One of the following MUST be true about God

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, if no living human has explored the universe, how can you say that god is without a doubt a myth?

Good grief!! Don't tell me you think God occupies some particular region of physical space?!! Like those Mormon savages who think God occupies a human body on some particular planet?

That's pretty primitive, even for someone suffering from religious mania.

Even the Pope is more sophisticated than that !!
.

Can you definitely prove that He doesn't?

 

[Avatar4321]

All I can tell you is that one day we will all know the correct answer.
One of us is going to be really surprised.

No, neither of us will be surprised. We will be dead as doornails and aware of nothing.

.

Let's see if you are still saying that when we get to the other side of the veil.

 

[hortysir]

All I can tell you is that one day we will all know the correct answer.
One of us is going to be really surprised.

No, neither of us will be surprised. We will be dead as doornails and aware of nothing.

.

Oh, YAY!!

Another nutbar with a God complex....


You know all, hunh?!

 

[Agent.Tom]

All I can tell you is that one day we will all know the correct answer.
One of us is going to be really surprised.

No, neither of us will be surprised. We will be dead as doornails and aware of nothing.

.

At least Numan freely expresses his Nihilism. Any real Atheist would join in and celebrate these Nihilist beliefs instead of cowering behind ridiculous categories of Atheism, i.e. "weak Atheist" or "strong Atheist."

Any Atheists worth their salt should admit to full-blown Nihilism, else admit they're just an Agnostic sitting on the fence waiting for the game to play out.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Which part of my reasoning is illogical? Be specific.

You arrive at a conclusion in the absence of information and claim evidence you cannot produce. What part of that is logical?

I have information.....The world around me. I gave examples that support my statement. You chose to ignore them. That's your issue to work out.

I supplied a supportive argument to which you have yet to answer. With respect to your question of why a God would "allow" events such as rape, holocaust, or genocide to occur, to which I have shown how we each are given the free will to "choose" (also backed by scripture in Genesis 1:26).

RDD_1210: Why would you be SO concerned in desiring God to step in and force control on someone's actions in preventing such a traumatic event, when you don't desire God or "Christians" to influence or dictate your OWN personal decisions (whether right or wrong by someone else's standards)? Just how much control and influence would you like God to have... REALLY? Let's be honest. Still waiting on an answer, or did I just go into an area that's simply too analytical and deep a subject matter for you to provide an honest response? I know it appears that I have given you an ample amount to ponder on. Not sure you really desire an honest answer when it requires some personal "reflection" on your part.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I do have the basic knowledge of the miracle of life theory from elementary and junior high, I also used to be an avid watcher of Carl Sagan and Cosmos. However I found as many holes in this area of science, yet many people won't think twice of going with Darwin's theory, even though he himself battled the reality of such notions. When you take a step back, as I did, there is STILL the need for elephants, bees, lions, whales, dogs, bats, eagles, camels, mice, krill, owls, snakes, to ALL be traced back to that exact same point of origin without exception. That's a lot to prove and trust in someone to believe. Personally feeding 5000 people through the use of 5 barley loaves and two fish takes a lot less belief to go on. Suggesting the contrary is more of true "reality" is a very big stretch of the imagination. The sheer fact that even a set of quads that are born still manages to carry a unique set of fingerprints, that no two fingerprints are ever alike between two sets of people, is too remarkable to place on mere scientific "chance" with respect to life on the earth. Evolution requires a lot more faith to believe. Reality? ...... that remains to be seen.

If you are going to approach evolution as a matter of belief, you may have a point. However, evolution is simply the most likely explanation of the observable facts. It is a theory which continues to be tested and refined. I have no problem at all with the idea that it all traces back to an original life form. That makes perfect sense to me. Feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes sounds like a tall tale.

You are free to see it as you please. As I said, reality is not dependent upon belief. If evolution is a fact, it is a fact whether you believe it or not. If it is not, it is not regardless of what I might think. However, until such time as a better theory is developed, evolution is the one which best fits the facts.

Belief is not dependent upon reality, such is the basis of faith. You can believe a certain chair can support someone's weight, until the reality of a small crack in one of the legs causes that individual to fall flat on his ass. A farmer can believe that planting seed he will have a large harvest, before the events of a good season of rain allows the reality to happen. Such reasoning is the common everyday occurrence that leads to faith, and is the growing foundation behind Christianity. We don't physically see the wind, but we are left with clear evidence of it's influence and effect upon everything we see as a result. We can feel it's presence even though we can't perceive it with our natural eye. Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes. However, the origin "miracle" of life has to take into account each and every diverse creature we encounter, as physically showing its characteristics to having the flawless ability to be shown to have traced itself back [morphed] towards the exact same single point of origin. Not every creature comes with the convenience of a cocoon to explain it away. The similarities of only a handful of creatures, is indeed a very long way from presenting the whole theory as fact.
Rather - Evolution is just man's attempt to simplify life's most complex algorithm to alleviate accountability to a higher power [God].

