Does God exist to you.

[Rio Rebel]

chowderhead,

Good post. I think my point is legitimate, but it really didn't apply to you, so it was misdirected. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fides

Originally posted by: Harvey
The point is, it's arbitrary. Religion is not necessary to be a good, or even spiritual person. With some variation, basic concepts of good and evil have transcended societies as long as there has been recorded history. Good has its own intrinsic value, and if you analyze it, it simply makes sense as good social engineering. The Ten Commandments can be viewed as a set of rules to keep a microcosm from blowing itself apart while wandering around in the desert for a few decades. Nine of the ten are based on the Theory of Bad Vibes.

Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't hit on your buddy's old lady, or your girlfriend's old man.
Why? It causes Bad Vibes.

Take care of your parents.
Why? Because, they did it for you when you were too young to care for yourself. It's your turn to do it for them if they're too old to care for themselves. Anything else causes (you guessed it) Bad Vibes.

Sorry Harvey, Jesus already had a theory 2000 years before you. He said love your neighbor and love God. Plus love just sounds nicer than vibe... Reminds me of a crappy car.

And this makes Harvey's point invalid how?

 

[RobDowneyJr]

yes

 

[KIAman]

Religion in one form or another requires faith. How can one logically or scientifically prove something that the religeous people have accepted through faith. It is incomprehensible. I can say to you that God does exist because I have faith that he does, and that is the honest truth (according to my world) but it is completely invalid to people which faith is not evidence. Thats why I stated earlier, arguing about whether He exists or not is not going to do anything except push those who are solid unbelievers further away. It is individually up to each one of us whether He is real or not.
Even if Pascal's wager is weak, mainly since he was in an environment where it was the catholic church, or pagan, and that raised questions regarding the wager could also be to other gods that could exist through other religions. Each wager to a god would further reduce the plausibility to wager against god or gods, but the wager against has zero chance of any gain (after death, not in life), while even choosing 1 religion to wager for that single or multiple gods would present atleast a fraction of a gain, say 1/(all possible religions). It might be 1 in a billion chance that the wager could benefit (again, after death, not during life), but it is still better than 0.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Fides

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
It depends on what you consider murder. Is self-defense murder? How about killing someone in a war? Hitler thought he was doing a good thing and so did millions around the world. You may think that good and bad is black and white but there is a LOT of gray in there.

Agreed, there is a lot of grey area, but not with God because he is an absolute concept/entity. The use of hitler as an example is an extreeme. I said NOT including thos who are mentally insane. If you kill somone and have a malevolent intent, then yes it is murder. If you go to war thinnking all people from Iraq are "evil", then yes it is murder. If you defend yourself while being raped, and then after the perpetraor is rendered unconcious, you shoot him... then that is murder. Killing for revenge is murder. Killing for money is murder. Killing for politics and power is murder.

Well you believe in god so of course you're going to believe he made these things bad. What it really is is society saying these things are bad and you should be punished for them. Take the issue of slavery for example, that wasn't seen as a bad thing at the time but now society dictates that it's sick and wrong.

 

[Noirish]

do you think god thinks he exists to himself?

 

[QTPie]

Yessssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Religion in one form or another requires faith. How can one logically or scientifically prove something that the religeous people have accepted through faith. It is incomprehensible. I can say to you that God does exist because I have faith that he does, and that is the honest truth (according to my world) but it is completely invalid to people which faith is not evidence. Thats why I stated earlier, arguing about whether He exists or not is not going to do anything except push those who are solid unbelievers further away. It is individually up to each one of us whether He is real or not.
Even if Pascal's wager is weak, mainly since he was in an environment where it was the catholic church, or pagan, and that raised questions regarding the wager could also be to other gods that could exist through other religions. Each wager to a god would further reduce the plausibility to wager against god or gods, but the wager against has zero chance of any gain (after death, not in life), while even choosing 1 religion to wager for that single or multiple gods would present atleast a fraction of a gain, say 1/(all possible religions). It might be 1 in a billion chance that the wager could benefit (again, after death, not during life), but it is still better than 0.

only by assuming you gain anything with wagered belief. wagered belief could be looked down upon, even worse then non belief.

not to mention you have no idea whether belief is necessary, is god a petty psycho is the question.

 

[honz]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

what all of you who 'believe' (I put that in quotes, because there are many forms of it) don't realize, is how ludacris **some** of you sound.

Just in case anyone missed this little ironic jewel...

alright, educate me on whats ironic about that? there are many forms of belief. buddha, christianity, evolutionists, reincarnationsists...

**EDIT** i see it know. my bad, my mind gets spinnin and it won't stop :Q
the ludacirs post was aimed towards previous posts that made abslutely no logical sense such as this (many more, but this was the first one i came upon), i guess i didn't make myself clear.

