to me, a better example.
So, if Anselm defined God as 'That which nothing greater than can be conceived', how does this imply that such a being would be able to create a square circle? Can you conceive of a square circle? I can't. Such a thing is, as Lewis said, nonsense.
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
Most people turn to dogma in search of God. Its basically "truth" on a silver platter. And once they dont find common sense in them, they turn from God completely. Most people are either born on one side of the fence. Raised religiously, and blot out anything that tries to defy their belief. Or are a agnostic / atheist that use science to backup their "theory" Both sides are only viewing half the picture because they choose to view half the picture. Open minded individuals that just search for truth, are standing on that fence, and they can see farther than others. The truth is both. Seemingly opposite and ironic, both religion and science can show the works of God more than anything else. Its is very hard and easy to understand. Another opposite, because most things in life have an opposite, a major philosophical key. The religion and science im speaking of, are synonymous with philosophy and physics. The key points in religion, and the deepest of sciences. Only few have seen the connection, but Albert Einstein explains it the best in my opinion.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. " "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein Also, most evidence of a God is found in peoples personal lives. Ive heard some incredible stories from relatives that defy reality itself. The truth is, there is God. But the way people view him from whatever scource (bible, koran, ect.), blots out the true nature of who he really is and what is possible in this life and the next.
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Ok, so.. what's your philosophical evidence, then? Describe what Spinoza's God IS... or are you calling God the universe? In which case I feel that is misleading, but I don't disagree with the universe.
I actively disbelieve in the existence of any god defined as an "omniscient being" as I find the each of the terms do not allow the other. All knowing does not allow one to be, as in being time must pass. Has been, to be, will be. The conceptual process of identity is time dependent. If something is all knowing, it IS from the beginning of time to the end and therefore is time independent.
Wow, it's funny how everyone seems to believe Osama bin ladein was behind the 9/11 attacks so easily with hardly any evidence but when it comes to God..."where's the evidence? "
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Khuzarrz, I'm confused. Are you a theist, or an atheist? By context, it would appear that you're an atheist. Now you see why my classmates were confused I am a theist; I do believe in God. In the same way as atheists argue that science provides a more reasonable proof for how existance came to be than attributing it to a God, I find that science's answers are just as speculatory and unfounded as any religion, and it just so happens that from my own personal experiences, I'm more inclined to believe there is something 'mystical' out there than not. However I don't like that idea at all; I like a universe I can understand and control; to have true responsibility I suppose. Attributing anything to a God removes that, and as such I'd like to be an atheist. Does that make any sense? As for your comments about logically proving that God doesn't exist, I thought after two years of philosophy, someone would've told you that you CANNOT logically prove a negative. Forgive my wording. The intention is not to logically prove that God doesn't exist, so much as prove that it's a logical impossibility that God COULD exist, i.e. there must be some kind of contradiction in the concept of 'God' that would make it's existance (in the classical form) impossible. Also, Lewis said that God can do anything that is possible to do, however God can't do anything that is intrinsically impossible. I'm not going to pull out my book where he talks about this, but the example you gave of a square circle is one that he used, IIRC. I think he also said that you cannot both see and not see something: either you see it or you don't. But square circle is, to me, a better example. Yep, that's the one I'm talking about. You have a better way with words than me though So, if Anselm defined God as 'That which nothing greater than can be conceived', how does this imply that such a being would be able to create a square circle? Can you conceive of a square circle? I can't. Such a thing is, as Lewis said, nonsense. A square circle exists as a concept, purely on the basis that we can term something a square circle. It may be impossible for a square circle to exist within our universe, but it still exists as a concept - I can conceive of a 'God' that could alter the rules of the universe to allow such a shape to exist, and thus if 'God' is unable to do this, he is not 'that which nothing greater than can be conceived.' And thus the conclusion, if the God of classical theism exists, he -has- to be all-powerful to beyond the point of the impossible or he isn't 'that which nothing greater than can be conceived,', and if so, there is no justification for evil and suffering in the world, and as there is evil and suffering in the world, thus the classical concept of God is logically impossible.