 

[PratchettFan]

I do have the basic knowledge of the miracle of life theory from elementary and junior high, I also used to be an avid watcher of Carl Sagan and Cosmos. However I found as many holes in this area of science, yet many people won't think twice of going with Darwin's theory, even though he himself battled the reality of such notions. When you take a step back, as I did, there is STILL the need for elephants, bees, lions, whales, dogs, bats, eagles, camels, mice, krill, owls, snakes, to ALL be traced back to that exact same point of origin without exception. That's a lot to prove and trust in someone to believe. Personally feeding 5000 people through the use of 5 barley loaves and two fish takes a lot less belief to go on. Suggesting the contrary is more of true "reality" is a very big stretch of the imagination. The sheer fact that even a set of quads that are born still manages to carry a unique set of fingerprints, that no two fingerprints are ever alike between two sets of people, is too remarkable to place on mere scientific "chance" with respect to life on the earth. Evolution requires a lot more faith to believe. Reality? ...... that remains to be seen.

If you are going to approach evolution as a matter of belief, you may have a point. However, evolution is simply the most likely explanation of the observable facts. It is a theory which continues to be tested and refined. I have no problem at all with the idea that it all traces back to an original life form. That makes perfect sense to me. Feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes sounds like a tall tale.

You are free to see it as you please. As I said, reality is not dependent upon belief. If evolution is a fact, it is a fact whether you believe it or not. If it is not, it is not regardless of what I might think. However, until such time as a better theory is developed, evolution is the one which best fits the facts.

Belief is not dependent upon reality, such is the basis of faith. You can believe a certain chair can support someone's weight, until the reality of a small crack in one of the legs causes that individual to fall flat on his ass. A farmer can believe that planting seed he will have a large harvest, before the events of a good season of rain allows the reality to happen. Such reasoning is the common everyday occurrence that leads to faith, and is the growing foundation behind Christianity. We don't physically see the wind, but we are left with clear evidence of it's influence and effect upon everything we see as a result. We can feel it's presence even though we can't perceive it with our natural eye. Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes. However, the origin "miracle" of life has to take into account each and every diverse creature we encounter, as physically showing its characteristics to having the flawless ability to be shown to have traced itself back [morphed] towards the exact same single point of origin. Not every creature comes with the convenience of a cocoon to explain it away. The similarities of only a handful of creatures, is indeed a very long way from presenting the whole theory as fact.
Rather - Evolution is just man's attempt to simplify life's most complex algorithm to alleviate accountability to a higher power [God].

You are free to believe that. I will continue to disagree with you. I think your statement, "Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes." indicates a real lack of understanding of the theory.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you are going to approach evolution as a matter of belief, you may have a point. However, evolution is simply the most likely explanation of the observable facts. It is a theory which continues to be tested and refined. I have no problem at all with the idea that it all traces back to an original life form. That makes perfect sense to me. Feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes sounds like a tall tale.

You are free to see it as you please. As I said, reality is not dependent upon belief. If evolution is a fact, it is a fact whether you believe it or not. If it is not, it is not regardless of what I might think. However, until such time as a better theory is developed, evolution is the one which best fits the facts.

Belief is not dependent upon reality, such is the basis of faith. You can believe a certain chair can support someone's weight, until the reality of a small crack in one of the legs causes that individual to fall flat on his ass. A farmer can believe that planting seed he will have a large harvest, before the events of a good season of rain allows the reality to happen. Such reasoning is the common everyday occurrence that leads to faith, and is the growing foundation behind Christianity. We don't physically see the wind, but we are left with clear evidence of it's influence and effect upon everything we see as a result. We can feel it's presence even though we can't perceive it with our natural eye. Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes. However, the origin "miracle" of life has to take into account each and every diverse creature we encounter, as physically showing its characteristics to having the flawless ability to be shown to have traced itself back [morphed] towards the exact same single point of origin. Not every creature comes with the convenience of a cocoon to explain it away. The similarities of only a handful of creatures, is indeed a very long way from presenting the whole theory as fact.
Rather - Evolution is just man's attempt to simplify life's most complex algorithm to alleviate accountability to a higher power [God].

