God is Imaginary
Replies
-
I'm on the fence with my beliefs at this point in my life. I guess you could say I used to believe easily and now I struggle a bit, but am working on it. I believe in something, I just haven't quite figured it out (for myself) yet.
The argument that God is a fairy tale and far fetched is funny to me. Far fetched in what way?? I would assume people think it's far fetched because nothing like God, angels, heaven, etc exists on Earth. The reason I don't find it far fetched whatsoever is because I know how small and insignificant Earth is. There is so much more out there and we have no clue what it is, so to say it's far fetched is naive.0 -
The Lord works in mysterious ways.Why? There's nothing for me to fear.0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367332019&sr=1-6&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye
Just from a quick search. There were a lot of books to choose from. Here is the whole page:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,k:evolution+of+the+human+eye&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye&ie=UTF8&qid=1367331996&rnid=29411200110 -
The Lord works in mysterious ways.Why? There's nothing for me to fear.
:yawn:
Moving on to the evolution of the eye it's pretty fascinating really. Like I said earlier the notion is that nerves on the skin acted as receptors for light and continued changing and adapting, the whole idea behind evolution. It took millions of years and there are differences between each species. But it's no more implausible than the fact that some animals grew limbs, some grew wings, some fins, etc.
Here's a video to watch explaining it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTg3TrDyZ20
If your theory is that God designed us to have perfect eyes than I have a bill for laser eye surgery to submit to the man.0 -
*tiptoes back out*
I forgot that I like people better when I'm ignorant to their beliefs on religion and politics. I shouldn't have clicked. DUMB Odus, DUMB!0 -
*tiptoes back out*
I forgot that I like people better when I'm ignorant to their beliefs on religion and politics. I shouldn't have clicked. DUMB Odus, DUMB!
What she said.0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367332019&sr=1-6&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye
Just from a quick search. There were a lot of books to choose from. Here is the whole page:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,k:evolution+of+the+human+eye&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye&ie=UTF8&qid=1367331996&rnid=2941120011
Care to elaborate? I can throw out books supporting my position as well.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=michael+behe+books&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=11475651248&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11859359842094528344&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4mfhi5j9na_b0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367332019&sr=1-6&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye
Just from a quick search. There were a lot of books to choose from. Here is the whole page:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,k:evolution+of+the+human+eye&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye&ie=UTF8&qid=1367331996&rnid=2941120011
Care to elaborate? I can throw out books supporting my position as well.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=michael+behe+books&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=11475651248&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11859359842094528344&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4mfhi5j9na_b
I am not a biologist. Are you? You made a statement that evolution does not explain the human eye. Support this thesis or move on.0 -
i'll actually read the posts later, but the title, oh, the title! [please note that my gifs are just for fun and have no reflection on my own beliefs, lack thereof, or anything in between).
0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367332019&sr=1-6&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye
Just from a quick search. There were a lot of books to choose from. Here is the whole page:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,k:evolution+of+the+human+eye&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye&ie=UTF8&qid=1367331996&rnid=2941120011
Care to elaborate? I can throw out books supporting my position as well.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=michael+behe+books&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=11475651248&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11859359842094528344&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4mfhi5j9na_b
I am not a biologist. Are you? You made a statement that evolution does not explain the human eye. Support this thesis or move on.
LOL. Actually I responded to the OP by asking him what proof does he have to refute Intelligent Design since he said there is no proof a God exists. I am not trying to prove there is a God. All I am saying is there is no proof a God does NOT exist. I used the eye as an example of evolution not having all the answers. I will gladly concede there is no scientific proof of a God if you concede there is no scientific proof a God does NOT exist.0 -
I was just looking through this website: http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
I can't make any better argument than this site does.
Why do people believe in a Fairy Tale that has no proof? The Bible? Faith?
Reminds me of the Ghost Hunter shows and Bigfoot shows on TV. They might be going into their 5th season and still haven't produced a ghost or a bigfoot.
Wake up. You can';t travel in time. You don't have a Guardian Angel. There is no proof that a god exists. It's a fairy tale.
Science has not yet been able to prove the total absence of Intelligent Design so there is no proof a god does not exist either.
Except that we have multiple cases of species going extinct due to it being unable to adapt to certain situations. One would think that an all knowing and all powerful designer would be able to avoid such mistakes.
Again, your point neither proves or refutes the existence of God.
But it does seem to fly into the face of Intelligent Design.
So does the biology of the human eye with regard to evolution.
Explain. There are many writings on how the eye appears to have evolved.
You explain the evolution of the eye. I'm on the side of intelligen design, remember?
You are the one making the claim. Come down from your sniper's perch and support your argument. Unless you really have nothing to stand on.
I claim the evolution of the eye cannot be explained by science, therefore, I reason it was created by Intelligent Design. If you have scientific evidence to prove otherwise, by all means provide your sources.
