can anyone give me a good argument for gods exsistence that doesnt end in i just believe on faith.

I'm at the point where i don't think there exists a good argument for or against. Good luck to anyone who wants to try.

I myself believe a God most likely exists, but I defenitly started out as an atheist. The way I see it the only way to come to the conclusion that God exists is to search. I just searched and read a lot. I read about religions, about science, about all sorts of stuff that maybe had very little to do with God. But in the end I came to the conclusion that its most likely that a God exists, yet still possible one does not simply because there really is no 'proof' either way, aside from belief.

The only arguments you could really use would probably be things from holy books such as the Bible, but unfortunatly the validity of those books rests on the existance of a God, and the existance of a God rests on the validity of those books. See the delema? And I don't mean the existance of ANY God rests on the validity of a holy book, I mean the existance of a specific God [ie: Christian Gods existance rests on the Bible, Alah on the Qur'an, etc.....]

The Bible says so.



/duh

There is no proof God exists, there's no proof he doesn't. Just join me and be an agnostic.

i don't know about you but my god is definitely real.... we talk all the time

You are your own god you're experiencing it now, but you don't know it.

SEN D-F, Allah and Christianity's god are bot th the same thing.

^ Yeah, it aint different gods, it's just different understandings of the one god. Some understandings are good whereas some only make you more confused. It's good to look at different religeons and see which parts of each make sense.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 02-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

I came to the conclusion that its most likely that a God exists, yet still possible one does not simply because there really is no 'proof' either way, aside from belief.

There is no proof either way of the existence of the goblins which steal my socks. Would it make sense to come to the conclusion that it is most likely they exist?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

There is no proof either way of the existence of the goblins which steal my socks. Would it make sense to come to the conclusion that it is most likely they exist?

If you went through the proccess of doing research and looking into everything you thought was important about sock goblins, and you looked inside yourself and discovered that you truly believe goblins are stealing your socks and that works with the information you found on your search, yes it would make sense to come to the conclsuion that you believe they exist.

However the chances of you going through all that and coming out believing in them are unlikely. God is much more complex idea then sock goblins. And not only that, but God is something that exists outside our world, and you're comparing it to something incredibly odd thats supposed to exist with us.

But even still, if you whole heartedly searched for the truth about sock goblins, and in your heart came to the conclusion that they most likely exist, thats your business. Just as I don't expect you to believe in God simply because I believe in him, don't expect anyone else to believe in sock goblins based on your belief in them.

But comparing God to sock goblins is stupid. One may argue that they have the same amount of evidence [pertaining to their existance] so comparing them makes sense, but thats deeply flawed and illogical. Anyone can think up some stupid and crazy thing that doesn't exist and say it makes as much sense to believe in that as God because they both present as much proof of their existance but thats just a bad attempt at negating ones beliefs. A weak and stupid attempt. I feel anyone with half a brain could come up with a better argument then that, especially you Craftian. Though I don't expect you to stand behind that argument and attempt to justify it, but thats your business.

i have been reading alot to try and figure it out the bible quran nietzche hitler marx and alot of other philosophers

i conclude that there are no good arguments for god i also agree with occams razor so what is the point in adding an exta step to the creation of the universe and if everyone were to become agnostic (which is the only sensible thing to do) god would disapear

It annoys me when people take it upon themselves to determine what the best or most logical thing to do is in cases like these. Becoming agnostic is NOT 'the only sensible thing to do' seeing as how religion/spirituality is supposed to guide and help you through life, so whatever helps you best is whats most sensible.

Anyways so what about occams razor? 'God existed forever, and God created everything' seems a lot more simple then any scientific explination one can come up with. Seeing as how the big bang theory involves a lot of complex things, such as quantum mechanics and relativity. Not to say I stand by claims like 'God always existed and God created everything' seeing as how simply binding myself to one belief wouldn't be very productive.

if religion is what you need to guide you through life thats one thing however the line then should be drawn there dont force it on anyone dont persecute people because of it and IMPOSE YOUR RELIGIONS MORALS ON OTHER PEOPLE

as for occams razor, i see it as

god just is>creates universe

universe just is

i see the universe one as simpler

as for the scientific stuff that deals with how the universe developed no one knows what there was before the big bang

god is simply the divine force... a movement of energy that is utterly sublime and transcendental. a magnitude of excellence, precision, and perfection that exceeds all expectations, destroys all preconceptions, and redeems all prior effort. god is everywhere because god can take all forms, not because he does take all forms. he can be material, spatial, temporal, or purely spiritual. god is the sacred moment, and its momentum.

