Displaying Page 3 of 70
Arsonist Posted: 19:29 Oct25 2007
Post ID: 1969773
Arsonist
Posts: 66
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
I actually wasn't meaning to get back to the it cannot be proven side of the debate. My apologies if I made it seem that way. I was just expressing that the Big Bang Theory does not necessarily represent 100% of scientific minds. Some believe in a perpetual universe that always has and always will exist, which is no less possible than a perpetual God that always has and always will exist. I'm just pointing out that, as far as I'm concerned, religion and science are equally questionable in terms of origin and creation. Someone can always ask "What was there before that?" And if religion can answer with "There is no 'before' that, it has always been" in reference to God, science should be allowed to do it in reference to the universe.
And as for randomness of evolution... well, I've had the discussion many times. Let me ask you something. If I were to roll one million different dice out of a gigantic cup, what are the chances that all of them would land on 6? I'm sure we can agree that the chances would be slim to none. I'm not interested in trying to find the exact probably, but sufficed to say, betting on it would not be wise. In fact, betting on any one arrangement would be unwise, because you'd be counting on one million variables to do exactly what you want them to do. Gamblers beware.
Now, another question. Rolling that many dice, what are the chances that you would get a result? I don't mean one specific result, I just mean any result. At all. In case you're confused, there is a 100% probability that you will get a result of some kind. Might not be a planned result, but when you roll the dice, they'll land. You'll get a result. That's a fact that I'm sure any sensible person such as yourself can agree with. Roll the dice, get a random result. Simple as that.
Basically, no matter how many possibilities there are, only one of them actually WILL happen, and which one does is completely up to chance.
The moral of this story is that something complex doesn't have to be planned for it to happen. You don't have to plan the result of that dice roll to get a result. Out existence didn't have to be planned for it to come about. It's entirely possible, although admittedly not comforting, that we are simply the lucky possibility that happened.
And I know that this doesn't 'prove' evolution, I'm just hoping to clarify that it is possible.
« Last edited by Arsonist on Oct 25th 2007 »
And as for randomness of evolution... well, I've had the discussion many times. Let me ask you something. If I were to roll one million different dice out of a gigantic cup, what are the chances that all of them would land on 6? I'm sure we can agree that the chances would be slim to none. I'm not interested in trying to find the exact probably, but sufficed to say, betting on it would not be wise. In fact, betting on any one arrangement would be unwise, because you'd be counting on one million variables to do exactly what you want them to do. Gamblers beware.
Now, another question. Rolling that many dice, what are the chances that you would get a result? I don't mean one specific result, I just mean any result. At all. In case you're confused, there is a 100% probability that you will get a result of some kind. Might not be a planned result, but when you roll the dice, they'll land. You'll get a result. That's a fact that I'm sure any sensible person such as yourself can agree with. Roll the dice, get a random result. Simple as that.
Basically, no matter how many possibilities there are, only one of them actually WILL happen, and which one does is completely up to chance.
The moral of this story is that something complex doesn't have to be planned for it to happen. You don't have to plan the result of that dice roll to get a result. Out existence didn't have to be planned for it to come about. It's entirely possible, although admittedly not comforting, that we are simply the lucky possibility that happened.
And I know that this doesn't 'prove' evolution, I'm just hoping to clarify that it is possible.
« Last edited by Arsonist on Oct 25th 2007 »
Catharsis Posted: 13:29 Oct30 2007
Post ID: 1975646
Catharsis
One thought fills immensity.
Posts: 3,481
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
"I can't believe that that was just random. I think their was a plan to all of this."
Let's say you have a random letter generator that produces a random string of nine characters. You use it once, and the string of characters produced is "Mmfsgrlej". You try it again and it produces the result "President".
No doubt you would be highly impressed with "President", but why should you be? It is, after all, equally as likely to be produced as "Mmfsgrlej", but that result didn't impress you very much. The reason you found it impressive, however, is that you attach meaning to the string "President", but not "Mmfsgrlej".
Similarly, what you see before you now is one of many possible outcomes, highly improbable, but it is one that you attach particular significance to. There may be other outcomes, even if they do not hold the same significance for you. If our planet was covered in luminous pink mould and nothing else, I doubt anyone would claim that there was a plan behind it, even though it may have been an equally likely outcome to the life that exists currently.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
Let's say you have a random letter generator that produces a random string of nine characters. You use it once, and the string of characters produced is "Mmfsgrlej". You try it again and it produces the result "President".
No doubt you would be highly impressed with "President", but why should you be? It is, after all, equally as likely to be produced as "Mmfsgrlej", but that result didn't impress you very much. The reason you found it impressive, however, is that you attach meaning to the string "President", but not "Mmfsgrlej".
Similarly, what you see before you now is one of many possible outcomes, highly improbable, but it is one that you attach particular significance to. There may be other outcomes, even if they do not hold the same significance for you. If our planet was covered in luminous pink mould and nothing else, I doubt anyone would claim that there was a plan behind it, even though it may have been an equally likely outcome to the life that exists currently.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
Cataclysm Posted: 07:21 Nov01 2007
Post ID: 1977386
Cataclysm
Posts: 6,403
Post Likes: 2
Post Likes: 2
In response to all of this, I would like to quote the explanation of what I have been lead to believe. I now present to you the "God is Dead" theory that many of you may have already heard of.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
"God is dead" is not meant literally, as in "God is now physically dead"; rather, it is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident.... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands." This is why in "The Madman", the madman addresses the atheists primarily ? the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order. (He also goes to the churches to point out the death of God is an oft-forgotten part of the Christian creed, that Holy Saturday comes between the cross and Easter, that the experience of God's absence is essential to Christian life.)
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves ? to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which he felt most Christians refuse to look.
Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself?anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality?that there is no "foundation" to build on. He therefore describes himself as "a 'subterranean man' at work, one who tunnels and mines and undermines."
New possibilities
Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative ? a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.