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Witness-How-Eyes-Evolved/dp/0195369742/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367332019&sr=1-6&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye
Just from a quick search. There were a lot of books to choose from. Here is the whole page:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,k:evolution+of+the+human+eye&keywords=evolution+of+the+human+eye&ie=UTF8&qid=1367331996&rnid=2941120011
Care to elaborate? I can throw out books supporting my position as well.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=michael+behe+books&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=11475651248&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11859359842094528344&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4mfhi5j9na_b
I am not a biologist. Are you? You made a statement that evolution does not explain the human eye. Support this thesis or move on.
LOL. Actually I responded to the OP by asking him what proof does he have to refute Intelligent Design since he said there is no proof a God exists. I am not trying to prove there is a God. All I am saying is there is no proof a God does NOT exist. I used the eye as an example of evolution not having all the answers. I will gladly concede there is no scientific proof of a God if you concede there is no scientific proof a God does NOT exist.
I will gladly say that there is no absolute proof that God does NOT exist. That is the joy of science, it rarely deals with absolutes and is constantly evolving.0 -
I have a very hard time believing something just because someone told someone else who told someone else that something is true. Especially when all of it is so far fetched.
There are many different gods in many different religions. What you have been taught to believe just happens to be dictated by geography and who your parents are.
I get frustrated having this debate because how can you debate with someone that has blindly decided that something is true based only on stories that are less believable that fairy tales? That's what faith is. Belief with no proof. Which is crazy to me. I wouldn't jump off of a cliff just because someone told me there was water below that I couldn't see.0 -
I was raised Christian. Grew up reading the Bible, and going to church, etc. The more I read, the more I lost faith in a God the way the Bible describes him, and the church as an institution.
I no longer consider myself religious. I wouldn't say I am an atheist either. I believe the universe is so vast, there might be something out there, but we have no idea what it is yet. Or maybe there isn't anything out there. That's the point, no one knows.
My family, however, is still deeply religious. My parents got to church. They find peace and comfort there, my father found solace in his God, while going through some pretty rough times. If it helps him, that's all I care about. I don't tell my parents that God is imaginary, they don't tell me I'm going to hell for not believing. Everybody is happy.0 -
Also I'm not sure why the argument of the evolution of the human eye.
Yes I am a biologist and the human eye and its development is well studied and very well understood.
I was part of an ocular implant study during my research days. We used pigs because the eyes are so similar to ours. But the amount of information is astounding. So to claim it doesn't exist is outright false.0 -
I can disprove gods existence six different ways from Sunday mass at any time with logic. Its not even that hard.
If your description of god is an omnipotent, all powerful, all benevolent being it just doesn't stand up to reason.
I'll just toss out one easy example:
God lets a child die in a fire. Why? he knew the fire would happen and could have prevented it. Is he teaching us a lesson or has greater designs? Letting a child die in a fire that you could have prevented in my book is an evil act. You can't assign different morality to god that allows for suffering and death when we are to aspire to the same morality. Logically, God either can not stop fires, meaning he is not all that powerful. He doesn't care, which makes him evil, or he didn't know about it, which means he doesn't know everything.
That being said, I'm a catholic and I have faith in god. My faith is separate from logical reasoning and the sciences. Once you do that, everything works out ok and I have my god and my science too.
Your argument assumes that suffering and death are objective evils that God could not, under any circumstance, allow to happen if he is all-power and all-good. Is that your argument? If so, please reply to the following:
1. Imagine that the infant who suffers in a fire is transferred to a state of being upon death in which he/she is perfectly and completely “happy” forever. Imagine also that their experience of suffering and death in this world enhances or gives unique character to their experience of happiness. In other words, the contrast between suffering and happiness yields a higher quality of existence in the long-run. So here’s the point: Could the allowance of an evil that I cannot presently understand be understood in relationship to a higher good that is eventually achieved? Perhaps my ignorance of the larger cosmic plan is to be taken into consideration before I make a judgment on God’s justice in allowing this world to exist.
2.Do you believe in objective moral “goods”? Is it “objectively” evil for a child to die in a fire? If so, what is the grounds/basis of your objective moral judgment? Emotion?
3.Do you claim to understand the nature of the cosmos and history to such a degree that you can rule out any wise and good purpose in allowing a world with suffering to exist? In other words, your argument against God from painful suffering and evil implies you have such perfect knowledge of everything that you can rule out a larger purpose that you simply don’t understand.
4.Continuing with my prior point, perhaps you can remember your parents punishing you or telling you things about life that you didn’t understand as a child but that now you understand. Can you rule out the possibility that you will someday be granted an understanding of this world that would put in perspective why God would allow this world to exist? If you can rule it out, upon what basis do you do so? What is the basis of your absolute certitude and confidence in your conclusions?