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.
That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
Wow, it's funny how everyone seems to believe Osama bin ladein was behind the 9/11 attacks so easily with hardly any evidence but when it comes to God..."where's the evidence? "
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.
That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
"Love" is a very specific emotion. It's a characteristic. Where did this being, with characteristics, come from?
Perhaps he has always existed? The universe could have always existed.
Perhaps he was uncaused? The universe could have not had a cause.
It's just wishful thinking to add this extra "creator that loves me" step if you don't have evidence.
My opinion is summed up in this earlier posting of mine in the Does GOD Exist thread:
What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
If there is a god, and he is omnipotent, then he can suck my unholy cock for making such a terrible world. Some say the human body is a work of art- Even though diseases kill millions each year. Some say that it is our fault as human beings that the environment is being polluted and possibly destroyed- Sure, you could say this is an agreeable statement to a certain extent, but humankind has simply tried to get ahead. And if we are only human, than it is not entirely our fault for the consequences that are now occuring, as many of them we as individuals couldn't have controlled, and many of them we didn't even see coming.
I'd rather not believe in a god than believe that an asshole created the universe.
What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
I don't know anyone that laughs at the Greek or Norse Gods anymore than they laugh at their own. You either know some incredibly ignorant people, or you're making gross generalisations based on yourself. There's no reason their religion is any more right than ours today, and I know very few 'believers' that would dispute that. Different times = different needs = different religions.
Also, you have a TOTALLY contradicting point in that paragraph. "omnipotent being ... decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet"
You cannot apply any kind of quantitative to something you're describing as 'omni...' It's stupid. Omnipotence means INFINITE power, and yet somehow you think people think he's focusing ALL of his attention on us? There isn't even a 'most' to speak of. If there is life elsewhere in the universe, he's focusing an infinite amount of attention on their little planets, just like he is on ours. That's where the Hitchhiker's Guide point about God not being concerned with the acts of one insignificant creature totally fall down. With infinite knowledge and power, there is NOTHING that is insignificant.
By only specifying omnipotence though, you just made me think of another argument against the God of classical theism. Hume's inconsistant triad of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience isn't actually an inconsistant TRIAD at all. Assuming a loving God, omnipotence is the only part that's a problem.
See, a loving God could well be omniscient, but just be unable to help. But a loving God with omnipotence would naturally (having limitless power and all) use this to give itself all knowledge in order to help everyone, and yet once again, evil and suffering is in the world. This means either God doesn't love us, which is quite a strange notion if he created us, unless he's a malevolent being, or more critically to the God of classical theism, he cannot be omnipotent. And if God isn't omnipotent, that means he has a finite power, which means something could oppose him, and thus he's really not all that special after all.
Wow, it's funny how everyone seems to believe Osama bin ladein was behind the 9/11 attacks so easily with hardly any evidence but when it comes to God..."where's the evidence? "
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
Do you know that there were actually 11 people suspected with the 9/11 attacks? Do you know that Bin Ladein has not been involved before 9/11 with a terrorist attack against innocent civilians? If there is more existence than what we know why did they produce a dubbed tape of Osama bin ladein saying he was behind 9/11? The more people look into 9/11 the more dubious one becomes, poor comparison...my ass.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Wow, it's funny how everyone seems to believe Osama bin ladein was behind the 9/11 attacks so easily with hardly any evidence but when it comes to God..."where's the evidence? "
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
Do you know that there were actually 11 people suspected with the 9/11 attacks? Do you know that Bin Ladein has not been involved before 9/11 with a terrorist attack against innocent civilians? If there is more existence than what we know why did they produce a dubbed tape of Osama bin ladein saying he was behind 9/11? The more people look into 9/11 the more dubious one becomes, poor comparison...my ass.
There is plenty of reason to believe Osama Bin laden was involved with 9-11. There is not a SHRED of evidence for the existance of a deity, and that's why your comparison is bad.