Nietzsche uses the metaphor of an open sea, which can be both exhilarating and terrifying. The people who eventually learn to create their lives anew will represent a new stage in human existence, the �bermensch ?i.e. the personal archetype who, through the conquest of their own nihilism, themselves become a mythical hero. The 'death of God' is the motivation for Nietzsche's last (uncompleted) philosophical project, the 'revaluation of all values'.
My dedcution of this, has caused me to believe that there was once a being that was the origin of us all, and created us. But to this day, there has been no higher entity guiding our actions or even choosing our liberties. As humans we are lost in a world without morality, where right and wrong has been forged by beliefs that have no base or logical explanation to support them.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
"God is dead" is not meant literally, as in "God is now physically dead"; rather, it is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident.... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands." This is why in "The Madman", the madman addresses the atheists primarily ? the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order. (He also goes to the churches to point out the death of God is an oft-forgotten part of the Christian creed, that Holy Saturday comes between the cross and Easter, that the experience of God's absence is essential to Christian life.)
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves ? to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which he felt most Christians refuse to look.
Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself?anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality?that there is no "foundation" to build on. He therefore describes himself as "a 'subterranean man' at work, one who tunnels and mines and undermines."
New possibilities
Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative ? a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.
Nietzsche uses the metaphor of an open sea, which can be both exhilarating and terrifying. The people who eventually learn to create their lives anew will represent a new stage in human existence, the �bermensch ?i.e. the personal archetype who, through the conquest of their own nihilism, themselves become a mythical hero. The 'death of God' is the motivation for Nietzsche's last (uncompleted) philosophical project, the 'revaluation of all values'.
My dedcution of this, has caused me to believe that there was once a being that was the origin of us all, and created us. But to this day, there has been no higher entity guiding our actions or even choosing our liberties. As humans we are lost in a world without morality, where right and wrong has been forged by beliefs that have no base or logical explanation to support them.
Fwank Posted: 07:44 Nov02 2007
Post ID: 1978478
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
coachcline - "of course he's real"
sworder1 - "I don't see enough reason to believe in god"
We want objective, rational, unbiased argument that logically derived from a series of information and relevant factors; not your subjective opinion that doesn't actually matter.
If you're not going to read the thread, do the homework, and argue the case intelligently, I melt your posts.
Both posts deleted; there is no tolerance for failure to comply with the rules of D&D, and I'm prepared to be a jerk about it if you guys aren't prepared to contribute wisely.
...
And I'm also deleting tom's response to coachcline because it doesn't make sense now that coachcline's post is gone... sorry tom...
sworder1 - "I don't see enough reason to believe in god"
We want objective, rational, unbiased argument that logically derived from a series of information and relevant factors; not your subjective opinion that doesn't actually matter.
If you're not going to read the thread, do the homework, and argue the case intelligently, I melt your posts.
Both posts deleted; there is no tolerance for failure to comply with the rules of D&D, and I'm prepared to be a jerk about it if you guys aren't prepared to contribute wisely.
...
And I'm also deleting tom's response to coachcline because it doesn't make sense now that coachcline's post is gone... sorry tom...
Arsonist Posted: 06:05 Nov08 2007
Post ID: 1985945
Arsonist
Posts: 66
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
@Draven73:
Please, in the future, try to space out the message into paragraphs. It's just really hard for me to quote you on anything when I have to read through all of it. But anyway, I'll do my best.
"the child is born in to sin but not sin against the father and will be taken with God to his kingdom"
Can I ask you to explain that for me? Adam and Eve sinned by succumbing to the temptations of Satan in direct disobedience to the Lord. I'd say that would qualify as a sin against the father. If you acknowledge that the child is born into sin, how can you not acknowledge that the sin is against the father?
But in any case, whether it is a sin against the father or not, I do not see how that is relevant. According to the Bible, God is perfectly Holy, and the whole purpose of heaven is that nothing sinful can be introduced to the Lord's Kingdom. The baby, until it is baptized, is sinful by original sin. I do not see how, by Christian belief, a sinful creature can be introduced to God's Kingdom without having atoned.
"As for the man in the war dying at 20 is flawed in your eyes but the bible says you have a choice of free will and that goes for his parents also you can't blame your parents for the choices you make"
I'm going to refer you to Exodus 20:5.
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"
The atheist parents never atoned for their sins, and therefore, were sinful. Point being, the guy is going to suffer for his parents' sins no matter what he does, according to your Bible.
"I know Ghandi was a good man but the bible does say do not worship false idols there is only one god I am sorry but you either believe all the way or it really is a waste of time."
Fair enough. What you must understand is that you have just admitted that a good man will burn in hell, which was essentially what I was pointing out to begin with. Personally, I do not think it is fair that good men who haven't done anything wrong in the world are doomed to an eternity of hellfire.
"the bible is great reading and the most published book ever in history now if you never really read the bible only listened to what people tell you then its just as bad and allowing me to sway your beliefs. I say read it yourself and make a CHOICE ask god to speak to you and help you to understand what is true and what is not."
I've read most of it. Not all, admittedly, but most of it. Personally, I didn't find it all that exhilerating. But, in any case, I did ask God to speak to me. On more than one occasion. I'm one of those atheists who has tried prayer and never percieved any answer. If you want to argue that I did get an answer but just didn't realize it because I didn't have faith, well, fair enough. But it doesn't change the fact that I've asked.
« Last edited by Arsonist on Nov 8th 2007 »
Please, in the future, try to space out the message into paragraphs. It's just really hard for me to quote you on anything when I have to read through all of it. But anyway, I'll do my best.
"the child is born in to sin but not sin against the father and will be taken with God to his kingdom"
Can I ask you to explain that for me? Adam and Eve sinned by succumbing to the temptations of Satan in direct disobedience to the Lord. I'd say that would qualify as a sin against the father. If you acknowledge that the child is born into sin, how can you not acknowledge that the sin is against the father?