5.Regarding morality, saying that God is subject to the “same” identical morality that we are sounds rather absurd to me. God is creator, we are creatures. God does what is “good” for God, not what is imposed on creatures as their moral obligations. I believe that God is perfectly good but I don’t believe that God is subject to the standards of what would be perfectly good for a creature. For instance, if I chose to destroy or take away someone’s life, that would be “evil” since I am taking what is a gift from God to another away from them. God, on the other hand, is the giver of the gift of life and therefore has no obligation to give it to begin with and has no “law” above him that demands that he continue to give me anything. In short, I think you are thinking of God too much as a human and not as omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The proper response to the God I’m talking about is humble gratitude, not arrogant judgment on the Supreme Reality.0 -
Also I'm not sure why the argument of the evolution of the human eye.
Yes I am a biologist and the human eye and its development is well studied and very well understood.
I was part of an ocular implant study during my research days. We used pigs because the eyes are so similar to ours. But the amount of information is astounding. So to claim it doesn't exist is outright false.
I don't get the whole eye thing where there are much easier and better topics to debate over. Can we debate about how humans lost hair during the ice age and how alien big foots helped genetically alter us?0 -
This kind of sums it up for me
0 -
I don't really care.
I'm lucky enough to live in a country where religion, as hard as it tries, has next to zero impact on day to day life. Doesn't affect laws, doesn't affect school (except for faith schools, and legally they still have to teach about safe sex, equal rights and evolution), and generally extreme christians just get funny looks as and face palms when they get their bigoting on.
If people wanna believe in God they can; it's only wrong when people use it to brainwash others, or let it influence politics.
Also using it as an excuse to be a horrible bigot, just nah.
I'd also like to add, in response to the "people can't help it if it's how they were raised" in this country at least, we have far too much freedom and integration with atheism for that to hold true. Your parents can raise you christian as you like but when atheism is the norm among all your pals from a young age, it's kinda hard to keep a kid brainwashed unless they want to be part of that religion...0 -
i have this discussion with my brother a lot. the idea of an all powerful god is ridiculous. the idea that the bible is a history book is even more ridiculous. bowing and praying to the omnipotent "god", sacrificing and worshiping so you can get to heaven is harmful in my opinion.
that said, couldnt the idea of a "creator" be the answer to how. that little spark that started everything. couldnt that be "god". when you look at the science of it all, you have to admit that there are things we cant explain, couldnt that be the hand of the "creator".
i'm not one for worship or prayer, but i do like the wonderment of not knowing everything.0 -
I can disprove gods existence six different ways from Sunday mass at any time with logic. Its not even that hard.
If your description of god is an omnipotent, all powerful, all benevolent being it just doesn't stand up to reason.
I'll just toss out one easy example:
God lets a child die in a fire. Why? he knew the fire would happen and could have prevented it. Is he teaching us a lesson or has greater designs? Letting a child die in a fire that you could have prevented in my book is an evil act. You can't assign different morality to god that allows for suffering and death when we are to aspire to the same morality. Logically, God either can not stop fires, meaning he is not all that powerful. He doesn't care, which makes him evil, or he didn't know about it, which means he doesn't know everything.
That being said, I'm a catholic and I have faith in god. My faith is separate from logical reasoning and the sciences. Once you do that, everything works out ok and I have my god and my science too.
Your argument assumes that suffering and death are objective evils that God could not, under any circumstance, allow to happen if he is all-power and all-good. Is that your argument? If so, please reply to the following:
1. Imagine that the infant who suffers in a fire is transferred to a state of being upon death in which he/she is perfectly and completely “happy” forever. Imagine also that their experience of suffering and death in this world enhances or gives unique character to their experience of happiness. In other words, the contrast between suffering and happiness yields a higher quality of existence in the long-run. So here’s the point: Could the allowance of an evil that I cannot presently understand be understood in relationship to a higher good that is eventually achieved? Perhaps my ignorance of the larger cosmic plan is to be taken into consideration before I make a judgment on God’s justice in allowing this world to exist.
2.Do you believe in objective moral “goods”? Is it “objectively” evil for a child to die in a fire? If so, what is the grounds/basis of your objective moral judgment? Emotion?
3.Do you claim to understand the nature of the cosmos and history to such a degree that you can rule out any wise and good purpose in allowing a world with suffering to exist? In other words, your argument against God from painful suffering and evil implies you have such perfect knowledge of everything that you can rule out a larger purpose that you simply don’t understand.
4.Continuing with my prior point, perhaps you can remember your parents punishing you or telling you things about life that you didn’t understand as a child but that now you understand. Can you rule out the possibility that you will someday be granted an understanding of this world that would put in perspective why God would allow this world to exist? If you can rule it out, upon what basis do you do so? What is the basis of your absolute certitude and confidence in your conclusions?
5.Regarding morality, saying that God is subject to the “same” identical morality that we are sounds rather absurd to me. God is creator, we are creatures. God does what is “good” for God, not what is imposed on creatures as their moral obligations. I believe that God is perfectly good but I don’t believe that God is subject to the standards of what would be perfectly good for a creature. For instance, if I chose to destroy or take away someone’s life, that would be “evil” since I am taking what is a gift from God to another away from them. God, on the other hand, is the giver of the gift of life and therefore has no obligation to give it to begin with and has no “law” above him that demands that he continue to give me anything. In short, I think you are thinking of God too much as a human and not as omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The proper response to the God I’m talking about is humble gratitude, not arrogant judgment on the Supreme Reality.
gladly.