god makes true that in question. if god himself is questioned, He is evident, because God is the question and the answer.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 02-29-2004).]

if god is everyware and everything why not call him the universe and stop worshiping him

quote:Originally posted by AR-180:

if god is everyware and everything why not call him the universe and stop worshiping him

Real worship comes from love. Some people love god and so worship him for that reason, not because they have to.

quote:Originally posted by AR-180:

as for the scientific stuff that deals with how the universe developed no one knows what there was before the big bang

If Im correct, the theory is that there was nothing. I don't know for sure, but aren't they trying to explain through quantum mechanics or something that you can get something from nothing, and thats the origin? I don't really know though.

Well, not so much that there was nothing before the big bang, but nothing at one point and then a big concentrated ball of all matter eventually came into existance, and over time eventually just burst and created our universe.

Oh, and on a side note, I have no religion and don't feel anyone should believe in anything. I think everyone should believe what they want, but I still feel its better to search deeper into yourself when it coems to spiritual matters then simply bind yourself to a religion and call it quits.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

and you looked inside yourself and discovered that you truly believe goblins are stealing your socks and that works with the information you found on your search, yes it would make sense to come to the conclsuion that you believe they exist.

If you believe they exist then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that you believe they exist? That's obviously true.

But does it make sense to come to the conclusion that they actually exist, despite the fact that all you have is your belief?

quote:But comparing God to sock goblins is stupid. One may argue that they have the same amount of evidence [pertaining to their existance] so comparing them makes sense, but thats deeply flawed and illogical.

How is it deeply flawed and illogical? It's an analogy based on the only thing that's relevant to knowing whether something exists or not (amount of evidence).

quote:Anyone can think up some stupid and crazy thing that doesn't exist and say it makes as much sense to believe in that as God because they both present as much proof of their existance but thats just a bad attempt at negating ones beliefs. A weak and stupid attempt.

I don't see the problem with it. If we have no evidence about sock goblins and we have no evidence about God, why should we make different conclusions about the two?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

If you believe they exist then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that you believe they exist? That's obviously true.

But does it make sense to come to the conclusion that they actually exist, despite the fact that all you have is your belief?

No, it doesn't. Thats why I don't expect anyone to believe God exists based on my belief. Thats also why I don't like people saying 'God exists, because of this and this and this, blah blah blah.....'

When it comes to God all you can have is your own belief, and I know my belief doesn't mean God does exist. Its a belief and thats all it is, its not like I know God exists, I've simply come to the conclusion that I feel its most likely he does.

But you're absolsutly right in that its stupid to think based on anything that God defenitly exists, aside from him presenting himself to you. Which probably won't happen.

A belief in God is that and that alone, a belief and it in no way means he does exist.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I don't see the problem with it. If we have no evidence about sock goblins and we have no evidence about God, why should we make different conclusions about the two?

Its not the conclusion I have a problem with its the comparison. If you don't believe in God then yes, chances are you share the same belief in sock goblins [unless for some strange reason you believe in them]. But I feel when people do things like compare God to sock goblins or refer to him as a magical man in the sky or something, they're trying to use semantics to degrade peoples beliefs, which seems like a weak attempt made by soemone who doesn't have a valid argument.

Its just saying 'believing in this is the exact same thing as believing in something stupid and rediculous' because they have no real argument to present, no actual thought out view they want to express. Its on the same level as people who believe in God saying 'satan is keeping you from beleiving' or 'you're ignorant and don't understand'. They're just weak arguments used when the person has nothing smart to say.

^ I agree.

I hate the whole sock goblin, pink unicorn arguments.

Sock goblins just might exist, but a sock goblin hardly provide answers to the questions that we have about life, so it's not worth persuing.