But in any case, whether it is a sin against the father or not, I do not see how that is relevant. According to the Bible, God is perfectly Holy, and the whole purpose of heaven is that nothing sinful can be introduced to the Lord's Kingdom. The baby, until it is baptized, is sinful by original sin. I do not see how, by Christian belief, a sinful creature can be introduced to God's Kingdom without having atoned.
"As for the man in the war dying at 20 is flawed in your eyes but the bible says you have a choice of free will and that goes for his parents also you can't blame your parents for the choices you make"
I'm going to refer you to Exodus 20:5.
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"
The atheist parents never atoned for their sins, and therefore, were sinful. Point being, the guy is going to suffer for his parents' sins no matter what he does, according to your Bible.
"I know Ghandi was a good man but the bible does say do not worship false idols there is only one god I am sorry but you either believe all the way or it really is a waste of time."
Fair enough. What you must understand is that you have just admitted that a good man will burn in hell, which was essentially what I was pointing out to begin with. Personally, I do not think it is fair that good men who haven't done anything wrong in the world are doomed to an eternity of hellfire.
"the bible is great reading and the most published book ever in history now if you never really read the bible only listened to what people tell you then its just as bad and allowing me to sway your beliefs. I say read it yourself and make a CHOICE ask god to speak to you and help you to understand what is true and what is not."
I've read most of it. Not all, admittedly, but most of it. Personally, I didn't find it all that exhilerating. But, in any case, I did ask God to speak to me. On more than one occasion. I'm one of those atheists who has tried prayer and never percieved any answer. If you want to argue that I did get an answer but just didn't realize it because I didn't have faith, well, fair enough. But it doesn't change the fact that I've asked.
« Last edited by Arsonist on Nov 8th 2007 »
Fwank Posted: 09:35 Nov08 2007
Post ID: 1986020
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
draven73: next time, proof read what you've written and space them out, part of trying to be persuasive/argumentative lies in presentation, and if you can't even be bothered making your points readable, I shouldn't be bothered reading it either. Post deleted and re-posted here.
[b]
[i]Note: The following was originally posted by draven73, I've added paragraphs, and corrected maybe two spelling mistakes until I realized the entire post is laced with them, so I stopped after the first sentence.[/b][/i]
Arsonist
I would like to say first and foremost that was a great post and I really apprieciate your comments and it was very insightful and your obvious a very intelligent individual.
I would like to also note that you have alot of questions and concerns the existence of GOD? being a athiest and not believing there is an obvious doubt that there might be a chance he exist in one way or another.
Now to answer some of your theorys or questions please allow me to share my experience and knowledge in the matter:
- For the dying mother and infant in revelations (bible) it talks about the rapture where the lord comes back to claim his children (newborn and born again also children who do not know god that are not able to make a choice) it also talkes about a second coming for those who did not get a chance to accept god and savior check it out it is great reading) the child is born in to sin but not sin against the father and will be taken with God to his kingdom there are so many stories in the bible that are just unexplainable and yes required faith as a untimate admission to its truth.
- As for the man in the war dying at 20 is flawed in your eyes but the bible says you have a choice of free will and that goes for his parents also you can't blame your parents for the choices you make. A man has the ability to make right choices everyday. I am sure given the oppurtunity to do right or wrong you have a choice no one explains whether which is which but there is a feeling of wrong doing and rightousness. I could dig deep but i am sure you get the picture.
Unfortuanatly many people don't get to hear the news of how wonderful GOD truly is and that is why i believe we are having this discussion. But at the same time why is it a big deal right well if there was some slight chance that the bible is all true would'nt you want someone to tell you and be able to make that choice for your self as the 20 year old in your theory could have made.
Now for the next question yes you are born into sin as the bible states for the mistakes Adam and Eve made but God gave his only son to sacrifice for our sins and there our salvation lies with him. Now just as anyone else in the world. you have a choice do you believe that only through Jesus is the only way to God to recieve him as your lord and saviour? I know it is alot to ask for but all you have to do is believe he died for our sins rose again and you will be born again a new creature living your life for God. Now you say what does that really mean or consist of no less than dedicating your life to pursue Jesus. Yeah I know you would give up everything for him.
Sound terrible but really it is not. lets say hypothetically everyone in your family alone just your family brother sister mom dad aunt uncle cousin etc. If all of them gave thier life to Christ what kind of family would you really have? A mother and father loving and understanding, but firm in beliefs ,disliplined and forgiving but strong, happy right? well yes and no ,not to say everything is perfect for christians somtimes it even harder because it rains on our heads just as it does to someone that does not believe. the difference is that we choose not to lean on ourselves to do things alone because we just can do it but to lean on God for help.
Now realistically humans were built for relationships with everyone meaning family, friends, co workers etc and even oursleves but we are also built to have relationships with God now i am not saying we need to be freinds with everyone and anyone but some how you will need human contact at one point in your life or you will go crazy. I just know it is unavoidable, and as for the relationship with yourself there are many people in the world who are just negative about everything especially themselves and that is a problem to everyone around them. I mean how can you love someone else if you can't even love yourself as commanded by god, Love those as you love yourself.
Assuming you have a great relationship with yourself. think of when you just did horrible on a test and know you could have done better and your just kicking yourself in the butt, at that moment if you were to walk in a room you would not be very enjoyable or uplifting to anyone at the moment so showing love to someone that just got a 100 would be hard but if you love yourself and knew you did all you could have it would not be to bad.
I know Ghandi was a good man but the bible does say do not worship false idols there is only one god I am sorry but you either believe all the way or it really is a waste of time. I am not saying just because i believe in God and accept him as my lord and saviour i will go to heaven that just gets me the ticket on the bus i still must live my life according to his word i can't just say it and it happens my life must reflect the love of Jesus.