#1 What? How would it ever be ok to tell a child I'm really going to hurt you badly, but its ok because you are going to get this great experience of pain and burning then you will be all better. God could just take the child without being burned. He could just give them this unique experience without all the pain and suffering. He could do it if he is all powerful.In Short evil only exists because god allows it to exist and he can stop it.
#2 its not evil for a child to die. If I am sitting next to a child who is on fire with a bucket of water. Is it evil for me to not put the child out, or watch him burn? I'd call that very very evil if I do nothing to help when I have the means to help.
#3 ok, when is evil acceptable to have? I never though it was ok to be evil
#4 I can't think of any reason my parents would burn me just to teach me a lesson. That's called child abuse and that is what god does when he allows a child to be burned. its child abuse on a cosmic scale
#5 god wrote a book of rules, in that book he said. "Thall shall not Kill, except for me, because I'm above the law." He is the law, he abides by it. the rules are the same, or at least a subset, but a different set of rules.
If he isn't all loving, this is fine. My vengeful god in a fit of rage can come destroy us all.
*and I know all this because I was created in his image. not a different image, so he can't have a different morality or anything since we all come from him.
**I still have my faith in god and even logic won't shake it.0 -
A. Hi everyone, neat group. Glad to be a member and cards on the table I am an atheist in regards to the debate at hand.
B. Regarding your post, I just find the source of the Jesus story, the Bible, to be a very poor piece of evidence. It's contradicts known facts and it's own self. The story of the resurrection has many different versions in the Bible itself. It wasn't like Jesus rose and accurate details were kept. It's a story passed down again and again and a long time later written down. Thousands of years ago. By a poorly educated people. It literally states that the dead rose from the grave, not just Jesus. Forgive me but even as a zombie fanatic I find it hard to take seriously.
C. At this point I'm abandoning using letters.
Now it's true, it can not be proven that there is no God. But you can't prove that Scientology isn't correct about the space titan Xenu either, you wanna believe that one? Saying "You can't prove it's NOT true" is kind of a cop out. You're (royal you) saying this is the way the universe operates. Well you better have some evidence to back that up.
And regarding "something from nothing"... well where does God come from? He was always there? With the ability TO create something from nothing? It all gets very hard to comprehend because our minds really just can not comprehend concepts like eternity or infinity. We understand them as abstracts, but in a concrete way we just don't understand.
This argument can get ugly. I really hope it doesn't. I enjoy debates like these as a chance to learn from people who think differently than I do.
Welcome to the group! The great thing about having a group in which to debate topics like this "usually" means it won't get ugly. We're far more open to back and forth discussions here than in the main forums! A few replies on your post:
1. I disagree about the value of the biblical sources of the story of Jesus. These are not books written by ignorant people (it is widely recognized, for instance, that Luke’s Gospel is a high quality of writing by a well-educated person). Further, these books have been read with great profit for millennia and continue to generate vast scholarly interest as historical sources and works of great depth. Further, early Christian history is an effect of the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus. The witness of the ancient martyrs, including those who claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead, is a powerful witness that your belittling words cannot silence. The fact that the ancient Apostles who knew Jesus and saw him risen proclaimed their message to the point of death is not an unimportant historical fact. Regarding supposed “contradictions,” I make a few points. (a) The conflicts or differences in the resurrection narratives only support that they are distinct witnesses to the same events. (b) The differences should not obscure the same message they all proclaim. (c) There are reasonable ways to harmonize the accounts so that there are no real contradictions (See Wenham’s, “Easter Enigma” as a good example).
2.That one cannot “disprove the existence of God,” to be sure, does not prove that God exists. What it does do is weaken claims by some that the existence of God is nonsensical or absurd. Coupled with compelling arguments for God’s existence, I think this observation is meaningful.
3.The question “where does God come from” is meaningless. What we mean by God is “the self-existent, uncaused source of all dependent reality.” It makes no sense to ask “what is the cause of the uncaused reality?” or “when did the God who is eternal and self-existent start to exist?” Both questions are absurd since they are internally contradictory. We do not say that God “came from nothing.” Since God always has been, there is no “nothing” that precedes God out of which he came. Regarding “eternity” and “infinity” being hard to understand, of course they are. That doesn’t excuse us from thinking about them. Since contemporary science supports the conclusion that the world had a beginning (including time and space), one is forced to think about what grounds or explains the beginning of this universe. It makes sense to ask about the causes of changing, dependent, caused events. It does not make sense to ask about the cause of God (since God is not changing, dependent or caused). As soon as you see the fact that a changing world does not explain itself, you are forced to face the question of what does explain it. Some opt for an infinite series of things that don’t explain themselves (and therefore continually push off the ultimate question). Those who believe in God find this absurd since if an infinity of things had to happen for us to get to the present moment, we would have never arrived at this moment! (since you can’t get to the end of an infinity) Since we have arrived at this moment, the series of things upon which this moment depends cannot be infinite. If the series of finite, there must be a “First.” If there is a “First,” something must be supremely self-explanatory. We call that reality God.0 -
How would this argument be any different if we swapped 'god' with 'Santa Klaus'? I can't prove he never existed. There are many images of him flying around in his sleigh with magic reindeer. There are songs and a whole season build around him. And as far as I know he never let anyone die in a fire. People would assume I was insane if I truly believed that.0
-
gladly.