You are free to believe that. I will continue to disagree with you. I think your statement, "Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes." indicates a real lack of understanding of the theory.

.... hence all the archeological efforts to come up with "the missing link". If that's not a concentrated effort, why the constant need to find it in order to provide a sense of satisfaction towards the whole theory? I don't see any effort to concentrate on fossils of any other two species being of any more importance to the realm of science?

 

[PratchettFan]

Belief is not dependent upon reality, such is the basis of faith. You can believe a certain chair can support someone's weight, until the reality of a small crack in one of the legs causes that individual to fall flat on his ass. A farmer can believe that planting seed he will have a large harvest, before the events of a good season of rain allows the reality to happen. Such reasoning is the common everyday occurrence that leads to faith, and is the growing foundation behind Christianity. We don't physically see the wind, but we are left with clear evidence of it's influence and effect upon everything we see as a result. We can feel it's presence even though we can't perceive it with our natural eye. Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes. However, the origin "miracle" of life has to take into account each and every diverse creature we encounter, as physically showing its characteristics to having the flawless ability to be shown to have traced itself back [morphed] towards the exact same single point of origin. Not every creature comes with the convenience of a cocoon to explain it away. The similarities of only a handful of creatures, is indeed a very long way from presenting the whole theory as fact.
Rather - Evolution is just man's attempt to simplify life's most complex algorithm to alleviate accountability to a higher power [God].

You are free to believe that. I will continue to disagree with you. I think your statement, "Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes." indicates a real lack of understanding of the theory.

.... hence all the archeological efforts to come up with "the missing link". If that's not a concentrated effort, why the constant need to find it in order to provide a sense of satisfaction towards the whole theory? I don't see any effort to concentrate on fossils of any other two species being of any more importance to the realm of science?

Because science is constantly looking at a theory. It is constantly questioned and tested. That is the difference between science and religion.

There is no great debate on whether or not evolution is a fact, at least in the scientific community. The debate is on how it works - not if it works. The concept of "the missing link" really is not one which comes from science. It came out of news papers and is used almost exclusively by non-scientists. If you are not seeing any concerted effort, I would suggest that is because you are not looking. There is no reason for you to look, unless that is of real interest to you or your profession. But I would offer to you that this is a subject of considerable interest to the scientific community and there is quite a bit of effort being put into it.

 

[hortysir]

Belief is not dependent upon reality, such is the basis of faith. You can believe a certain chair can support someone's weight, until the reality of a small crack in one of the legs causes that individual to fall flat on his ass. A farmer can believe that planting seed he will have a large harvest, before the events of a good season of rain allows the reality to happen. Such reasoning is the common everyday occurrence that leads to faith, and is the growing foundation behind Christianity. We don't physically see the wind, but we are left with clear evidence of it's influence and effect upon everything we see as a result. We can feel it's presence even though we can't perceive it with our natural eye. Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes. However, the origin "miracle" of life has to take into account each and every diverse creature we encounter, as physically showing its characteristics to having the flawless ability to be shown to have traced itself back [morphed] towards the exact same single point of origin. Not every creature comes with the convenience of a cocoon to explain it away. The similarities of only a handful of creatures, is indeed a very long way from presenting the whole theory as fact.
Rather - Evolution is just man's attempt to simplify life's most complex algorithm to alleviate accountability to a higher power [God].

You are free to believe that. I will continue to disagree with you. I think your statement, "Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes." indicates a real lack of understanding of the theory.

.... hence all the archeological efforts to come up with "the missing link". If that's not a concentrated effort, why the constant need to find it in order to provide a sense of satisfaction towards the whole theory? I don't see any effort to concentrate on fossils of any other two species being of any more importance to the realm of science?

The 'link' is 'missing' because it isn't there

 

[PratchettFan]

So do you believe in the existence of God or not? What is your belief?

I consider God to be irrelevant. I thought I had already told you that. I have no idea if there is a God and I don't care if there is or not. If it helps, I specifically believe that the God Jehovah/Allah does not exist. But that is a belief and nothing else. Because I believe it does not exist, I feel no anger towards it. How can one be angry with something one does not believe in? Perhaps that is a question you should ask yourself? I am often curious as to why people do believe in it, but it does not upset me as it has nothing to do with me.

Thank you.

Now, THAT is the definition of a true Atheist.
These other posers are, simply, anti-theists

Just to clarify, I don't consider myself an Atheist. I don't think it is actually pertinent to the discussion, but I am a Buddhist.