For a little background, I am an atheist, but I was a Christian until college and have studied numerous arguments for the existence of God. Most of the philosophical arguments are bunk. The most persuasive argument, IMO, is fulfilled prophecy and some of the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, there are enough inaccuracies and inconsistencies for me to doubt that the Bible is a flawless book inspired by God, but to completely dismiss the book as a fairy tale would be a mistake as well. There is plenty in there that warrants consideration, and I really don't know how much of it is true.

explain the bib bang without god. How did all these particled just come together? they did no just meterlize, a higher power God created everything. look at the beautry and intracacies of life. Are you telling me this was all just luck? I doubt that. In every human there is urge to find God even if you don't see it.

quote:Originally posted by Easy Going:

For a little background, I am an atheist, but I was a Christian until college and have studied numerous arguments for the existence of God. Most of the philosophical arguments are bunk. The most persuasive argument, IMO, is fulfilled prophecy and some of the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, there are enough inaccuracies and inconsistencies for me to doubt that the Bible is a flawless book inspired by God, but to completely dismiss the book as a fairy tale would be a mistake as well. There is plenty in there that warrants consideration, and I really don't know how much of it is true.



So you believe the prophecies from issiah jermiah and the pslams that are realted to the life death crusifixion and death of jesus were just fake, Nsd by that you think that Jesus made a self fulfilling propecy?

I don't think so.

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

explain the bib bang without god. How did all these particled just come together? they did no just meterlize, a higher power God created everything. look at the beautry and intracacies of life. Are you telling me this was all just luck? I doubt that. In every human there is urge to find God even if you don't see it.

How did god come together?

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Anyways so what about occams razor? 'God existed forever, and God created everything' seems a lot more simple then any scientific explination one can come up with.

<A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif">http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://home.earthlink.net/~darkmagneto/orazor.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

quote:Originally posted by AR-180:

if god is everyware and everything why not call him the universe and stop worshiping him

why not call the universe God and start worshipping it?

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:



So you believe the prophecies from issiah jermiah and the pslams that are realted to the life death crusifixion and death of jesus were just fake, Nsd by that you think that Jesus made a self fulfilling propecy?

I don't think so.

I said they were the most compelling evidence, but they still don't meet the criteria needed to prove the existence of God. There are other prophecies out there that are not biblical, so it is not a unique phenomenon. A lot of the prophecies are not as specific as they seem at first. The accounts of prophecies being fulfilled are not consistent in the gospels where there is more than one account. It is almost like the accounts of prophecies being fulfilled are written 3rd or 4th hand and seem more like facts altered by gossip or the start of a legend where the accounts begin to mold to fit a story. The gospels are way too inconsistent to believe they are the perfect inspired word of God. I am sorry, but for a lofty claim such as Jesus was God, you need better evidence than that. There is just as much evidence that Elvis is still alive. Maybe more. However, they are still interesting to read, and there may be something going on. It is just too much of a leap to conclude that it means there is a God.

To answer your question about the big bang etc…the simple answer is existence exists. I honestly don’t know where we came from or where the universe started if it did start. However, I am not going to come to the conclusion that God exists just because I don’t know. That is just dumb. I do know that existence exists, and that is all I need for now. I will draw more conclusions with more evidence, not from a lack of evidence.

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

explain the bib bang without god. How did all these particled just come together? they did no just meterlize, a higher power God created everything. look at the beautry and intracacies of life. Are you telling me this was all just luck? I doubt that. In every human there is urge to find God even if you don't see it.

I believe physicists are trying to use quantum mechanics to explain how you can get something from nothing. Im not 100% sure on that though, and I don't really care enough to check right now [its late, im tired].

And for those who might wanna say 'you can't get something from nothing!' I'd just like a list of the physics degrees you have before we continue on with any arguments.....

Also I never understood why so many people think that the big bang theory negates the existance of God. Even if all the matter in the universe one day popped into existance and eventually blew into the universe we have today [for the most part] I don't see how that means a God doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by NewDude:

How did god come together?

Perhaps he existed forever? Always did and always will? Perhaps 'God' is everything and nothing, and we are just a part of him. I guess if 'we are a part of him' that statement is kind of illogical seeing as how we would just be a part of ourselves, but enough semantics. The point is 'God' could be one of a million things, none of which necesarrily require a start or an end.

Ok now I haven’t read a fucking ounce of what you guys have written in this post but in reply to the guy who started this.

Ok bear with me now I have this crazy...pretty far out idea on how to solve your problem of wanting to know if god exists.