#1 What? How would it ever be ok to tell a child I'm really going to hurt you badly, but its ok because you are going to get this great experience of pain and burning then you will be all better. God could just take the child without being burned. He could just give them this unique experience without all the pain and suffering. He could do it if he is all powerful.In Short evil only exists because god allows it to exist and he can stop it.
#2 its not evil for a child to die. If I am sitting next to a child who is on fire with a bucket of water. Is it evil for me to not put the child out, or watch him burn? I'd call that very very evil if I do nothing to help when I have the means to help.
#3 ok, when is evil acceptable to have? I never though it was ok to be evil
#4 I can't think of any reason my parents would burn me just to teach me a lesson. That's called child abuse and that is what god does when he allows a child to be burned. its child abuse on a cosmic scale
#5 god wrote a book of rules, in that book he said. "Thall shall not Kill, except for me, because I'm above the law." He is the law, he abides by it. the rules are the same, or at least a subset, but a different set of rules.
If he isn't all loving, this is fine. My vengeful god in a fit of rage can come destroy us all.
*and I know all this because I was created in his image. not a different image, so he can't have a different morality or anything since we all come from him.
**I still have my faith in god and even logic won't shake it.
1.God apparently created a world in which there are interacting causes. God also chose to allow nature to unfold by an internal process, not by a series of “miracles” to alter nature so as to conform to a set of imposed standards of what God can and can’t do. Fires happen and people who are near them are burned. That God allows a world to exist in which there are interacting lines of causality is a fact. That a higher good is ultimately served by God allowing such a world to exist is something that I think follows from (a) the existence of God, (b) the reality of evil in the world, and (c) the fact that we can, at least sometimes, see “good” coming from the allowance of evil. Take the evolutionary process itself. The unfolding of nature has tended towards the gradual emergence of conscious, moral and intellectual beings. Long ages of struggle preceded this moment. There must be something “good” in the struggle, striving and evolving that God deems worth allowing the evils that accompany it. By denying God you undermine your moral outrage since there is no objective moral order in the universe without the existence of a supreme “Good.”
2.Your assumption in this question is that God is related to the burning child like you are. Your assumption is that God sees the burning child exactly as you do. Both are poor assumptions. God sees the child in relationship to an infinitely complex plan in which the unfolding of nature is not the stage for constant supernatural intervention but, rather, meaningful direction of nature from within the natural order. Again, you are assuming that you experience of suffering is the standard or basis of determining the actions of the Supreme Director of all nature.
3.I don’t see how your reply on this point has anything to do with my questions.
4.Again, you are assuming that God is related to nature exactly as you or your parents are related to nature. I was using an analogy simply to show that your current lack of ability to make sense of something that happens does not mean there is no coherent explanation, only that you can’t see it at your present level of understanding. It is a leap from your inability to understand something to claiming you can pronounce the conclusion that there is no possible explanation. You might see this as a “cop out” but I see it as humbly admitting our limited perspective and our creaturely status.
5.God can’t “murder” since murder is taking innocent human life that belongs to another and is not mine to take. There is no life that is not a gift from God and therefore God cannot murder. God’s relationship to our life is life the temperature of the water in a glass on my desk to the room temperature. The reason why my water is a particular temperature is because of the influence of the warmth of this room. The reason why you exist is because God is giving you existence. If God chooses not to give you existence (something you didn’t merit in any sense at all) there is no moral failing in God. If I take from you what is God’s gift, I have done something evil. I find that your arguments consistently “demote” God to be like you and me. Your descriptions of God are profoundly too “weak” and small.0 -
gladly.
#1 What? How would it ever be ok to tell a child I'm really going to hurt you badly, but its ok because you are going to get this great experience of pain and burning then you will be all better. God could just take the child without being burned. He could just give them this unique experience without all the pain and suffering. He could do it if he is all powerful.In Short evil only exists because god allows it to exist and he can stop it.
#2 its not evil for a child to die. If I am sitting next to a child who is on fire with a bucket of water. Is it evil for me to not put the child out, or watch him burn? I'd call that very very evil if I do nothing to help when I have the means to help.