Now is it hard yes because temptation is eveywhere is it worth it absolutly positivly worth it and i would never change it ever. Do I sin? Everyday i try not too but some days are better than others but i have to remember i need Jesus's help. Now as of an intelligent debat about does GOD exist well I believe you have the answer for that already. God can only truly exist if you believe. the bible is great reading and the most published book ever in history now if you never really read the bible only listened to what people tell you then its just as bad and allowing me to sway your beliefs. I say read it yourself and make a CHOICE ask god to speak to you and help you to understand what is true and what is not.
Seriously what bad could really come of it really. We as people try to explain everything using science like theories which are basically theories. Science is only fact until they find the Flaw. (carbon dating was sooo fact until they found a flaw) All i am saying is that we have scientist that can only explain certain things they can prove so then it is true but God is something we as christians can't explain nor can scientist prove it is not to be true.
Well I serve a God who is so wonderful and so amazing that if I could understand him and explain his existence just by my simple intelligence then he must not be that great of a GOD. So If having a intelligent debate about the existence of God is not possible I can believe that. God bless and hope you find your answers your looking for
from and God Loving and God Fearing man not a religous man.
Make God a relationship not a religion. I am just a Christ follower no more no less
Edit:
You guys need to stop spoiling the bible for me: I still haven't read it yet D=
« Last edited by Fwank on Nov 8th 2007 »
[b]
[i]Note: The following was originally posted by draven73, I've added paragraphs, and corrected maybe two spelling mistakes until I realized the entire post is laced with them, so I stopped after the first sentence.[/b][/i]
Arsonist
I would like to say first and foremost that was a great post and I really apprieciate your comments and it was very insightful and your obvious a very intelligent individual.
I would like to also note that you have alot of questions and concerns the existence of GOD? being a athiest and not believing there is an obvious doubt that there might be a chance he exist in one way or another.
Now to answer some of your theorys or questions please allow me to share my experience and knowledge in the matter:
- For the dying mother and infant in revelations (bible) it talks about the rapture where the lord comes back to claim his children (newborn and born again also children who do not know god that are not able to make a choice) it also talkes about a second coming for those who did not get a chance to accept god and savior check it out it is great reading) the child is born in to sin but not sin against the father and will be taken with God to his kingdom there are so many stories in the bible that are just unexplainable and yes required faith as a untimate admission to its truth.
- As for the man in the war dying at 20 is flawed in your eyes but the bible says you have a choice of free will and that goes for his parents also you can't blame your parents for the choices you make. A man has the ability to make right choices everyday. I am sure given the oppurtunity to do right or wrong you have a choice no one explains whether which is which but there is a feeling of wrong doing and rightousness. I could dig deep but i am sure you get the picture.
Unfortuanatly many people don't get to hear the news of how wonderful GOD truly is and that is why i believe we are having this discussion. But at the same time why is it a big deal right well if there was some slight chance that the bible is all true would'nt you want someone to tell you and be able to make that choice for your self as the 20 year old in your theory could have made.
Now for the next question yes you are born into sin as the bible states for the mistakes Adam and Eve made but God gave his only son to sacrifice for our sins and there our salvation lies with him. Now just as anyone else in the world. you have a choice do you believe that only through Jesus is the only way to God to recieve him as your lord and saviour? I know it is alot to ask for but all you have to do is believe he died for our sins rose again and you will be born again a new creature living your life for God. Now you say what does that really mean or consist of no less than dedicating your life to pursue Jesus. Yeah I know you would give up everything for him.
Sound terrible but really it is not. lets say hypothetically everyone in your family alone just your family brother sister mom dad aunt uncle cousin etc. If all of them gave thier life to Christ what kind of family would you really have? A mother and father loving and understanding, but firm in beliefs ,disliplined and forgiving but strong, happy right? well yes and no ,not to say everything is perfect for christians somtimes it even harder because it rains on our heads just as it does to someone that does not believe. the difference is that we choose not to lean on ourselves to do things alone because we just can do it but to lean on God for help.
Now realistically humans were built for relationships with everyone meaning family, friends, co workers etc and even oursleves but we are also built to have relationships with God now i am not saying we need to be freinds with everyone and anyone but some how you will need human contact at one point in your life or you will go crazy. I just know it is unavoidable, and as for the relationship with yourself there are many people in the world who are just negative about everything especially themselves and that is a problem to everyone around them. I mean how can you love someone else if you can't even love yourself as commanded by god, Love those as you love yourself.
Assuming you have a great relationship with yourself. think of when you just did horrible on a test and know you could have done better and your just kicking yourself in the butt, at that moment if you were to walk in a room you would not be very enjoyable or uplifting to anyone at the moment so showing love to someone that just got a 100 would be hard but if you love yourself and knew you did all you could have it would not be to bad.
I know Ghandi was a good man but the bible does say do not worship false idols there is only one god I am sorry but you either believe all the way or it really is a waste of time. I am not saying just because i believe in God and accept him as my lord and saviour i will go to heaven that just gets me the ticket on the bus i still must live my life according to his word i can't just say it and it happens my life must reflect the love of Jesus.
Now is it hard yes because temptation is eveywhere is it worth it absolutly positivly worth it and i would never change it ever. Do I sin? Everyday i try not too but some days are better than others but i have to remember i need Jesus's help. Now as of an intelligent debat about does GOD exist well I believe you have the answer for that already. God can only truly exist if you believe. the bible is great reading and the most published book ever in history now if you never really read the bible only listened to what people tell you then its just as bad and allowing me to sway your beliefs. I say read it yourself and make a CHOICE ask god to speak to you and help you to understand what is true and what is not.
Seriously what bad could really come of it really. We as people try to explain everything using science like theories which are basically theories. Science is only fact until they find the Flaw. (carbon dating was sooo fact until they found a flaw) All i am saying is that we have scientist that can only explain certain things they can prove so then it is true but God is something we as christians can't explain nor can scientist prove it is not to be true.