What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
I don't know anyone that laughs at the Greek or Norse Gods anymore than they laugh at their own. You either know some incredibly ignorant people, or you're making gross generalisations based on yourself. There's no reason their religion is any more right than ours today, and I know very few 'believers' that would dispute that. Different times = different needs = different religions.
Do you actually know people who still worship Zeus? No, didn't think so. My point was the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc. truly believed in their gods and they turned out to be false.
Prexix, in your original post, you asked if we believed in God. I said I did. Now you are essentially asking for proof: credibility is about proof because the only real ways to create credibility are appeals to authority or providing factual evidence of some sort. You then went on to try to say that this scrub you brought up is no different from Jesus because he does miracles, and so why don't we give him the same respect/worship or change our lives around what he says. I then told you why: because miracles (even if they are real) are not why people became Christians, and it's not at the core of Christianity. So, you asked, I answered. If this is going to devolve into another faith vs facts thread, then it's really pointless, as there are numerous threads of this nature to be found on this site. PS, I was careful to try to use 'alledged' and make mention of belief precisely because I knew that it was a faith-based matter and didn't want to make claims of unvarnished fact. It seems to me that this thread is just another excuse to try to attack the faith of Christians.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.
That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
"Love" is a very specific emotion. It's a characteristic. Where did this being, with characteristics, come from?
Perhaps he has always existed? The universe could have always existed.
Perhaps he was uncaused? The universe could have not had a cause.
It's just wishful thinking to add this extra "creator that loves me" step if you don't have evidence.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, could have, could have, could have. Who knows one way or the other. But I believe in order in our Universe. Everything eventually falls into some order. To me, that is God.
And love is not a very specific emotion. That is a varying emotion. I just think that God's love for us is beyond something we can comprehend. I imagine love is actually a word that gives his "feelings" for us no justice. Even when you say those mean things about him.
How many times have we done this subject? My opinion is summed up in this earlier posting of mine in the Does GOD Exist thread: What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
That's not what I believe God is at all. I don't think he is more or less concerned about us and our planet as he is about any other part of the Universe.
If there is a god, and he is omnipotent, then he can suck my unholy cock for making such a terrible world. Some say the human body is a work of art- Even though diseases kill millions each year. Some say that it is our fault as human beings that the environment is being polluted and possibly destroyed- Sure, you could say this is an agreeable statement to a certain extent, but humankind has simply tried to get ahead. And if we are only human, than it is not entirely our fault for the consequences that are now occuring, as many of them we as individuals couldn't have controlled, and many of them we didn't even see coming. I'd rather not believe in a god than believe that an asshole created the universe. Life has its joys,
but for every pleasurable moment,
there is pain-
Pain that consumes us,
until there is only despair.
You ever had something bad happen to you only to find out later that it was actually a good thing it happened?
In other words, I know it's hard at times, but consider that there is ALWAYS two ways to look at something. I've been through some rough times myself, so trust me I understand that life can be the pits. But one day I learned that you can look at anything in a different light. It's just a matter of changing a negative thought to a positive one. It takes a lot of practice, and I'm not saying I've figured it out. But I know it can be done.
Comments
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
The world from your porch can be explained better by science.
Well, that depends on exactly what you're trying to explain now, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
--------------------------------------
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
It's not that other people are looking in the wrong places, it's that you want to believe in something without any hard evidence, there is a difference.
I am tri-sexual. If it's sexual I want to try it........
Ba-Da-Boom.
olddaddy will be here until Thursday, Folks, Remember to tip your waiters and waitresses.
Khuzarrz, I'm confused. Are you a theist, or an atheist? By context, it would appear that you're an atheist.
As for your comments about logically proving that God doesn't exist, I thought after two years of philosophy, someone would've told you that you CANNOT logically prove a negative.
Also, Lewis said that God can do anything that is possible to do, however God can't do anything that is intrinsically impossible. I'm not going to pull out my book where he talks about this, but the example you gave of a square circle is one that he used, IIRC. I think he also said that you cannot both see and not see something: either you see it or you don't. But square circle is, to me, a better example.