 

[HUGGY]

I tried to explain that to many of them before. They don't see anything illogical about claiming there is no God from an argument of silence. (in there opinion obviously because there is plenty of evidence).

The ironic thing is in order to know there is no God, you would have to have all knowledge and be aware of everything going on in every part of the universe, past, present and future.

In other words, to know there is no God, you would have to be a god.

Meanwhile, all a believer has to do to know there is a God is have a personal experience with Him. I know there is a God because of my experience. I've recieved a witness of the Holy Spirit. Something everyone else who has ever and will ever live could likewise obtain if they are humble, prayerful, and sought the truth.

Man can learn more about Providence in 5 minutes by the Holy Spirit than a life time searching in books. And far more than sitting back and doing absolutely nothing other than arrogantly proclaiming you cant learn anything.

I've recieved a witness of the Holy Spirit. Sure you did Sparky! You people are certifiabled insane. Anywhere but in your church that passes for a trip to the padded room in a state mental institution.

True story.

People who believe in God are certifiably insane? Can you show me that in the DSM-IV?

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've recieved a witness of the Holy Spirit. Sure you did Sparky! You people are certifiabled insane. Anywhere but in your church that passes for a trip to the padded room in a state mental institution.

True story.

People who believe in God are certifiably insane? Can you show me that in the DSM-IV?

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

What you are actually saying is that anyone who does not believe in your utterly unsupported belief must have something wrong with them. Until such time as you have more than just "it's true because I say so" to offer, I think I'll believe what I please.

 

[HUGGY]

People who believe in God are certifiably insane? Can you show me that in the DSM-IV?

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

What you are actually saying is that anyone who does not believe in your utterly unsupported belief must have something wrong with them. Until such time as you have more than just "it's true because I say so" to offer, I think I'll believe what I please.

I supported my claim that people who have hallucinations leading to them seeing and hearing "god" are inflicted with mental disease. Most Christians came to that belief through a bombardment of propaganda from a young age. Socumbing to such peer pressure shows a weakness. Most people go along to get along. It's fairly comon human behavior.

You can believe anything you want.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are free to believe that. I will continue to disagree with you. I think your statement, "Evolution puts most of it's concentration on the physical similarities between humans and apes." indicates a real lack of understanding of the theory.

.... hence all the archeological efforts to come up with "the missing link". If that's not a concentrated effort, why the constant need to find it in order to provide a sense of satisfaction towards the whole theory? I don't see any effort to concentrate on fossils of any other two species being of any more importance to the realm of science?

Because science is constantly looking at a theory. It is constantly questioned and tested. That is the difference between science and religion.

There is no great debate on whether or not evolution is a fact, at least in the scientific community. The debate is on how it works - not if it works. The concept of "the missing link" really is not one which comes from science. It came out of news papers and is used almost exclusively by non-scientists. If you are not seeing any concerted effort, I would suggest that is because you are not looking. There is no reason for you to look, unless that is of real interest to you or your profession. But I would offer to you that this is a subject of considerable interest to the scientific community and there is quite a bit of effort being put into it.

I appreciate you sharing your views on the matter, even if we happen to disagree from different points of view. "There is no reason to look unless there is a real interest" or a greater need to seek an answer beyond what you already know - can also apply to an individual's search for some kind of belief. Obviously from my interpretation of things, I don't put a lot of confidence in evolution as there is so much more yet to be proven ( like a sliver of wood being placed up against the grander scale of an old colonial ship ). That visualization is pretty much how I interpret that scientific theory to be, not that I once didn't have an interest in my youth mind you. However, my own set of experiences has led me to go into a different direction than I once believed. Nevertheless, it is always nice to obtain knowledge from someone who happens to see things a bit different, to see how they come towards their own set of conclusions. Thanks for your input into this discussion.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

What you are actually saying is that anyone who does not believe in your utterly unsupported belief must have something wrong with them. Until such time as you have more than just "it's true because I say so" to offer, I think I'll believe what I please.

I supported my claim that people who have hallucinations leading to them seeing and hearing "god" are inflicted with mental disease. Most Christians came to that belief through a bombardment of propaganda from a young age. Socumbing to such peer pressure shows a weakness. Most people go along to get along. It's fairly comon human behavior.

You can believe anything you want.