The key part is that in order for the big bang to happen, or whatever else you evolutionists claim, there has to be an uncaused cause. Somehow some way something had to be here to begin with. It just wasn't here. The only logical way of explaining this is a greater power. Since all you evolutionists and atheists tend to think logically and claim God is something made up, maybe you should think about your theories logically for a second. Logically something had to be uncaused. That thing that was uncaused was a supernatural being. A God if you will.

If you can't prove or disprove it then how can you possibly predict the likelyhood of it happening? You can't, so dont try.

Are you familiar with the law or probability? thats the exact reason why none can be disproved. theres always a chance of something weird happening, however slim that chance is...




also

when I hear people say that its ridiculous to believe in God... well nothing. I just hear them say it and I don't like it SO DONT SAY IT!

i have no problem with anyones beliefs. this is a discussion, and i'm just trying to share my 2 cents...

 

[Rio Rebel]

The irony of that quote, of course, is that he was ridiculing another person for sounding "ludacris". If you are going to laugh at someone for sounding unintelligent, at least make sure you yourself don't sound unintelligent by blatantly misspelling what you say.

 

[honz]

read my edited above post, you caught me in the act of editing it, lol.

and don't make this a spelling war, obviously nobody can match your exceptional grammar skills...

 

[Rio Rebel]

No spelling war - not even a grammar skirmish.

It's always funny to me when someone ridicules someone else and makes a blunder in the process. (Well, it's always funny, except when it's ME doing it.)

 

[0roo0roo]

Since all you evolutionists and atheists tend to think logically and claim God is something made up, maybe you should think about your theories logically for a second. Logically something had to be uncaused. That thing that was uncaused was a supernatural being. A God if you will.

it isn't logical. there doesn't "need" to be an uncaused cause. you can always ask what/who made the supernatural being if all things must have a cause by your logic. it becomes a loop. theres always the possibility that it simply has always been, or is infinite, or other weirdness.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Although I am not persuaded by St. Thomas Aquinas' "Uncaused Cause" argument, I think your refutation of it is weak. If you say it is not logical, what do you mean? It is certainly logically valid - the conclusion follows from the premises. It may be unsound, but you would have to show why.

I do believe it is somewhat unsound, in that the two premises seemingly lead to a contradiction. If he is saying that all things have a cause, this is an inductive argument and therefore cannot lead to a logical certainty (because inductive arguments can never be 100% certain, just probable). If he is saying that all things MUST have a cause, then I would want to know 1)How he determines this with certainty, and 2)How he can reconcile the First Cause with that principle.

Actually, I know how he tries to explain this - if you've ever tried to read Aquinas, it's a lifetime endeavor. In the end, I think this "proof" is more like a "good reason to believe this way, but not proof"

 

[0roo0roo]

i was just saying his logic was unlogical

 

[Athanasius]

Yes

 

[Rio Rebel]

Athanasius just posted a one word response to this subject!!!!??

Now I KNOW I believe in God!

 

[Athanasius]

Hi Rio:

Well, I had to prove I could do it

Since I've written volumes in these endless threads and my time has been more limited in recent months, I had decided to be succinct for once. Anyone who wants to wade through the chaff of these threads to get the well reasoned and sincere posts on both sides of the issue can easily do so by doing a little searching.

I had decided to be brief, but you changed my mind

"Does God exist to you?" was the question. The answer cannot be proven by the paradigms of modern science. Logically speaking, the question of God can only be "answered" by inference. It is not repeatable and it is not observable.

To me, the more logical inference is that Mind produced matter rather than thinking that mindless matter somehow produced mind. Others (like Harvey) think differently.

If I start with the inference or hypothesis that mind produced matter, than I see legitimacy to reason and mindful discourse. Even these ATOT Religious threads.

If I assume that mindless matter produced "mind" or "language" (even the "language" of internal discourse) or "logic" than I am faced with a conundrum: why is the most mindful creature we know of so plagued by this neurosis of religious thinking? It seems odd to me that the most "advanced" creature would at the same time by the most neurotic.

To me, this neurosis is better explained by the inference that this "Mind" or "Logos" that produced matter has something in common with the human "mind" or "logos." Our "neurosis" of religious thought would then be rooted in the fact that we are at odds with this Universal Mind. Call it "the Fall of Man" if you wish. I am sure whatever name we come up with is woefully inadequate. No insane creature can accurately diagnose its own condition.

This argument can be played out from many different angles, but the core question remains the same.

