Is life without God possible?

[anotherlife]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

 

[GLASNOST]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god? If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish. Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start. Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Did you extract that conclusion from your ass?

Discuss.

Discuss what? The basis of your above (intro) conclusion is absurd. That being your foundation of discussion leaves nothing but idiotic bull shit to ponder. You could just as well put on a serious face and claim that life started with the fomentation of a turd from a hummingbird. Shall we start the discussion from there?

 

[ScienceRocks]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy

Science makes more sense

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

Nope! Without God nothing exists.

*****SMILE*****

 

[anotherlife]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god? If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish. Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start. Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Did you extract that conclusion from your ass?

Discuss.

Discuss what? The basis of your above (intro) conclusion is absurd. That being your foundation of discussion leaves nothing but idiotic bull shit to ponder. You could just as well put on a serious face and claim that life started with the fomentation of a turd from a hummingbird. Shall we start the discussion from there?

Are you arguing an agnostic approach like buddhism? The OP doesn't exclude that.

 

[anotherlife]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy

Science makes more sense

I thought science is only about the hows of the mechanisms of life, not about its decisions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'll accept this...

...as an opening premise as too why God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Buck111]

The essence of all life is energy. The parents do not create the energy, nor can they destroy it. Once life (as we think we know it) ends, the energy moves on, continuing to exist. Did some "god" create this energy? There is no evidence that a "god" did so. Nor is there any evidence that a "god" did not do so.

 

[BULLDOG]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

Parents are there to help their children learn how to control their own environment and capabilities as much as possible. Only a monster would feel obligated to do what you claim. I'm not sure where you got your disgusting ideas, but they are nothing like what Jesus taught.

 

[yiostheoy]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

First, it is NOT easy "if we assume a God".

For example look at all the Jews who struggle with a promise of being the "chosen people" versus the holocaust they suffered under Adolf in Germany.

As to whether there is or is not a God or Gods, this issue has been dealt with extensively by Modern Philosophy. Modern Philosophy started with Rene Descartes.

As to your question, "what if there is no God?" then you arrive at all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes.

Ergo it is UNLIKELY that there is no God or Gods.

Logically speaking there must be a God or Gods to explain the beginning of all things.

So your question is rhetorical. Since it naturally results in contradictions it is logically illogical.

This strongly suggests philosophically speaking that there IS a God or Gods.

Q.E.D.

 

[BULLDOG]

It is easy if we assume a God, then we can say that your life starts and ends with God. But what if we assume that there is no god?

If there is no God, then your life starts and ends with your parents. Obviously it then starts with your parents. Within these constraints, everything that happens in your life that your parents don't control is selfish.

Every life has a dependency on its environment, and the individual personal capability of the life itself. So an atheistic imposition demands, that the parents also control all aspects of the environment and personal capabilities of the life they start.

Can this be guaranteed, and maintained continuously and unconditionally? In other words can an atheistic view in a school or family be maintained without failure?

Discuss.

First, it is NOT easy "if we assume a God".

For example look at all the Jews who struggle with a promise of being the "chosen people" versus the holocaust they suffered under Adolf in Germany.

As to whether there is or is not a God or Gods, this issue has been dealt with extensively by Modern Philosophy. Modern Philosophy started with Rene Descartes.

As to your question, "what if there is no God?" then you arrive at all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes.

Ergo it is UNLIKELY that there is no God or Gods.

Logically speaking there must be a God or Gods to explain the beginning of all things.

So your question is rhetorical. Since it naturally results in contradictions it is logically illogical.

This strongly suggests philosophically speaking that there IS a God or Gods.

Q.E.D.

Wow.Did you get a kink in your back from twisting reality so hard?

 

[cnm]

Logically speaking there must be a God or Gods to explain the beginning of all things.

What rubbish. The god of gaps is as logical as clapping hands to show one believes in fairies.

 

[yiostheoy]

Wow.Did you get a kink in your back from twisting reality so hard?

Philosophy is the only true reality.

Everything else is merely flawed perception.

