God

[fisheye]

Re: God

Look guys it's simple.

No God = No after-life = NON-EXISTENCE when we die (or are killed)= Why am I living now??? = To propogate my DNA??? = That's a pathetic reason = might as well kill myself now to prevent further suffering when I get old and get an enlarged prostate OR might as well kill myself now before I turn into a raving schizo and start killing people = SUICIDE = DEATH.

See it's simple.

[Miroslav]

Re: God

this is an outright misconception. why must the physical world (and all that is considered to be "known") be insufficient to supply meaning? there is something wrong with the belief that the universe is somehow "dead" when we eliminate god from the picture- it's this thought which adds fuel to the desires of people to believe in things they can't see. instead of hope for hope's sake, or good will for good will's sake, it must be in the name of god or because there is something else to give it some kind of external meaning? ridiculous, sorry.

I've often struggled with this one... On one hand, I see what you're saying...but to me it always comes back to this:

How do you attribute "meaning" to something that is purely the result of an inanimate, deterministic scientific process?

As we established earlier, science can't even establish me as a free being; the best science can do is to show me as a finely programmed machine. And then there's the fact that we don't even know why there is any science in the first place; why there should be this elaborate deterministic network of cause and effect, probabilities, etc. rather than nothing at all. So, we're here for ultimately no reason and you could well conclude that all of existence itself is irrational and absurd (this all kicks in somewhere before the big bang).

And now you're going to talk to me about introducing some "meaning" and "hope for hope's sake" into this picture?

Well, I guess you can personally make whatever attributions of meaning you want to the circumstances of your existence...but it seems to me like your attribution of meaning is nothing more than a hallucination or a personal delusion. There is nothing significant about it beyond how it happened to tickle your whim or fancy. The truth is that we're expendable, utilitarian, insignificant. I don't see why we should be "good" to one another or why we should have "hope for hope's sake" beyond maybe some utilitarian/Darwinian premise that maybe we all buy into.

In short, it just seems highly irrational and borderline ridiculous to talk about embracing the notion of existence based purely on cold science and then in the same breath to start making personal statements in relation to one's existence about "meaning", "beautiful", "hope", "love", etc. If it's a godless world, there really is nothing meaningful about you at all.

[asdf_admin]

Re: God

what does god have to do with our transient, incoherent and learned perceptions of beauty? why does god need to exist because we deem something complex? at what point does something cease to be simple and become complex?

Life is a beautiful thing, and many things will never be answered or understood. Faith has a great role in answering those blank spots. I would not want to live a life that is full of nothing, void, space. I choose to believe my purpose is for a reason and there is another "life" beyond this one. It is not what I have heard, it is what I have witnessed with my own eyes. I believe the beautiful thing about any religion is that you have to choose to believe, and in doing so you are awarded. Some people will believe when they see it, I believe because I feel it and there could be no other answer for me.

I will conclude with this ... the big bang theory ... sure the universe and everything we know was created, but what force pushed the button? Science will never tell you that answer. Is it possible a higher power pushed the button and said " here is the universe "? Absolutely, I have made my choice and my answer. I will always respect the opposite view or challenge it only strengthens my faith.

this is an outright misconception. why must the physical world (and all that is considered to be "known") be insufficient to supply meaning? there is something wrong with the belief that the universe is somehow "dead" when we eliminate god from the picture- it's this thought which adds fuel to the desires of people to believe in things they can't see. instead of hope for hope's sake, or good will for good will's sake, it must be in the name of god or because there is something else to give it some kind of external meaning? ridiculous, sorry.

here is my premise. someone that does not have faith has one less option in life. There have been countless times in my life where I have took a knee and prayed. It is like meditation. I am able to express myself and ask for help. Someone without faith does not have that. They have their physical world and that is it. I am not saying one is right or one is wrong. That is my Lord's job, not mine. It works for me, it makes me the person I am, and it makes me wake up every morning. If I were stripped of everything physical, there is one thing no one could ever take for me ... my faith.

[sammwalk]

Re: God

again, please no offense to anything that I say; this is a friendly discussion:

the beauty of religion is that it is indeed a choice. You do not have to believe if you do not want to. It is your own free will that will believe.

correct

...Frankly, I do not understand how you could not believe in some God. As a photographer I am shocked by the beauty that is held in life, the complexity of our bodies and this eco-system we live in....

what does god have to do with our transient, incoherent and learned perceptions of beauty? why does god need to exist because we deem something complex? at what point does something cease to be simple and become complex?

...I do choose to believe in God. Does that make me a strong person, perhaps because I have an external source I can reach out to, versus the doomsday physical world.

this is an outright misconception. why must the physical world (and all that is considered to be "known") be insufficient to supply meaning? there is something wrong with the belief that the universe is somehow "dead" when we eliminate god from the picture- it's this thought which adds fuel to the desires of people to believe in things they can't see. instead of hope for hope's sake, or good will for good will's sake, it must be in the name of god or because there is something else to give it some kind of external meaning? ridiculous, sorry.

To say you don't believe in God is like saying that for every action there really isn't an opposite and equal reaction.

one of the most common and sadly mistaken equivocations on Newton's third law

By this I mean we can definitely see the presense of evil all around us. Look at society. People are losing the minds. If you believe that evil exists in this world you Must believe that a higher being exists.

why? at some point, things people do become evil. it is relative, yes, but this doesn't prevent us from saying it is true. evil is just a blanket term to describe the actions of people that are strongly anti-social or anti-humanitarian. god doesn't enter into it

When you state that science has proven we have been around far longer than 2,000 years, well lets see. You can only rationalize a day or a year in the terms of fatality because that is the one thing you can be certain of. In this I mean man writes of God's existence for 2,000+ years and puts those years in terms that he understands which is a daily or yearly calender.