Well I serve a God who is so wonderful and so amazing that if I could understand him and explain his existence just by my simple intelligence then he must not be that great of a GOD. So If having a intelligent debate about the existence of God is not possible I can believe that. God bless and hope you find your answers your looking for
from and God Loving and God Fearing man not a religous man.
Make God a relationship not a religion. I am just a Christ follower no more no less
Edit:
You guys need to stop spoiling the bible for me: I still haven't read it yet D=
« Last edited by Fwank on Nov 8th 2007 »
jrich49676 Posted: 00:30 Nov16 2007
Post ID: 1994377
jrich49676
Posts: 941
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
ahh jesus..lol...i could go on for a while, but there is a god, or first cause, just like the 2 year old that asks why, im going to ask what happened before that?----dinosaurs, earth, planets, big boom...and before??how did it come to be?there is a being outside of time...lets put it this way, first cause characteristics-outside of time, creator, and not depended on on its creation...the reason i say outside of time is because the creator cant have been created, so its always been there, no not what happened before because no time...so god is just an easier way of saying first cause...people say that all of this isnt real and is fake....if you believe that, then tell me this...how are you thinking?to think is to live in a way....and if you can think, then who made you think?
and at somebody who mentioned something on another page, if non christian, islamic, or newish people dont live a good life, they should go to hell...god might say this to Buddhist..."you have lived a good life, come in and grab a margarita buddy"...if Christians are right, the other religions are subject to a thing called invincable ignorance-not to have had a chance to know better, like in hinduism if a girl in the family gets raped, the family sometimes kills her, for it has brought shame on her family...that is how they are brought up so they dont know anybetter
ok, im going to ask my theology teacher about this more cause i had a class on this subject last trimester.....
RIP Marvee Johnson March 26, 1986-September 2, 2007
and at somebody who mentioned something on another page, if non christian, islamic, or newish people dont live a good life, they should go to hell...god might say this to Buddhist..."you have lived a good life, come in and grab a margarita buddy"...if Christians are right, the other religions are subject to a thing called invincable ignorance-not to have had a chance to know better, like in hinduism if a girl in the family gets raped, the family sometimes kills her, for it has brought shame on her family...that is how they are brought up so they dont know anybetter
ok, im going to ask my theology teacher about this more cause i had a class on this subject last trimester.....
RIP Marvee Johnson March 26, 1986-September 2, 2007
Arsonist Posted: 17:00 Nov16 2007
Post ID: 1995011
Arsonist
Posts: 66
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
jrich49676:
Okay, so this God that exists outside of time is obviously beyond the realm of understanding of mortal men. We cannot comprehend something that has always been and never wasn't. We can believe that it exists, but no one can rationally explain a way for something to simply exist without ever having begun. I'm fine with that. Your God is beyond my realm of understanding. Fair enough.
But what bothers me is, you deny that as a possibility for our universe. If one thing can exist without beginning (God), how can you deny the possibility that something else could exist without beginning (the universe)? You're applying rules in one place but not in another. You continuously ask what was before that, but when somebody asks you that, you just say there wasn't a before. Allow me to do that for my side as well. There was no before the universe.
"dinosaurs, earth, planets, big boom...and before??how did it come to be?"
It didn't come to be. It always was. How does that work, you ask? I have no idea, it is outside of my realm of understanding at this point, just as your God is.
Please, please, please explain to me why a God without beginning or end is any more possible than simply a universe without beginning or end.
And as for your second paragraphs... can you cite me a Biblical quotation that discusses this 'invincible ignorance' concept? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd honestly like to see it. Because, to me, it seems that the whole concept behind sin is that unforgiven sinners cannot get into heaven. And I'm fairly certain that worshipping a false God (as other religions do) qualifies as sin, seeing as how it's forbidden by the first commandment...
Okay, so this God that exists outside of time is obviously beyond the realm of understanding of mortal men. We cannot comprehend something that has always been and never wasn't. We can believe that it exists, but no one can rationally explain a way for something to simply exist without ever having begun. I'm fine with that. Your God is beyond my realm of understanding. Fair enough.
But what bothers me is, you deny that as a possibility for our universe. If one thing can exist without beginning (God), how can you deny the possibility that something else could exist without beginning (the universe)? You're applying rules in one place but not in another. You continuously ask what was before that, but when somebody asks you that, you just say there wasn't a before. Allow me to do that for my side as well. There was no before the universe.
"dinosaurs, earth, planets, big boom...and before??how did it come to be?"
It didn't come to be. It always was. How does that work, you ask? I have no idea, it is outside of my realm of understanding at this point, just as your God is.
Please, please, please explain to me why a God without beginning or end is any more possible than simply a universe without beginning or end.
And as for your second paragraphs... can you cite me a Biblical quotation that discusses this 'invincible ignorance' concept? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd honestly like to see it. Because, to me, it seems that the whole concept behind sin is that unforgiven sinners cannot get into heaven. And I'm fairly certain that worshipping a false God (as other religions do) qualifies as sin, seeing as how it's forbidden by the first commandment...
marielue5 Posted: 20:14 Nov16 2007
Post ID: 1995244
marielue5
Posts: 4,745
Post Likes: 1
Post Likes: 1
i know that there is a God looking around is proof of it you cant tell me that a big bang happend and the earth was formed just in the right spot it should be which is 93000000 miles away from the sun a little closer and we would all burn a liitle farther we would all freeze saying that the earth formed on its own is kind of hard to discribe how absured saying that is i will try to give you a example it would be almost like saying that you believe a piece of a watch came from japan another piece came from another country state or were ever until a ton of little pieces formed a watch in ohio perfectly working how absured does that sound? i mean think about it please think about it its the most important thing you will ever ask and i also believe that jesus christ is God i believe he died on the cross for all of are sins to save us and i know that all of you are searching for a logical awnser to this qaustion but the truth is you will never find one faith is the only awnser you will find you ask me what do i base my belief about God being jesus on? my awnser to you would be that i base it on faith after all i believe it takes more faith to believe the theory i said earlier then to believe in God wouldnt you say?
