Does God exist to you.

[slider64]

Rock ON!!

 

[cavemanmoron]

yes

 

[cressida]

 

[FlashG]

It's funny but the older I get the more I believe in a supreme being. Call it God or whatever.

I just wish people would quit using it's name for an excuse to hurt others.

 

[machintos]

yes

 

[Fides]

Originally posted by: 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!

And you don't care to change it?
Strive for ammorality at least...
sad that youve given up hope, what hope will your children have now?

 

[Fides]

Originally posted by: Athanasius

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?

Ahh... but was that a predetermined death? You think Jesus could have chosen NOT to die for us, or was that the only way?

 

[Argo]

Not anymore

 

[StattlichPassat]

YES. Very much so.

 

[Skel]

I believe that there is one..

 

[Athanasius]

Fides:

It was the only way. That does not mean it was not freely chosen. It was a free choice in the sense that the Word made it "before the creation of the worlds." It was a free choice in the sense that it was spontaneous and totally inwardly motivated. The Word made it apart from any outward compulsion or force. It was not a free choice in the sense that it was one of many equally distributed or "indifferent" options.

God is Love. Love creates/desires to be shared. Love cannot be forced. It is not a question of power. It is a question of the nature of love. Many people imply a false contradiction by saying that an omnipotent God could not be loving at the same time because a loving, omnipotent God could not allow evil to exist.

But omnipotence has never meant the power to do the self-contradictory. It has meant the power to do that which is able to be done.

God is "Agape" Love.
Agape Love cannot be forced.
The absence of love = evil.

Hence, the question really is, "To be or not to be."

There is no universe that can be conceived that any "Agape" Love would create that did not have within it the seeds of potential "Un-Agape," or Evil.

So, the Cure was presented before the disease even germinated. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the worlds.

God "freely" chose to create. But I don't think God was debating between indifferent options. We say, "I think, therefore I am."

God says, "I AM, therefore I create/think."


"By the Word (Logos/Reason/Thought/Discourse) all things were made that have been made."

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: SuepaFly
YES.

I can't prove the existance or demonstrate any miracles beyond those of everyday humans and their achievements. The whole concept of faith implies the believing without doubt and therefore no evidence is needed. If I said faith in my significant other, that means I'm not perpetually suspicious of them, I completely trust them.

No, if you said you have faith in your s.o. that means that from the first time you saw them randomly wherever you met him/her, if asked to borrow your car with no explanation, you would have provided it. Faith by definition is not earned, since it can't be - faith doesn't have a reason. Your s.o. has EARNED your trust throughout your relationship, and although at this point you probably would let him/her use your car, borrow $100, etc, if you would have on the first day, you're just plain stupid. Actually, mind if I borrow your car?

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
That a mothers instinct and protection of her children is a chemical reaction, and not possibly the notion(?) that man was created in Gods image, and that the instinct of protection may in fact be a devine conotation, a plan for mankind, even a blueprint of life?

Uh... the fact that a mother protects her children is easily explained. Lets say it is 10 million years ago (or are you one of the 10,000 year-old-earth wackos?) and there are two pre-human mothers. Their children are now in danger from a predator. One of them runs away to save herself, and her offspring are eaten. The other fights the predator and dies, but causes the threat to leave, and her offspring survive. The mother who ran has just succeeded in removing her genes (and memes, if you like that very cool theory) from the pool, whereas the dead mother has successfully passed on her genes. Now, today, the only mothers around carry genes from those in the past who protected their young.

And in response to people who ask about the point of life - I think religious people are much better off and probably happier here - they have some purpose. I wouldn't mind having a purpose in life rather than to be born, grow up, pass on some DNA, die, and decompose. However, the fact that a purpose or afterlife would be NICE does not mean that one can just believe in it. Rational belief requires evidence. - I believe in, say, my monitor, because, well it happens to be right in front of me. Where is this evidence of a higher purpose or afterlife?

edit:

Originally posted by: Fides

Originally posted by: JackBurton
This is the stupidest question! Of course God doesn't exist...now the Tooth Fairy, THAT is real!

Oh really? So prove it!

Are you missing the whole point? He has FAITH which cannot be proven - the Tooth Fairy exists because she does, not because we can prove she does!

edit2:

Originally posted by: KIAman
People who believe in God have their own benefits when they do. In the end, does it really matter if one believed in God or not? Everyone will die, that is for sure, but IF there is God and heaven out there, it's not going to hurt those who believe in God, at the same time, IF there wasn't a heaven or a God, it STILL wont hurt the people who believe in Him, since they will be dead anyways.
So for people who DO believe in God, it is a win situation either way, whether God is real or not.

On the other hand, for people who do NOT believe in God, IF he is not real, then in the end they are seriously screwed, but IF there is no God and Heaven then you are in the same boat as everyone who do believe in all sorts of whetever.

So you believe "just in case?" Anyway, if this God being can't accept the fact that his imperfect creations demand REASONS to believe, is he really the kind of guy you'd want to spend eternity with?

 

[jonnyGURU]

Does God exist to you

Does the Pope sh!t in the woods?

 

[Fides]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Are you missing the whole point? He has FAITH which cannot be proven - the Tooth Fairy exists because she does, not because we can prove she does!

So what's the difference between having faith in God and having faith in the tooth fairy?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Next question - Do YOU exist to God?
Let's ask Neitzsche ( Oh, wait - he dosen't exist anymore )

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Fides

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Are you missing the whole point? He has FAITH which cannot be proven - the Tooth Fairy exists because she does, not because we can prove she does!

So what's the difference between having faith in God and having faith in the tooth fairy?

The majority of adult society believes in god, so it is accepted, whereas no adults believe in the tooth fairy, so it is considered stupid. That is the only difference. If you consider belief in the tooth fairy ignorant due to lack of evidence, how can you believe in god?

 

[Rio Rebel]

The majority of adult society believes in god, so it is accepted, whereas no adults believe in the tooth fairy, so it is considered stupid. That is the only difference. If you consider belief in the tooth fairy ignorant due to lack of evidence, how can you believe in god?

This is unquestionably the most ridiculous comment in this thread. The evidence God's existence may not be compelling - it may be downright weak to some - but to say you see no difference in this and the tooth fairy demonstrates an inability to even carry on this discourse.

 

[xirtam]

This is unquestionably the most ridiculous comment in this thread. The evidence God's existence may not be compelling - it may be downright weak to some - but to say you see no difference in this and the tooth fairy demonstrates an inability to even carry on this discourse.

Not really. Apparently the evidence for the tooth fairy and the evidence for God are equally compelling to CTho.

I disagree with him, but to shun him from carrying on the discourse is a bit premature. Perhaps he could elaborate on his <--now--> weak position. Perhaps not. But we can at least give him the chance, and to do otherwise is to launch an ad hominem on any argument he brings up from now on.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Some arguments are so ridiculous that they add nothing to the discussion and simply insult the opposing view. The "Tooth Fairy" argument is one of those.

 

[bugsysiegel]

God died when I was able to determine there was no Santa either.