Think about it for yourself......and come up with your own god damn conclusion. You've lived life for you know 12 maybe 13 years, and from your personal experience what do you think

Sorry if this whole thinking for yourself thing is a bit to advance for you.

But I feel the need to assist fuckwits such as yourself

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Perhaps he existed forever? Always did and always will? Perhaps 'God' is everything and nothing, and we are just a part of him. I guess if 'we are a part of him' that statement is kind of illogical seeing as how we would just be a part of ourselves, but enough semantics. The point is 'God' could be one of a million things, none of which necesarrily require a start or an end.

Finish the following sentence for me. This same thing cannot apply to the universe because...

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Its just saying 'believing in this is the exact same thing as believing in something stupid and rediculous' because they have no real argument to present

How is it not the exact same thing?

That's the whole point. Believing in sock goblins is exactly as ridiculous as believing in God or in anything else that somebody claims exists without giving any evidence.

I can understand that you don't like the comparison, but don't call it a bad argument unless you can point out a difference between the two that makes the analogy invalid.

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

explain the bib bang without god. How did all these particled just come together? they did no just meterlize, a higher power God created everything. look at the beautry and intracacies of life. Are you telling me this was all just luck? I doubt that. In every human there is urge to find God even if you don't see it.

that is one of the most ignorant things i've read on this board.

first: just because you do not understand a very complex scientific theory does NOT make it impossible. i'm sorry but all u did was state an aspect of the big bang theory that confounded u, and said it is impossible and that god made it happen. if u would have instead pointed out evidence WHY it is impossible, or provided us with ur list of degrees in physics like SEN said, maybe we woulda believed you.

second, regarding the intricacies u speak of: so what if the world is intricate? why is it impossible that these intricacies came about without an omnipotent being dictating it all? if ur htinking of intricacies in the animal world, the answer is evolution (unless ur one of THOSE ppl that don't believe in evolution...) u can find out how the intricacies of the Earth itself came to be by studying some earth sciences. plate tectonics, oceanography, etc etc can explain to you WHY things are the way they are, and HOW they came about. now name some intricacies that u believe are unexplainable and see if u can find the explanations thru a little research into the subject.

I'm sorry just because I do not like to write a huge essay on my theory of the life and universe does not make me unintelligent. If you are so smart, please explain to me how matter just appeared 12 billion years ago. There is the principle that matter can neither be created or dystroyed in the Physical Realm. So how did this matter come to be? the only thing that could defy the laws of physics would be an omnicient God. It was also albert einstien who said something to the effect that a physicst who does not believe in a higher power is an idiot and should be discredited. I also have trouble giving credit to someone who uses improper english, and can not take the time fully type out their response.

Just because you can't come to grips with this isn't my problem, I just want you to answer my question.

quote: I am sorry, but for a lofty claim such as Jesus was God, you need better evidence than that.

Is this good enough evidence, that he died and ressurected in three days?

[This message has been edited by P|Rawk (edited 03-01-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by 1ceman:

Ok now I haven’t read a fucking ounce of what you guys have written in this post but in reply to the guy who started this.

Ok bear with me now I have this crazy...pretty far out idea on how to solve your problem of wanting to know if god exists.

Think about it for yourself......and come up with your own god damn conclusion. You've lived life for you know 12 maybe 13 years, and from your personal experience what do you think

Sorry if this whole thinking for yourself thing is a bit to advance for you.

But I feel the need to assist fuckwits such as yourself

i already very strongly do not believe in god and i did post a long post titled intellegent arguments for god or something like that reacently that explained the telelogical cosmological and ontilogical arguments for god and why they are bullshit. so next time just because someone posts a retorical question dont assume they cant figure it out

If you take a step back, there is no real argument for the existance of God. This is because it is impossible to prove that there is no God. A claim must be falsifiable, or in other words, one must be able to think of a way that their claim could be proven false, in order for it to be a justifiable claim. For example, someone could say that it is impossible for a man to live to be over 200 years. This is a justifiable claim, and has evidence supporting it (no one has ever lived to be over 200), and this claim is falsifiable: if someone did live over 200 years, the claim that "it is impossible for a man to live over 200 years" is wrong. Just by looking at the rule of falsifiablility, the argument for God can be discarded- it is and always will be only a belief. End of story.