to all the people that read this post dont take is offensive if you believe the stuff i said wasnt real this is just my opinion and im trying to help everyone here find out who God is so please dont take it persanal
edit:saying there is no God is also giving up all laws what i mean by that is i could go out and kill someone and it wouldnt be wrong you ask me are you saying if there is no God then its alright to kill someone and i say to you yes why wouldnt it be without God there is no right or wrong without God there is no hope
« Last edited by marielue5 on Nov 16th 2007 »
to all the people that read this post dont take is offensive if you believe the stuff i said wasnt real this is just my opinion and im trying to help everyone here find out who God is so please dont take it persanal
edit:saying there is no God is also giving up all laws what i mean by that is i could go out and kill someone and it wouldnt be wrong you ask me are you saying if there is no God then its alright to kill someone and i say to you yes why wouldnt it be without God there is no right or wrong without God there is no hope
« Last edited by marielue5 on Nov 16th 2007 »
Pokemon DS record since return to sc 29-3
fc 0301-9016-8239
fc 0301-9016-8239
Fwank Posted: 09:23 Nov17 2007
Post ID: 1995858
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
Next time try adding some punctuation and paragraphs, along with capitalizing the first letter of each sentence, and make sure that it is grammatically sound and easy on the eyes. Do take note I delete and re-posted somebody's post just because it was horribly presented, much like yours. Next time, I'll delete your posts straight off the bat if it doesn't actually offer any new insight to the argument and/or it is horribly written; there's a standard, try to keep up.
Oh, by the way guys, make sure you've read the guidelines; if you rekindle the debate without any new points made, I'm just going to delete them; this has nothing to do with religion, I just don't enjoy people repeating something that has been said already.
As for your arguments, marielue5:
While I cannot argue how things came to be, I can say for certain that whether or not God did create the Earth or the entire universe is irrelevant towards its existence; similar to your analogy, the existence of a watch does not immediately prove the existence of the various factors involved in creating it. Something happened, and as a result, a watch was formed. Something happened, and as a result, the Earth was created.
However, your argument supports the idea that "Man was created in God's image"... erm, but I'm not prepared to elaborate that at this point, kudos on the analogy though, even if whoever you heard it from didn't actually tell you it proves nothing (unless you know about the things I'm not willing to elaborate at this point, heh)
Anyway.
The only other significant point you've brought up is that the existence of God can provide our actions with a sense of right/wrong; this is largely ignorant of the fact that whether or not something is right or wrong doesn't conflict with the fact that it causes consequences.
Not deviating from the fact that the perception of right or wrong is subjecting rather than objective, but God doesn't really have to exist for people, who are social animals, to realize that order must be kept in order to survive; survival instincts, in this case, is usually regarded as "right" in most cases.
Back on "consequences" however; whether or not something is "right" or "wrong" doesn't deny it's "consequence".
From your own example, even if killing somebody was "right", there could still be negative consequences.
Not to mention had there been no morality, people wouldn't considering you murdering another individual to be anything "bad" or out of question to begin with... but that's given if God didn't exist, morality doesn't exist.
Without explaining further, I should also point out that laws are usually made by people for the betterment of society as a whole by protecting the weak and (usually) the innocent (in general). It doesn't necessarily have to be influenced by God... wait, why are we even assuming if God didn't exist, morality wouldn't exist? As far as the history of mankind has been concerned, humans were always born amoral; it's their up bringing that gives them their sense of right and wrong, and ultimately their judgment.
I know this stems into God's existence as a figure and/or idea (being the most widely accepted explanation; God being a creation of man... not literally, but at the least it isn't a sentient existence) but, I'm fairly certain most of you who argue the existence of God are trying to argue it's existence as a separate, sentient being... so I'll throw that possibility out later.
Oh, by the way guys, make sure you've read the guidelines; if you rekindle the debate without any new points made, I'm just going to delete them; this has nothing to do with religion, I just don't enjoy people repeating something that has been said already.
As for your arguments, marielue5:
While I cannot argue how things came to be, I can say for certain that whether or not God did create the Earth or the entire universe is irrelevant towards its existence; similar to your analogy, the existence of a watch does not immediately prove the existence of the various factors involved in creating it. Something happened, and as a result, a watch was formed. Something happened, and as a result, the Earth was created.
However, your argument supports the idea that "Man was created in God's image"... erm, but I'm not prepared to elaborate that at this point, kudos on the analogy though, even if whoever you heard it from didn't actually tell you it proves nothing (unless you know about the things I'm not willing to elaborate at this point, heh)
Anyway.
The only other significant point you've brought up is that the existence of God can provide our actions with a sense of right/wrong; this is largely ignorant of the fact that whether or not something is right or wrong doesn't conflict with the fact that it causes consequences.
Not deviating from the fact that the perception of right or wrong is subjecting rather than objective, but God doesn't really have to exist for people, who are social animals, to realize that order must be kept in order to survive; survival instincts, in this case, is usually regarded as "right" in most cases.
Back on "consequences" however; whether or not something is "right" or "wrong" doesn't deny it's "consequence".
From your own example, even if killing somebody was "right", there could still be negative consequences.
Not to mention had there been no morality, people wouldn't considering you murdering another individual to be anything "bad" or out of question to begin with... but that's given if God didn't exist, morality doesn't exist.
Without explaining further, I should also point out that laws are usually made by people for the betterment of society as a whole by protecting the weak and (usually) the innocent (in general). It doesn't necessarily have to be influenced by God... wait, why are we even assuming if God didn't exist, morality wouldn't exist? As far as the history of mankind has been concerned, humans were always born amoral; it's their up bringing that gives them their sense of right and wrong, and ultimately their judgment.
I know this stems into God's existence as a figure and/or idea (being the most widely accepted explanation; God being a creation of man... not literally, but at the least it isn't a sentient existence) but, I'm fairly certain most of you who argue the existence of God are trying to argue it's existence as a separate, sentient being... so I'll throw that possibility out later.