#3 ok, when is evil acceptable to have? I never though it was ok to be evil
#4 I can't think of any reason my parents would burn me just to teach me a lesson. That's called child abuse and that is what god does when he allows a child to be burned. its child abuse on a cosmic scale
#5 god wrote a book of rules, in that book he said. "Thall shall not Kill, except for me, because I'm above the law." He is the law, he abides by it. the rules are the same, or at least a subset, but a different set of rules.
If he isn't all loving, this is fine. My vengeful god in a fit of rage can come destroy us all.
*and I know all this because I was created in his image. not a different image, so he can't have a different morality or anything since we all come from him.
**I still have my faith in god and even logic won't shake it.
1.God apparently created a world in which there are interacting causes. God also chose to allow nature to unfold by an internal process, not by a series of “miracles” to alter nature so as to conform to a set of imposed standards of what God can and can’t do. Fires happen and people who are near them are burned. That God allows a world to exist in which there are interacting lines of causality is a fact. That a higher good is ultimately served by God allowing such a world to exist is something that I think follows from (a) the existence of God, (b) the reality of evil in the world, and (c) the fact that we can, at least sometimes, see “good” coming from the allowance of evil. Take the evolutionary process itself. The unfolding of nature has tended towards the gradual emergence of conscious, moral and intellectual beings. Long ages of struggle preceded this moment. There must be something “good” in the struggle, striving and evolving that God deems worth allowing the evils that accompany it. By denying God you undermine your moral outrage since there is no objective moral order in the universe without the existence of a supreme “Good.”
2.Your assumption in this question is that God is related to the burning child like you are. Your assumption is that God sees the burning child exactly as you do. Both are poor assumptions. God sees the child in relationship to an infinitely complex plan in which the unfolding of nature is not the stage for constant supernatural intervention but, rather, meaningful direction of nature from within the natural order. Again, you are assuming that you experience of suffering is the standard or basis of determining the actions of the Supreme Director of all nature.
3.I don’t see how your reply on this point has anything to do with my questions.
4.Again, you are assuming that God is related to nature exactly as you or your parents are related to nature. I was using an analogy simply to show that your current lack of ability to make sense of something that happens does not mean there is no coherent explanation, only that you can’t see it at your present level of understanding. It is a leap from your inability to understand something to claiming you can pronounce the conclusion that there is no possible explanation. You might see this as a “cop out” but I see it as humbly admitting our limited perspective and our creaturely status.
5.God can’t “murder” since murder is taking innocent human life that belongs to another and is not mine to take. There is no life that is not a gift from God and therefore God cannot murder. God’s relationship to our life is life the temperature of the water in a glass on my desk to the room temperature. The reason why my water is a particular temperature is because of the influence of the warmth of this room. The reason why you exist is because God is giving you existence. If God chooses not to give you existence (something you didn’t merit in any sense at all) there is no moral failing in God. If I take from you what is God’s gift, I have done something evil. I find that your arguments consistently “demote” God to be like you and me. Your descriptions of God are profoundly too “weak” and small.
All of these responses appear to be catered to reach the hypothesis that God exists rather than following the logic organically. If you follow the logic without trying to reach a preset goal, your answers would be much different.
Also, I just have a difficulty with the premise that we must bow to god because he is god. There is an inherent lack of choice and freedom in this notion that reminds me of serfdom as opposed to free beings.0 -
As much as this makes perfect sense, people who have already made up their minds will not follow it. This is exactly why I am an atheist. I was catholic. And when I started asking hard questions and following the path of logic it led me to where I am now. I can be a moral, good person without believing in the extraneous tidbits.gladly.
#1 What? How would it ever be ok to tell a child I'm really going to hurt you badly, but its ok because you are going to get this great experience of pain and burning then you will be all better. God could just take the child without being burned. He could just give them this unique experience without all the pain and suffering. He could do it if he is all powerful.In Short evil only exists because god allows it to exist and he can stop it.
#2 its not evil for a child to die. If I am sitting next to a child who is on fire with a bucket of water. Is it evil for me to not put the child out, or watch him burn? I'd call that very very evil if I do nothing to help when I have the means to help.
#3 ok, when is evil acceptable to have? I never though it was ok to be evil
#4 I can't think of any reason my parents would burn me just to teach me a lesson. That's called child abuse and that is what god does when he allows a child to be burned. its child abuse on a cosmic scale
#5 god wrote a book of rules, in that book he said. "Thall shall not Kill, except for me, because I'm above the law." He is the law, he abides by it. the rules are the same, or at least a subset, but a different set of rules.
If he isn't all loving, this is fine. My vengeful god in a fit of rage can come destroy us all.
*and I know all this because I was created in his image. not a different image, so he can't have a different morality or anything since we all come from him.