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

I'm sorry just because I do not like to write a huge essay on my theory of the life and universe does not make me unintelligent. If you are so smart, please explain to me how matter just appeared 12 billion years ago. There is the principle that matter can neither be created or dystroyed in the Physical Realm. So how did this matter come to be? the only thing that could defy the laws of physics would be an omnicient God. It was also albert einstien who said something to the effect that a physicst who does not believe in a higher power is an idiot and should be discredited. I also have trouble giving credit to someone who uses improper english, and can not take the time fully type out their response.

Just because you can't come to grips with this isn't my problem, I just want you to answer my question.

Is this good enough evidence, that he died and ressurected in three days?

[This message has been edited by P|Rawk (edited 03-01-2004).]

look ill try to explain what i know personally about the big bang (it's not much because im not an astrophysicist). it seems as if all u know of the big bang theory is that before there was nothing, and then a big explosion of matter that eventually formed the current universe. which isn't exactly what the theory says. That's why i said ur conclusions were ignorant. u based them on a faulty interpretation of the theory.

anyways according to what i remember, before the big bang, all the matter in the universe was concentrated in a singularity. and for some reason (has to do with quantum mechanics that i do not understand) in a singularity, most of the rules of physics as we know it do not apply. the specifics of the big bang itself and anything before it (the singularity, how it formed, etc) are not yet explained because our laws of physics do not apply in these environments. anyways u prolly know the rest after the bang.

i wasn't calling u ignorant i was simply stating that ur statement was. as for you having " trouble giving credit to someone who uses improper english, and can not take the time fully type out their response." Reread your first post that i quoted and see if you really want to argue grammar with me..



oh and if u wanna read up on the big bang go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

if you're going to attempt to prove a theory to be false, you have to understand it first. then you gotta provide evidence saying WHY it is false, as well as any evidence to support your version of what happened. until you do that, you havent PROVEN anything

[This message has been edited by chen (edited 03-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by NewDude:

Finish the following sentence for me. This same thing cannot apply to the universe because...



When did I say it couldn't? Theres a good possibility the universe existed forever, and always will. But that doesn't mean a God can't exist with it. Nor does it mean a God does exist. There are no absolsutes when it comes to debating God and the universe.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

How is it not the exact same thing?

That's the whole point. Believing in sock goblins is exactly as ridiculous as believing in God or in anything else that somebody claims exists without giving any evidence.

I can understand that you don't like the comparison, but don't call it a bad argument unless you can point out a difference between the two that makes the analogy invalid.

Like I said, the result for a non-believer is the same when it comes to the whole sock goblin/God comparison, and that I have no problem with. If you don't believe in something, of course its exactly the same as everything else you don't believe in, but the comparison is just a crappy argument. Saying 'believing in God is like believing in sock goblins' has no substance to it. Its making a general comparison to [for the most part] degrade ones belief.

I fully understand how the analogy makes sense to a non-believer, and it does in fact make sense to me [though I obviously don't agree with it, believing in God and all]. The point is whens oemone uses that 'argument' all I can think about is that they have nothing smart to say, no real thought out and well put argument. I see it more or less as a last resort or an 'argument' used by someone who can't come up with anything better.

I've heard many arguments against the existance of God and this has to be one of the worst. Im sure you feel the same way about people trying to validate their belief in God. It even annoys me when soemone comes out and says something like 'God exists because the Bible says so' or 'you just don't believe because you're on the devils side!' or something stupid like that. However when soemone comes out with well thought out arguments, ideas and concepts that stray from simple minded analogies or stupid baseless arguments I have a lot more respect for that persons position and have a better time debating with them. Can't you agree with that?

Theres nothing saying you have to agree, but I think most people would rather debate with someone whos not gonna use simple, over-used, or weak arguments.

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

I'm sorry just because I do not like to write a huge essay on my theory of the life and universe does not make me unintelligent. If you are so smart, please explain to me how matter just appeared 12 billion years ago. There is the principle that matter can neither be created or dystroyed in the Physical Realm. So how did this matter come to be? the only thing that could defy the laws of physics would be an omnicient God. It was also albert einstien who said something to the effect that a physicst who does not believe in a higher power is an idiot and should be discredited. I also have trouble giving credit to someone who uses improper english, and can not take the time fully type out their response.