Arsonist Posted: 10:24 Nov17 2007
Post ID: 1995930
Arsonist
Posts: 66
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
You refer to the possibility that Earth was placed in this spot randomly as absurd. I obviously cannot prove that the Earth was placed here randomly, but I can demonstrate why the possibility is not absurd. Accept, for just a second, that the planets and stars - every celestial body in all of existence, Earth included - were placed randomly, without rhyme or reason. You don't actually have to believe that it happened that way, but for the sake of discussion, we're assuming it did. With that as an accepted pretense, we can explore the possible ways for it to make sense.
So, we have this universe full of stars and planets that were placed randomly. How they got there is immaterial. Maybe the big bang scattered the stars across existence randomly, maybe the stars have just always existed in their places, maybe God was playing marbles. Whatever. Point is, for purposes of discussion, we are assuming they were dispersed without any plan of where they would end up.
Now, let's consider life. The tendency of all living things is to grow. Unless something is hindering growth - be it gravity, physical limitations, unstable conditions, or other - things will grow freely. So let's pretend for just a second that in our solar system, life tried to grow on each of the planets. So this life that started as single-celled organisms and such is trying to grow everywhere. Again, whether you believe that or not isn't the point I'm trying to make, I'm just exploring it as a possibility, so bear with me. With life trying to grow everywhere, it will only succeed where there is little hindering growth. That is, organisms are likely to grow more successfully in fertile soil than in charred and hardened rock.
This being accepted, doesn't it make perfect sense that life would grow more successfully here on Earth than on the other planets in our solar system? Going exactly by your point, life closer to the sun would be hindered by heat, and life further from the sun would be hindered by lackthereof. Basically, if humanity tried to grow everywhere in our solar system, it would only succeed on this planet. There's nothing random about that. Life evolved where it could and died out where there was nothing to sustain it.
In summary, I'm going to propose a simply theory: life tried to evolve everywhere, but it only succeeded where success was possible. Does that really sound so absurd to you?
And as for your last paragraph, you are, to put it very bluntly, incorrect. I do not believe in God, but I also do not believe that it is fine to kill people. That fact, in and of itself, disproves your entire point. Saying there is no God does not eliminate morality, it eliminates the need to look to a higher power and, therein, allows us to decide for ourselves what is and is not morally 'right.' It takes away our ability to say "murder is wrong because God said so" and allows us to say things like "murder is wrong because humanity cannot exist without interaction between one another, and destroying a human life hinders this interaction. Therefore, in the interest of our future as humans, murder should not be committed."
Similar can be said of hope. Sure, without God we cannot say "there is good in our future, and I know this because God rewards us for living a good life." Instead, we could say "there is good in our future. If all of us continue to live in a way that is beneficial for our society, there will be nothing to prevent that goodness from proceeding into the future." See how easy that was to work around the need for a God? Both statements express the same thing: good life now will lead to good reward later.
Essentially, without God, there can still be morality and hope. It just won't be divine anymore.
@Fwank:
"I just don't enjoy people repeating something that has been said already."
I do apologize if I am contributing to the problem. The way I see it, if someone brings up something that has already been covered, it may mean that it was not covered well enough, so I try to cover it in a different way with the hope of clarification.
So, we have this universe full of stars and planets that were placed randomly. How they got there is immaterial. Maybe the big bang scattered the stars across existence randomly, maybe the stars have just always existed in their places, maybe God was playing marbles. Whatever. Point is, for purposes of discussion, we are assuming they were dispersed without any plan of where they would end up.
Now, let's consider life. The tendency of all living things is to grow. Unless something is hindering growth - be it gravity, physical limitations, unstable conditions, or other - things will grow freely. So let's pretend for just a second that in our solar system, life tried to grow on each of the planets. So this life that started as single-celled organisms and such is trying to grow everywhere. Again, whether you believe that or not isn't the point I'm trying to make, I'm just exploring it as a possibility, so bear with me. With life trying to grow everywhere, it will only succeed where there is little hindering growth. That is, organisms are likely to grow more successfully in fertile soil than in charred and hardened rock.
This being accepted, doesn't it make perfect sense that life would grow more successfully here on Earth than on the other planets in our solar system? Going exactly by your point, life closer to the sun would be hindered by heat, and life further from the sun would be hindered by lackthereof. Basically, if humanity tried to grow everywhere in our solar system, it would only succeed on this planet. There's nothing random about that. Life evolved where it could and died out where there was nothing to sustain it.
In summary, I'm going to propose a simply theory: life tried to evolve everywhere, but it only succeeded where success was possible. Does that really sound so absurd to you?
And as for your last paragraph, you are, to put it very bluntly, incorrect. I do not believe in God, but I also do not believe that it is fine to kill people. That fact, in and of itself, disproves your entire point. Saying there is no God does not eliminate morality, it eliminates the need to look to a higher power and, therein, allows us to decide for ourselves what is and is not morally 'right.' It takes away our ability to say "murder is wrong because God said so" and allows us to say things like "murder is wrong because humanity cannot exist without interaction between one another, and destroying a human life hinders this interaction. Therefore, in the interest of our future as humans, murder should not be committed."
Similar can be said of hope. Sure, without God we cannot say "there is good in our future, and I know this because God rewards us for living a good life." Instead, we could say "there is good in our future. If all of us continue to live in a way that is beneficial for our society, there will be nothing to prevent that goodness from proceeding into the future." See how easy that was to work around the need for a God? Both statements express the same thing: good life now will lead to good reward later.
Essentially, without God, there can still be morality and hope. It just won't be divine anymore.
@Fwank:
"I just don't enjoy people repeating something that has been said already."
I do apologize if I am contributing to the problem. The way I see it, if someone brings up something that has already been covered, it may mean that it was not covered well enough, so I try to cover it in a different way with the hope of clarification.