 

[GLASNOST]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy
Science makes more sense

I often say that myself. But I think it makes "more sense" merely because it's the best there is in our dimension. I think it would be better not to praise the knowledge that science provides but rather say that the Bible makes no sense what-so-ever, and although science certainly does prove that the Bible is a load of superstitious mumble-fuck, it doesn't prove that there is no Creator in one form or another. So yes, science makes more sense as far as we understand the limitation of sense itself, i.e. the boundaries of our dimension. Science disproves the Bible but nothing further than that. So far.

 

[Mousterian]

We've all grown up with the idea that God is a white-haired old man, and that concept is pure hubris. It was promoted by a primitive bunch of goat-herders, who were absolutely certain that the Sun, Moon and stars rotated around the Earth. Which was definitely NOT shaped like a ball.
Why we continue to pay any attention (beyond archeologic curiosoty), to this particular set of ancient myths is beyond me.
And they are myths, just as fanciful as the stories of any primitive race of people, who need a handy fall-back when the kids ask 'Daddy, why....?'

 

[the_human_being]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy

Science makes more sense

Then explain to us from whence life began. The first rule of biology states that life can only come from life. Now, all you have to do is use your science to explain exactly what or whom was the first life from whence life began. I will await your use of your science to explain this.

 

[Buck111]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy
Science makes more sense

I often say that myself. But I think it makes "more sense" merely because it's the best there is in our dimension. I think it would be better not to praise the knowledge that science provides but rather say that the Bible makes no sense what-so-ever, and although science certainly does prove that the Bible is a load of superstitious mumble-fuck, it doesn't prove that there is no Creator in one form or another. So yes, science makes more sense as far as we understand the limitation of sense itself, i.e. the boundaries of our dimension. Science disproves the Bible but nothing further than that. So far.

The Bible has, in many instances, been proven correct by science.
http://i.imgur.com/LWMj2F5.png

...and you are right: there is no proof of a god, nor is there a proof that there is no god.
To some the Bible is "superstitious mumble-fuck" (and, to some degree, I agree with that) but the Bible has many lessons we can all learn from.
I think the two biggest problems with the Bible are 1) those who have rewritten it, edited it and changed it to fit their wants, and 2) those who believe its every word.
Believing in something can be a dangerous thing. All wars start with "I/We believe..."

 

[yiostheoy]

We've all grown up with the idea that God is a white-haired old man, and that concept is pure hubris. It was promoted by a primitive bunch of goat-herders, who were absolutely certain that the Sun, Moon and stars rotated around the Earth. Which was definitely NOT shaped like a ball.
Why we continue to pay any attention (beyond archeologic curiosoty), to this particular set of ancient myths is beyond me.
And they are myths, just as fanciful as the stories of any primitive race of people, who need a handy fall-back when the kids ask 'Daddy, why....?'

Religion is entrenched in civilization.

You can mostly thank Constantine, Akmed, Siddhartha, Confucius, and Moses. Those are the Big 5.

One Roman, one Arab, one Indian, one Chinese, and one Hebrew.

Mostly lily white except for the Indian and the Chinese.

No Negroes.

About the only thing to come out of black Africa is ivory and slaves.

 

[yiostheoy]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy
Science makes more sense

I often say that myself. But I think it makes "more sense" merely because it's the best there is in our dimension. I think it would be better not to praise the knowledge that science provides but rather say that the Bible makes no sense what-so-ever, and although science certainly does prove that the Bible is a load of superstitious mumble-fuck, it doesn't prove that there is no Creator in one form or another. So yes, science makes more sense as far as we understand the limitation of sense itself, i.e. the boundaries of our dimension. Science disproves the Bible but nothing further than that. So far.

All the holy books are a collection of mumbo jumbo.

But that's not why there are still here.

 

[GLASNOST]

God would take energy
Evolution would take energy

Science makes more sense

Then explain to us from whence life began. The first rule of biology states that life can only come from life. Now, all you have to do is use your science to explain exactly what or whom was the first life from whence life began. I will await your use of your science to explain this.

It wouldn't do much good offering you any explanation as your English comprehension is lacking enormously. You failed to understand what the sentence, "Science makes more sense" means, so what would be the point in nudging you back on the path of discussion? You'll only wander off the trail as soon as you are left alone for a minute.