God is an all knowing everbeing presence who has always been and always will be. In this rationalization it is to difficult to for the human brain to truly understand eternity. We only know things in the terms of years. So what if in the terms of our eternal God, 1,000 years equaled one day and a year was 360,000 years because he knew he had to help us understand his time scale. Taking this is to consideration, can you rationaly say there is no God just because science has proven man has existed for 1000's of years, NO. We do not know god's time table and do not have all the answers. If we had all the answers, why would we need to have faith in a higher being? We would be God.

Secondly, who's to say that the 2000 years isn't really the truth as we understand it to day. If there is a higher power that is righteous and almighty, you must believe in the higher power of evil and gloom. I mean come on one of the brightest scientist of our times said to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This being the case, whose to say that he is not filling the earth with deceit and mockery of our lord to win a few souls his way.

i would not say that god is argued for or against with any reference to time- this seems like an answer to a weak argument made in reference to the Bible like "science proves god's not real because we can prove the existence of man before the Bible was written".

the fact remains that if scientists discovered that, if indeed humans were not around for as long as we thought we were, or on the other hand found that we were around far longer than we thought we were, said scientists would change their descriptions of the world to accommodate these new facts. whereas with religion there is no change, no matter what proof is offered up. it can be reduced to blind opposition to truth

[Miroslav]

Re: God

^^ +1

Invoking Newton's laws of motion in relation to people deciding to behave in "evil" ways really bears no semblance of logic to me. I still propose that the only basis upon which some sort of a supreme force behind existence starts to potentially make sense is when you start to question the notion of free will.

[picklemonkey]

Re: God

To say you don't believe in God is like saying that for every action there really isn't an opposite and equal reaction. By this I mean we can definitely see the presense of evil all around us. Look at society. People are losing the minds. If you believe that evil exists in this world you Must believe that a higher being exists.

earlier I said I don't believe in Hell or Satan, so I don't see myself contradicting myself?

plus just because evil exists doesn't mean God exists. that's like saying charities exist because Satan exists

[BeachBum]

Re: God

To say you don't believe in God is like saying that for every action there really isn't an opposite and equal reaction. By this I mean we can definitely see the presense of evil all around us. Look at society. People are losing the minds. If you believe that evil exists in this world you Must believe that a higher being exists.

When you state that science has proven we have been around far longer than 2,000 years, well lets see. You can only rationalize a day or a year in the terms of fatality because that is the one thing you can be certain of. In this I mean man writes of God's existence for 2,000+ years and puts those years in terms that he understands which is a daily or yearly calender.

God is an all knowing everbeing presence who has always been and always will be. In this rationalization it is to difficult to for the human brain to truly understand eternity. We only know things in the terms of years. So what if in the terms of our eternal God, 1,000 years equaled one day and a year was 360,000 years because he knew he had to help us understand his time scale. Taking this is to consideration, can you rationaly say there is no God just because science has proven man has existed for 1000's of years, NO. We do not know god's time table and do not have all the answers. If we had all the answers, why would we need to have faith in a higher being? We would be God.

Secondly, who's to say that the 2000 years isn't really the truth as we understand it to day. If there is a higher power that is righteous and almighty, you must believe in the higher power of evil and gloom. I mean come on one of the brightest scientist of our times said to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This being the case, whose to say that he is not filling the earth with deceit and mockery of our lord to win a few souls his way.

[88Mariner]

Re: God

without an objective definition of complexity, how can one come to that conclusion?

[Garrick]

Re: God

you got it wrong katkich, it's this guy: http://www.bobsagetisgod.com/

[Jibgolly]

Re: God

surely with all the donation trays in all the churches in all the world he makes more than $250,000

[Kat]

Re: God

fonud the guy

http://www.myspace.com/godthecreater2006

[asdf_admin]

Re: God

the beauty of religion is that it is indeed a choice. You do not have to believe if you do not want to. It is your own free will that will believe. Frankly, I do not understand how you could not believe in some God. As a photographer I am shocked by the beauty that is held in life, the complexity of our bodies and this eco-system we live in. You can look at all religions and their premise is exactly the same. Most religions always had one powerful God, it is frankly amazing when you dive deep into human history and start drawing out common factors.

I am not a bible thumper, but I do choose to believe in God. Does that make me a strong person, perhaps because I have an external source I can reach out to, versus the doomsday physical world. I believe, and that is faith. Does that make you a weaker person? No, once again that is choice, how do you know how something feels or is, if you do not believe?

It's equivalent to painting a beautiful picture yet no one can see it.

[Jibgolly]

Re: God

^ good point picklemonkey.

[picklemonkey]

Re: God

God is One, no father no son, only one creator could create this universe, if ther were more than one, it would have been over long ago, Jesus is just a prophet sent by his/our creator, to tell us about him and deliver the message so we'll know, the test is to believe or not to belive and bear the consequences...

please don't try to scare me into believing in God because of the consequences. tell me why you believe in him, minus the obvious fact that you don't want to face the consequences

[88Mariner]

Re: God

http://mrdeity.com/

imo