So, if Anselm defined God as 'That which nothing greater than can be conceived', how does this imply that such a being would be able to create a square circle? Can you conceive of a square circle? I can't. Such a thing is, as Lewis said, nonsense.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
What evidence does science give on God?
Also, just as miraculous horrible things happen too. Anecdotal evidence is rather useless because people tend to leave things out of their story.. even if they don't think they're lying. And just by statistical probability, miraculous things are supposed to happen.
If your looking for hard evidence for a God. Such as looking at evidence found on this earth and outter space, your not going to find it.
Thats because your not looking in the right place. And your not looking at it in the right way. Your looking at his creation trying to find a sign that he exists. Many have said , "Philosophy is the science which considers truth" You have to view the other half of the picture to get the whole idea. The truth so to speak. Alll of philosophy, just like science, is based off a premise (Something automatically known to be true). And its hard for people not to cherry pick information they want to hear. You have to grab the whole tree to understand what really is.
The concept of "God" these days, is mainly dogmatic and skews peoples view of who he really is. And this drives people away from religion and God completely.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Ok, so.. what's your philosophical evidence, then? Describe what Spinoza's God IS... or are you calling God the universe? In which case I feel that is misleading, but I don't disagree with the universe.
I actively disbelieve in the existence of any god defined as an "omniscient being" as I find the each of the terms do not allow the other. All knowing does not allow one to be, as in being time must pass. Has been, to be, will be. The conceptual process of identity is time dependent. If something is all knowing, it IS from the beginning of time to the end and therefore is time independent.
My sentiments exactly, I love cheese.
O_o o_O
Wow, it's funny how everyone seems to believe Osama bin ladein was behind the 9/11 attacks so easily with hardly any evidence but when it comes to God..."where's the evidence? "
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
--------------------------------------
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
"Love" is a very specific emotion. It's a characteristic. Where did this being, with characteristics, come from?
Perhaps he has always existed? The universe could have always existed.
Perhaps he was uncaused? The universe could have not had a cause.
It's just wishful thinking to add this extra "creator that loves me" step if you don't have evidence.
How many times have we done this subject?
My opinion is summed up in this earlier posting of mine in the Does GOD Exist thread:
What I find humorous is that so many educated, sophisticated people can actually believe in a magical omnipotent being that has existed forever and created the entire universe but decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet. The Greeks thought similarly about their gods but we laugh at them now. Someday, people will also laugh at Christians, Jews, etc. for believing in God.
If there is a god, and he is omnipotent, then he can suck my unholy cock for making such a terrible world. Some say the human body is a work of art- Even though diseases kill millions each year. Some say that it is our fault as human beings that the environment is being polluted and possibly destroyed- Sure, you could say this is an agreeable statement to a certain extent, but humankind has simply tried to get ahead. And if we are only human, than it is not entirely our fault for the consequences that are now occuring, as many of them we as individuals couldn't have controlled, and many of them we didn't even see coming.
I'd rather not believe in a god than believe that an asshole created the universe.
Life has its joys,
but for every pleasurable moment,
there is pain-
Pain that consumes us,
until there is only despair.
I don't know anyone that laughs at the Greek or Norse Gods anymore than they laugh at their own. You either know some incredibly ignorant people, or you're making gross generalisations based on yourself. There's no reason their religion is any more right than ours today, and I know very few 'believers' that would dispute that. Different times = different needs = different religions.
Also, you have a TOTALLY contradicting point in that paragraph. "omnipotent being ... decided to focus all (or most) of his attention on our little planet"
You cannot apply any kind of quantitative to something you're describing as 'omni...' It's stupid. Omnipotence means INFINITE power, and yet somehow you think people think he's focusing ALL of his attention on us? There isn't even a 'most' to speak of. If there is life elsewhere in the universe, he's focusing an infinite amount of attention on their little planets, just like he is on ours. That's where the Hitchhiker's Guide point about God not being concerned with the acts of one insignificant creature totally fall down. With infinite knowledge and power, there is NOTHING that is insignificant.
