If God did not exist

[koshergrl]

Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.

Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.

 

[mamooth]

If God does or doesn't exist, it makes no difference to how I live my life. I don't require a carrot and stick or threats of hellfire to act like a decent human being.

 

[koshergrl]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

 

[Steven_R]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.

 

[daws101]

You just described yourself... classic...

glad you think so...more proof of your self involvement.

Huh, I thought it was pretty damn funny... you obviously have no sense of humor.. poor thing..

that is false, you folks are a constant source of amusement...

 

[daws101]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

what was that about hate speech again?
you cannot back up that statement with facts...
thanks for proving my point.

 

[daws101]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.

major bump!

 

[koshergrl]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.

I didn't say you had to worship god to be a decent person. I said without God, you are nothing more than a depraved animal.

There's a difference. I'm sorry that your 8th grade education, your complete ignorance of the bible, and your burning bigotry prevents you from understanding what you read. Try harder.

 

[daws101]

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.

Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.

I didn't say you had to worship god to be a decent person. I said without God, you are nothing more than a depraved animal.

There's a difference. I'm sorry that your 8th grade education, your complete ignorance of the bible, and your burning bigotry prevents you from understanding what you read. Try harder.

bahahahahahahaha! ok explain how you can be a decent person and be a depraved animal at the same time..?
another problem ...the other animals on this planet cannot become or are naturally depraved..that a wholly human condition, so like your other little gems of nonknowledge it a false premise.

The term "total depravity," as understood in colloquial English, obscures the theological issues involved. Reformed and Lutheran theologians have never considered humans to be absent of goodness or unable to do good outwardly as a result of the fall. People retain the imago Dei, though it has been distorted.[17]
Total depravity is the fallen state of human beings as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God[citation needed] because they originate from a selfish human desire and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone God must predestine, call, or elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to[citation needed], and is indeed incapable of choosing God.[18]
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people have lost part of their humanity or are ontologically deteriorated, because Adam and Eve were created with the ability to not sin, and people retain that essential nature, even though the properties of their humanity is corrupted.[19] It also does not mean that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through humanity.[20]
The total reach of sin taught with the doctrine of total depravity highlights people's dire need for God. No part of the person is not in need of grace, and all people are in need of grace, no matter how outwardly pious.[21] Feminist theologian Serene Jones sees the concept of total depravity as helpful because, according to Calvin, sin assaults the person from the outside in and occupies the whole self, allowing women to see how deeply oppression has harmed them and become part of their self-understanding.[22

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for proving my point.

In huge black spades.

 

[midcan5]

It does not matter whether God exists or not, God last I checked does not send signals that everyone could read. You know like those new digital billboards, 'Hello earth, God here, please try to be good and help each other.' Even so clear a message would go through the filter of the human reading it. For instance, help for some would be removable from the food stamps program, make em strong, one may help by chopping off their head for being gay, another may rant and rave that unless government de-fund Obamacare contraception would be widespread among women. Twenty lashes or stocks anyone. Consider how many religions there are, another message from God, 'Are you people crazy handling snakes, praying and jumping around? Or is that just so you can be on TV?' God would have to look at the world and wonder whether this first draft was a mistake? Global warming may help create Phase two. But would phase two be any better? Religions who say they speak for God have always found ways to punish humans and cause friction among them. Witness this thread. The really really tough question is, does reason exist? You'd have to say no. So God doesn't really matter, a small materialistic correction required here. If you have an enormous cathedral like stadium church or a TV show with lots of contributors, then yes, God does exist. God exists as a wonderful prop, a great selling point, just believe and you too shall be saved. How easy is that. Meanwhile let them eat cake.

 

[Newby]

Thank you for proving my point.

In huge black spades.

It totally went over his head.. not surprising tho.

 

[Newby]

Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.

Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.

Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.

So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?

 

[Steven_R]

The difference is there is something to support the existence of Dark Matter, namely that galaxies are holding themselves together when the physics says they should be flinging themselves apart. There is a physical process that is not understood, but evidence something is afoot.

There is no objective evidence for God.

 

[Steven_R]

Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.

Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.

Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.

So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?

What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.

I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.

 

[Newby]

Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.

So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?

Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?

Up until 100 years ago we couldn't see germs, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge? Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?

 

[Newby]

Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.

So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?

What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.

I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.

I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?

 

[orogenicman]

So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?

What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.

I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.

I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?

That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made. "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.

 

[Newby]

What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.

I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.

I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?

That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made. "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.

Evidence of God is right in front of your face, every day, you observe it and study it and then dismiss the fact that you have no idea how it came to be, or how all of the 'systems' to support it were created or dervied. Ego is a terrible thing at times.

 

[Newby]

Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?

Up until 100 years ago we couldn't see germs, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge? Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?

Steven's response was spot on. And he's right, there is science that points to something holding things together.

Choosing to ignore my questions I see... not surprising.