No. What you did was cite the DSM and then pretended you were qualified to diagnosis people you have never met, let alone examined. You too can believe anything you want, you should however at least stop pretending it is not belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

.... hence all the archeological efforts to come up with "the missing link". If that's not a concentrated effort, why the constant need to find it in order to provide a sense of satisfaction towards the whole theory? I don't see any effort to concentrate on fossils of any other two species being of any more importance to the realm of science?

Because science is constantly looking at a theory. It is constantly questioned and tested. That is the difference between science and religion.

There is no great debate on whether or not evolution is a fact, at least in the scientific community. The debate is on how it works - not if it works. The concept of "the missing link" really is not one which comes from science. It came out of news papers and is used almost exclusively by non-scientists. If you are not seeing any concerted effort, I would suggest that is because you are not looking. There is no reason for you to look, unless that is of real interest to you or your profession. But I would offer to you that this is a subject of considerable interest to the scientific community and there is quite a bit of effort being put into it.

I appreciate you sharing your views on the matter, even if we happen to disagree from different points of view. "There is no reason to look unless there is a real interest" or a greater need to seek an answer beyond what you already know - can also apply to an individual's search for some kind of belief. Obviously from my interpretation of things, I don't put a lot of confidence in evolution as there is so much more yet to be proven ( like a sliver of wood being placed up against the grander scale of an old colonial ship ). That visualization is pretty much how I interpret that scientific theory to be, not that I once didn't have an interest in my youth mind you. However, my own set of experiences has led me to go into a different direction than I once believed. Nevertheless, it is always nice to obtain knowledge from someone who happens to see things a bit different, to see how they come towards their own set of conclusions. Thanks for your input into this discussion.

We each follow our own hearts and view the world in our own way. To me, it is not really important that you see it my way or that I see it your way. What I do see as important is showing respect for the other person even when things are seen differently. You have definitely done that here and I do appreciate it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I've recieved a witness of the Holy Spirit. Sure you did Sparky! You people are certifiabled insane. Anywhere but in your church that passes for a trip to the padded room in a state mental institution.

True story.

People who believe in God are certifiably insane? Can you show me that in the DSM-IV?

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

That's not entirely true, people with beliefs are always being challenged to adapt as the views of society changes. Case in point would be the Boy Scouts being told they need to adapt and change THEIR set of beliefs to coincide with "society'" interpretative views towards gays. The other would be Chic-fil-a choosing to stand on what they believe, using their right to free speech in doing so. Now anyone can simply follow along with the crowd into doing whatever it is THEY want, there is really no personal conviction in doing so. There is also no strength to be found in following after someone else's interpretation of what is right, simply because the greater mass of society would like to make it so. Ever try forcing yourself to go against the rapids of a turbulent river? Which would require less strength to do, go with the flow that's trying to push it's influences of values upon you, or trying to stand and go against it? Those subject to peer pressure, would be to become tossed and turned like the wind into whatever direction society wants them to follow.

 

[PratchettFan]

People who believe in God are certifiably insane? Can you show me that in the DSM-IV?

That's not what I said is it. People who only "believe" in god are weak and gullible or subject to peer pressure. People who claim to have had a variety of "experiences" AKA hallucinations regarding a personal one on one meeting of some kind with a god are lying or crazy.

That's not entirely true, people with beliefs are always being challenged to adapt as the views of society changes. Case in point would be the Boy Scouts being told they need to adapt and change THEIR set of beliefs to coincide with "society'" interpretative views towards gays. The other would be Chic-fil-a choosing to stand on what they believe, using their right to free speech in doing so. Now anyone can simply follow along with the crowd into doing whatever it is THEY want, there is really no personal conviction in doing so. There is also no strength to be found in following after someone else's interpretation of what is right, simply because the greater mass of society would like to make it so. Ever try forcing yourself to go against the rapids of a turbulent river? Which would require less strength to do, go with the flow that's trying to push it's influences of values upon you, or trying to stand and go against it? Those subject to peer pressure, would be to become tossed and turned like the wind into whatever direction society wants them to follow.

I expect the Boy Scouts changed their rules to more accurately reflect the beliefs of their members.

 

[koshergrl]

1) God doesn't exist
2) God is incompetent
3) God doesn't give a shit

One of the three above statements must be true. Take a scenario that seems unexplainable when it comes to "Why would God do ____________?" Or 'Why would God allow _______"?

Children dying of cancer
Women being raped
Mass Genocide
The Holocaust
etc...

None of these events make any sense and would leave any sane person wondering how God plays a part in those events occurring. The answer is one of the above three options.

So which do you think is correct? 1, 2, 3?

Bait post/troll thread.

The answer is not one of the above three options.