By only specifying omnipotence though, you just made me think of another argument against the God of classical theism. Hume's inconsistant triad of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience isn't actually an inconsistant TRIAD at all. Assuming a loving God, omnipotence is the only part that's a problem.
See, a loving God could well be omniscient, but just be unable to help. But a loving God with omnipotence would naturally (having limitless power and all) use this to give itself all knowledge in order to help everyone, and yet once again, evil and suffering is in the world. This means either God doesn't love us, which is quite a strange notion if he created us, unless he's a malevolent being, or more critically to the God of classical theism, he cannot be omnipotent. And if God isn't omnipotent, that means he has a finite power, which means something could oppose him, and thus he's really not all that special after all.
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
Do you know that there were actually 11 people suspected with the 9/11 attacks? Do you know that Bin Ladein has not been involved before 9/11 with a terrorist attack against innocent civilians? If there is more existence than what we know why did they produce a dubbed tape of Osama bin ladein saying he was behind 9/11? The more people look into 9/11 the more dubious one becomes, poor comparison...my ass.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
You do realize there is much more evidence for Osama bin laden's involvement in 9/11 then the existance of a deity, right?
in fact, you used a really, REALLY poor comparisson.
Do you know that there were actually 11 people suspected with the 9/11 attacks? Do you know that Bin Ladein has not been involved before 9/11 with a terrorist attack against innocent civilians? If there is more existence than what we know why did they produce a dubbed tape of Osama bin ladein saying he was behind 9/11? The more people look into 9/11 the more dubious one becomes, poor comparison...my ass.
everything2.com/e2node/Summary%2520of%2520evidence%2520against%2520Osama%2520bin%2520Laden%2520in%25209%252F11%2520terror%2520attacksThere is plenty of reason to believe Osama Bin laden was involved with 9-11. There is not a SHRED of evidence for the existance of a deity, and that's why your comparison is bad.
I don't know anyone that laughs at the Greek or Norse Gods anymore than they laugh at their own. You either know some incredibly ignorant people, or you're making gross generalisations based on yourself. There's no reason their religion is any more right than ours today, and I know very few 'believers' that would dispute that. Different times = different needs = different religions.
Do you actually know people who still worship Zeus? No, didn't think so. My point was the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc. truly believed in their gods and they turned out to be false.
I invited people to debate in the opening post. You don't have to debate but don't expect no one to reply to your posts unless you specifically request that.
Okay, I see God in order. In the rules of the Universe. There, disprove my God.
That's an argument for deism. For which I might ask, why does a universe neccesesitate a god?
I asked you if you'd ever considered Deism.That is sort of where I lean. I think that God was necessary to set the wheels in motion. That's why he's called the "Creator". I don't call him the "Constant Manipulator". I think he set the wheels in motion. I think he loves us as our creator. He is necessary for that reason alone. We would not be here if he had not developed the rules.
"Love" is a very specific emotion. It's a characteristic. Where did this being, with characteristics, come from?
Perhaps he has always existed? The universe could have always existed.
Perhaps he was uncaused? The universe could have not had a cause.
It's just wishful thinking to add this extra "creator that loves me" step if you don't have evidence.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, could have, could have, could have. Who knows one way or the other. But I believe in order in our Universe. Everything eventually falls into some order. To me, that is God.And love is not a very specific emotion. That is a varying emotion. I just think that God's love for us is beyond something we can comprehend. I imagine love is actually a word that gives his "feelings" for us no justice. Even when you say those mean things about him.
--------------------------------------
That's not what I believe God is at all. I don't think he is more or less concerned about us and our planet as he is about any other part of the Universe.
--------------------------------------
In other words, I know it's hard at times, but consider that there is ALWAYS two ways to look at something. I've been through some rough times myself, so trust me I understand that life can be the pits. But one day I learned that you can look at anything in a different light. It's just a matter of changing a negative thought to a positive one. It takes a lot of practice, and I'm not saying I've figured it out. But I know it can be done.
--------------------------------------