The real problem comes in when people think that science (by its modern materialistic paradigms) is the father of logical thought. When this "a priori" assumption is maintained (and many people maintain it without realizing it), than those with religious beliefs are viewed as fundamentally irrational.

But science is not the father of logic; logic is the father of science. One fundamental premise (I believe) of rational thought is this: "The Principle at that same moment that it explains the Rule supersedes it." C.S. Lewis refrred to this principle in his book, "Miracles." Since logic is the principle used to explain science, logic must at some point be rooted in something that supersedes the paradigms of science. If it doesn't, than why bother to even discuss the issue? Everyone treats logic and discourse as intrinsically valuable but many hold a worldview that destroys that premise.

Hence human consciousness is more "real" than science. Many physicists themselves agree, though that fact does nothing to break the false stranglehold inhabiting many minds that religious belief is fundamentally irrational.

Aristotle said, "Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions." Most never ask the right preliminary questions, so their answer is answered before the coin is even tossed in the air.

Then we answer with, as one wise poster said, "all the smug assurance we give to a mathematical equation."

 

[Rio Rebel]

To me, the more logical inference is that Mind produced matter rather than thinking that mindless matter somehow produced mind.

The profundity of this comment really strikes me. I never heard this idea expressed in such a way.

I have long believed that the mind/body problem has been put to rest prematurely. Just because we have discovered a few causal relationships between physical and mental events doesn't mean we can confidently assume that all mental activity could eventually be explained by physical phenomenon. And your comment makes the point even further.

 

[xirtam]

And the fact that he has 911 posts tells me that he's actually a depressed individual at his keyboard crying for help.

What can we do for you?



Nice sig.

 

[Athanasius]

Rio Quote:

I have long believed that the mind/body problem has been put to rest prematurely. Just because we have discovered a few causal relationships between physical and mental events doesn't mean we can confidently assume that all mental activity could eventually be explained by physical phenomenon. And your comment makes the point even further.

Well, consider this "cut and paste" from Miracles:

It must be clearly understoodthat the argument leads to no conception of "souls" or "spirits" (words I have avoided) floating about in the realm of Nature with no relation to their environment. Hence we do not deny -- indeed we must welcome -- certain considerations which are often regarded as proofs of Naturalism. We can admit, and even insist, that Rational Thinking can be shown to be conditioned in its exercise by a natural object (the brain). It is temporarily impaired by alcohol or a blow on the head. It wanes as the brain decays and vanishes [i.e, is not observable] when the brain ceases to function. In the same way the moral outlook of a community can be shown to be closely connected with its history, geographical environment, economic structure, and so forth. The moral ideas of the individual are equally related to his general situation... All of this, far from presenting us with a difficulty, is exactly what we should expect.

The rational and moral element in each human mind is a point of force from the Supernatural working its way into Nature, exploiting at each point those conditions which Nature offers, repulsed where the conditions are hopeless and impeded when they are unfavorable. A man's Rational thinking is just so much of his share of eternal Reason as the state of his brain allows to become operative; it presents, so to speak, the bargain struck or the frontier fixed between Reason and Nature at that particular point. A nation's moral outlook is just so much of its share in eternal Moral Wisdom as its history, economics etc. lets through. In the same way the voice of the Announcer is just so much of a human voice as the receiving set lets through. Of course it varies with the state of the receiving set and vanishes [i.e: ceases to be observable] altogether if I throw a brick at it. It is conditioned by the apparatus but not originated by it (emphasis mine).

So much for the intro to C.S. Lewis



There is a Voice calling us. There is an Eternal Heart. There is a Real Reason. There is Mindful Logic. That Heart and that Reason and that Heart lives incarnate in the man Jesus of Nazareth. And we killed Him. So, we continue strive to keep heart; we desperately search for a reason; we want Logic in the face of an absurd universe.

Yet I have to ask, did we like it when we saw it the first time?

I believe this Heart/Reason/Logic is either very committed to us or very dense. Didn't it get the point the first time we killed it?

Pray that the Voice doesn't stop speaking.

 

[HillbillyHab]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

I choose free will and all of its consequences and implications. I have already reached immortality, I see it daily in my children.

Just my 2 cents. Have a great day!

 

[slider64]

To me it is not a question of whether or not God exists to me, it is whether or not God exists. That question is simple... yes. Can we make Him seem like less than He is, yes. Can we make Him bigger than He is? No.
My question stems from the previous, why would you not want God to exist? Why would you need to be an athiest, if nothing exists I need not say it.

 

[przero]

Absolutely!

God is sitting in heaven when a scientist prays to Him God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out away to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.

"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God..

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breath life into it, thus creating man.

"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."

 

[Semper Fi]

Of course.
He came to earth in human form by the name of Jesus Christ.