**I still have my faith in god and even logic won't shake it.
1.God apparently created a world in which there are interacting causes. God also chose to allow nature to unfold by an internal process, not by a series of “miracles” to alter nature so as to conform to a set of imposed standards of what God can and can’t do. Fires happen and people who are near them are burned. That God allows a world to exist in which there are interacting lines of causality is a fact. That a higher good is ultimately served by God allowing such a world to exist is something that I think follows from (a) the existence of God, (b) the reality of evil in the world, and (c) the fact that we can, at least sometimes, see “good” coming from the allowance of evil. Take the evolutionary process itself. The unfolding of nature has tended towards the gradual emergence of conscious, moral and intellectual beings. Long ages of struggle preceded this moment. There must be something “good” in the struggle, striving and evolving that God deems worth allowing the evils that accompany it. By denying God you undermine your moral outrage since there is no objective moral order in the universe without the existence of a supreme “Good.”
2.Your assumption in this question is that God is related to the burning child like you are. Your assumption is that God sees the burning child exactly as you do. Both are poor assumptions. God sees the child in relationship to an infinitely complex plan in which the unfolding of nature is not the stage for constant supernatural intervention but, rather, meaningful direction of nature from within the natural order. Again, you are assuming that you experience of suffering is the standard or basis of determining the actions of the Supreme Director of all nature.
3.I don’t see how your reply on this point has anything to do with my questions.
4.Again, you are assuming that God is related to nature exactly as you or your parents are related to nature. I was using an analogy simply to show that your current lack of ability to make sense of something that happens does not mean there is no coherent explanation, only that you can’t see it at your present level of understanding. It is a leap from your inability to understand something to claiming you can pronounce the conclusion that there is no possible explanation. You might see this as a “cop out” but I see it as humbly admitting our limited perspective and our creaturely status.
5.God can’t “murder” since murder is taking innocent human life that belongs to another and is not mine to take. There is no life that is not a gift from God and therefore God cannot murder. God’s relationship to our life is life the temperature of the water in a glass on my desk to the room temperature. The reason why my water is a particular temperature is because of the influence of the warmth of this room. The reason why you exist is because God is giving you existence. If God chooses not to give you existence (something you didn’t merit in any sense at all) there is no moral failing in God. If I take from you what is God’s gift, I have done something evil. I find that your arguments consistently “demote” God to be like you and me. Your descriptions of God are profoundly too “weak” and small.
All of these responses appear to be catered to reach the hypothesis that God exists rather than following the logic organically. If you follow the logic without trying to reach a preset goal, your answers would be much different.
Also, I just have a difficulty with the premise that we must bow to god because he is god. There is an inherent lack of choice and freedom in this notion that reminds me of serfdom as opposed to free beings.0 -
All of these responses appear to be catered to reach the hypothesis that God exists rather than following the logic organically. If you follow the logic without trying to reach a preset goal, your answers would be much different.
Also, I just have a difficulty with the premise that we must bow to god because he is god. There is an inherent lack of choice and freedom in this notion that reminds me of serfdom as opposed to free beings.
Well, your responses seem to be “catered” to support the hypothesis that God doesn’t exist. Of course we are both trying to come to a coherent and reasonable understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. I believe the hypothesis of the existence of God makes better sense of all the data. The atheist approach seems to alleviate the “problem of evil,” but really doesn’t. By denying God one also loses an objective grounds of morality. Other aspects of human experience are undermined, too (hope for eternal life/unending love and friendship).
Regarding bowing to God, I see this as simply responding to reality. If God exists, creatures like ourselves should respond with gratitude for this marvelous gift of life that we didn’t deserve but were given. Just as I think it is “natural” for someone who is given a gift to say “thank you,” so we should respond to God with the most supreme gratitude. Further, I think that contemplating the essence of God fills the heart with awe and admiration so that we want to express that. Just as a person who is in love with another “praises” them for their beauty and love, so one who loves God wishes to express that love. I do not see this as contrary to human freedom but, rather, its fulfillment. True freedom is the ability to respond to reality as it really is.0 -
All of these responses appear to be catered to reach the hypothesis that God exists rather than following the logic organically. If you follow the logic without trying to reach a preset goal, your answers would be much different.
Also, I just have a difficulty with the premise that we must bow to god because he is god. There is an inherent lack of choice and freedom in this notion that reminds me of serfdom as opposed to free beings.
Well, your responses seem to be “catered” to support the hypothesis that God doesn’t exist. Of course we are both trying to come to a coherent and reasonable understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. I believe the hypothesis of the existence of God makes better sense of all the data. The atheist approach seems to alleviate the “problem of evil,” but really doesn’t. By denying God one also loses an objective grounds of morality. Other aspects of human experience are undermined, too (hope for eternal life/unending love and friendship).
Regarding bowing to God, I see this as simply responding to reality. If God exists, creatures like ourselves should respond with gratitude for this marvelous gift of life that we didn’t deserve but were given. Just as I think it is “natural” for someone who is given a gift to say “thank you,” so we should respond to God with the most supreme gratitude. Further, I think that contemplating the essence of God fills the heart with awe and admiration so that we want to express that. Just as a person who is in love with another “praises” them for their beauty and love, so one who loves God wishes to express that love. I do not see this as contrary to human freedom but, rather, its fulfillment. True freedom is the ability to respond to reality as it really is.