Fwank Posted: 11:15 Nov17 2007
Post ID: 1996023
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
^ Trust me, if it's something negative, it's never directed at you.
...
Urgh, why am I posting so briefly...
...
Urgh, why am I posting so briefly...
Fwank Posted: 00:00 Nov20 2007
Post ID: 1999496
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
I've already warned you in another thread, so I'm just going to go ahead and delete this post. Make your posts elaborate: if you have an opinion, enlighten us to how you came to the conclusion which you adopt at the moment, provide some point of views, give us some references, use rational arguments, whatever; just don't post brief declaration statements and a tiny little "this is why" sentence, despite it lacking in credibility for just about any purpose it's used for.
Shadow_Lord Posted: 11:23 Nov27 2007
Post ID: 2008574
Shadow_Lord
Posts: 4,872
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
Post deleted, cheating-is-good. Please back up your views with more than just a sentence.
[center]
Signature credited to Nathan (or whatever he decides to call himself next)
MSN address: yamiken (at) hotmail (dot) co (dot) uk
[size=6](You know the drill, remove the spaces, replace the at with @ and the dot
Signature credited to Nathan (or whatever he decides to call himself next)
MSN address: yamiken (at) hotmail (dot) co (dot) uk
[size=6](You know the drill, remove the spaces, replace the at with @ and the dot
Kenny 2x4 Posted: 16:13 Nov27 2007
Post ID: 2008898
Kenny 2x4
Posts: 24,410
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
Oh my gosh. We have this debate so many times in my Philosophy classes and there are so many arguments for his existance like the First Cause more famously by St Thomas Aquinas. The Teleological Argument by many, but again most famously by St Thomas Aquinas. The Analogical Argument from William Paley about the watch and the eye. Rene Descartes with his 6 Meditations.
For me I have a more Agnostic's view in that I don't want to really say considering there is really insufficient evidence to suggest that either God exists or not.
For me I have a more Agnostic's view in that I don't want to really say considering there is really insufficient evidence to suggest that either God exists or not.
Status = Part Time.
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
Fwank Posted: 11:26 Nov28 2007
Post ID: 2009712
Fwank
Posts: 6,990
Post Likes: 4
Post Likes: 4
That's great dude.
You want to walk us through the things you just mentioned briefly without bothering to explain at all?
Or maybe you should just discuss the points mentioned thus far; either way is fine by me, but don't come in and go "hey I've heard of this, we talked about A, B, C and D, personally I think E is better, no reason"
You should probably introduce the First Cause Argument, I'm quite keen on reading about it (before I bother to do the research despite I'm on holidays)
You want to walk us through the things you just mentioned briefly without bothering to explain at all?
Or maybe you should just discuss the points mentioned thus far; either way is fine by me, but don't come in and go "hey I've heard of this, we talked about A, B, C and D, personally I think E is better, no reason"
You should probably introduce the First Cause Argument, I'm quite keen on reading about it (before I bother to do the research despite I'm on holidays)
Kenny 2x4 Posted: 16:13 Nov28 2007
Post ID: 2010132
Kenny 2x4
Posts: 24,410
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
Well actually I gave sort of a reason why for E. Insufficient evidence.
The First Cause Argument however is as follows:
Premise 1) Everything has a cause.
Premise 2) Nothing is it's own cause.
Premise 3) A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
Premise 4) There has to be a "first cause".
Conclusion: God is the First cause.
Analyse that first before I start saying and explaining other stuff because it's interesting to see people's remarks.
The First Cause Argument however is as follows:
Premise 1) Everything has a cause.
Premise 2) Nothing is it's own cause.
Premise 3) A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
Premise 4) There has to be a "first cause".
Conclusion: God is the First cause.
Analyse that first before I start saying and explaining other stuff because it's interesting to see people's remarks.
Status = Part Time.
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
Catharsis Posted: 16:28 Nov28 2007
Post ID: 2010166
Catharsis
One thought fills immensity.
Posts: 3,481
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is best.
We have two possible solutions according to the First Cause Argument.
1) The universe has no cause.
2) The universe was created by God, who has no cause.
According to Occam's Razor, the first option would be the best. While this does not disprove the existence of God, is also shows that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, thus refuting Aquinas's logic.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
We have two possible solutions according to the First Cause Argument.
1) The universe has no cause.
2) The universe was created by God, who has no cause.
According to Occam's Razor, the first option would be the best. While this does not disprove the existence of God, is also shows that God is not necessary for the universe to exist, thus refuting Aquinas's logic.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
Kenny 2x4 Posted: 16:54 Nov28 2007
Post ID: 2010204
Kenny 2x4
Posts: 24,410
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
I'm actually in agreement with that. As did Hume and many others.
Basically if the universe is to have a first cause then why couldn't it have been the Big Bang? I mean we have scientific evidence to illustrate and suggest this.
Or quite equally, why can't the universe be like the description of God in that the universe could be a necessary thing where it does not depend on something else for it's existance.
Basically if the universe is to have a first cause then why couldn't it have been the Big Bang? I mean we have scientific evidence to illustrate and suggest this.
Or quite equally, why can't the universe be like the description of God in that the universe could be a necessary thing where it does not depend on something else for it's existance.
Status = Part Time.
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
[b][color=red][size=12]I am the car expert! So I've been told. lol[/b]
Check it out
Catharsis Posted: 16:55 Nov28 2007
Post ID: 2010205
Catharsis
One thought fills immensity.
Posts: 3,481
Post Likes: 0
Post Likes: 0
Read the rules. Deleted.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
Signature and avatar made by Master Volthawk.
Email/MSN: empyrean decadence at hotmail dot com (Remove all spaces)
"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius." - William Blake.
Winner of Member Brawl '09. Finally cleared out enough sig space to include that.
Displaying Page 3 of 70
Currently viewing this thread:
REPLY IN THIS THREAD
Users under 13 are not eligible to post on the SuperCheats forums.
Post
Top