And if you don't respond properly, you will be punished for eternity. Don't forget the threat of ever lasting suffering if you don't bow.
I came to my conclusion after analysis but I did not start from the belief that God existed and worked backward. That would be intellectually unfair to myself because I would have tainted the findings.0 -
I was catholic. And when I started asking hard questions and following the path of logic it led me to where I am now. I can be a moral, good person without believing in the extraneous tidbits.
I'm a cradle Catholic and when I started asking hard questions and following the path of logic, it confirmed everything I'd ever been taught.
How do you define "moral" and "good"? In what do you ground your belief of good and bad?0 -
gladly.
#1 What? How would it ever be ok to tell a child I'm really going to hurt you badly, but its ok because you are going to get this great experience of pain and burning then you will be all better. God could just take the child without being burned. He could just give them this unique experience without all the pain and suffering. He could do it if he is all powerful.In Short evil only exists because god allows it to exist and he can stop it.
#2 its not evil for a child to die. If I am sitting next to a child who is on fire with a bucket of water. Is it evil for me to not put the child out, or watch him burn? I'd call that very very evil if I do nothing to help when I have the means to help.
#3 ok, when is evil acceptable to have? I never though it was ok to be evil
#4 I can't think of any reason my parents would burn me just to teach me a lesson. That's called child abuse and that is what god does when he allows a child to be burned. its child abuse on a cosmic scale
#5 god wrote a book of rules, in that book he said. "Thall shall not Kill, except for me, because I'm above the law." He is the law, he abides by it. the rules are the same, or at least a subset, but a different set of rules.
If he isn't all loving, this is fine. My vengeful god in a fit of rage can come destroy us all.
*and I know all this because I was created in his image. not a different image, so he can't have a different morality or anything since we all come from him.
**I still have my faith in god and even logic won't shake it.
1.God apparently created a world in which there are interacting causes. God also chose to allow nature to unfold by an internal process, not by a series of “miracles” to alter nature so as to conform to a set of imposed standards of what God can and can’t do. Fires happen and people who are near them are burned. That God allows a world to exist in which there are interacting lines of causality is a fact. That a higher good is ultimately served by God allowing such a world to exist is something that I think follows from (a) the existence of God, (b) the reality of evil in the world, and (c) the fact that we can, at least sometimes, see “good” coming from the allowance of evil. Take the evolutionary process itself. The unfolding of nature has tended towards the gradual emergence of conscious, moral and intellectual beings. Long ages of struggle preceded this moment. There must be something “good” in the struggle, striving and evolving that God deems worth allowing the evils that accompany it. By denying God you undermine your moral outrage since there is no objective moral order in the universe without the existence of a supreme “Good.”
2.Your assumption in this question is that God is related to the burning child like you are. Your assumption is that God sees the burning child exactly as you do. Both are poor assumptions. God sees the child in relationship to an infinitely complex plan in which the unfolding of nature is not the stage for constant supernatural intervention but, rather, meaningful direction of nature from within the natural order. Again, you are assuming that you experience of suffering is the standard or basis of determining the actions of the Supreme Director of all nature.
3.I don’t see how your reply on this point has anything to do with my questions.
4.Again, you are assuming that God is related to nature exactly as you or your parents are related to nature. I was using an analogy simply to show that your current lack of ability to make sense of something that happens does not mean there is no coherent explanation, only that you can’t see it at your present level of understanding. It is a leap from your inability to understand something to claiming you can pronounce the conclusion that there is no possible explanation. You might see this as a “cop out” but I see it as humbly admitting our limited perspective and our creaturely status.
5.God can’t “murder” since murder is taking innocent human life that belongs to another and is not mine to take. There is no life that is not a gift from God and therefore God cannot murder. God’s relationship to our life is life the temperature of the water in a glass on my desk to the room temperature. The reason why my water is a particular temperature is because of the influence of the warmth of this room. The reason why you exist is because God is giving you existence. If God chooses not to give you existence (something you didn’t merit in any sense at all) there is no moral failing in God. If I take from you what is God’s gift, I have done something evil. I find that your arguments consistently “demote” God to be like you and me. Your descriptions of God are profoundly too “weak” and small.
You make it sound like god is just looking down how I would some amoebas in a peitry dish and not care if one drys out since there is a greater good in studying all the amoebas.
God is like you and me! We are made in his image. Pretty much that means we are at least a reflection of him
God is the father and mother of us all. He loves us all. If I have an infinite amount of ways to do something, it would not be though pain suffering and death. God does allow bad things to happen to people. That is my point. He could fire up a miracle every single time. He chooses not to. Or he does not choose because he is unable to.
Either he is not purely good or he is not in complete control. Only though god can we know things. I still have a big problem with god teaching me lessons though doing evil things, or allowing them to happen. I'd rather take the alternative then.
Ok, I'm going to stop now. We both have faith in god. So no real sense beating this to death. I'm just going to say that by questioning and discovering my own way it has made me better. Even if it means 2 + 2 = 50