Just because you can't come to grips with this isn't my problem, I just want you to answer my question.

Unfortunatly you're assuming that our physics can explain everything, so the fact that we can't explain how something can come from nothing leads you to beleieve that its not possible [outside of divine intervention of course]. We cannot explain black holes, in fact they seem to defy a lot of our physical laws. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not, we can look through the universe and find many black holes, they are there doing the things we know they're doing however our current physics cannot explain how they work. But they do work, despite the fact that they go against our laws.

There are many things we cannot explain but can watch happen before our eyes. Just because we can't explain them yet doesn't mean we never will, and it doesn't mean that we should stop searching for answers and assume God did everything that seems out of place to us. That would be very counter productive. How do you expect science/physics to advance if we put aside all of the complex or strange problems and assume they're the acts of God?

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

Is this good enough evidence, that he died and ressurected in three days?

Unfortunatly you're claiming something that hasn't been proven to prove your point. One could very easily negate that statement by asking for proof that Jesus was ressurected. The only proof you can present is the Bible, and if one already believed in the Bible then they wouldn't be asking for proof in the first place! You cannot use the Bible to prove anything about God. Its stupid to think someone who doesn't believe in God [or simply the Bible] will accept claims made by the Bible.

And I still wanna know, why does the big bang theory negate Gods existance? You shouldn't worry so much about disproving it, or trying to fit God into the equation because the universe can still have been created from a big ball of matter that popped into existance for some strange reason along side the existance of God. Perhaps God created a dimension, or a plane of existance that consisted of absolute nothingness and let it do its own thing?

quote:Originally posted by i wanabe a stealth master:

Just by looking at the rule of falsifiablility, the argument for God can be discarded- it is and always will be only a belief. End of story.

You're absolutly right; the concept of God will always be nothing more then a belief. Unless God presents himself to us and shows us that he is infact God it will never be a fact. However that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it simply means its a claim that can't be proven. But by no means does it mean he doesn't exist.

I don't know, but things are way too perfect, as in nature is way too perfect to be a coincidence.

In reference to god and Sock Goblins -

Neither have hard evidence, for or against. Yet people will be ridiculed for their belief in Sock Goblins and not (at least, not as much) ridiculed for their belief in god. Unfortunatly, as neither god nor Sock Goblins are falsafiable, the classic "god vs The Sock Goblins" war will wage on. Why is it more acceptable to believe in god then Sock Goblins? Simple, other people believe in god. I'm sure if there were others that believed in Sock Goblins and no one who belived in god then people would look at things a little differently.

the begining of an ORGANIZED universe, is utterly inexplicable on any assumption of spontaneous change from NOTHING into matter, or of fortuitousand accidental operation of it's properties. so lets go with the simpelist logical answer: indicate contrivance for a given purpose, and contrivance is the evidence of intelligence, and intelligence is the attribute of mind, and the intelligent mind that built the stupendous universe is God. man's consciousness tells him of his own existence; his observation proves the existence of others of his kind and of uncounted orders of organized beings. from this we must concludethat something must have existed always, for had there been a time of no existence, there would become no evidence, for from NOTHING, only NOTHING can be derived. we must conclude, then, that existance is eternal, that something has existed always. There are only two building blocks that make up the reality, of which,is the UNIVERSE: that which acts for itself, and that which is acted upon. matter and energy are eternal realities; but matter of itself is neither vital nor active, nor is force of itself intelligent;yet vitality and activity are characteristic of all living things, and the effects of intelligence are universally present. intelligence acts for itself, and matter is acted upon. God is often mistaken for enrgy, or also as nature. do not be mistan: that's like calling the design, the designer, the edifice the architect, the fabric the clothing. Rather, the system of nature is the manifestation of an order that argues a directing intelligence; and that intelligence is of an eternal character. coeval with existance itself. the system of nature is the manifetationd of an order that argues a directing intelligence.

the burden of proof as to the non-existence of God is a fool that denies his own intelligence. find in the contrivance exhibited by the ant in building her house, in the architecture of the honney-comb, and in the myriad instances of intelligence from which man may learn and be wise, will yet question the operation of intelligence in the creation of worlds and in the construction of the universe.

the begining of an ORGANIZED universe, is utterly inexplicable on any assumption of spontaneous change from NOTHING into matter, or of fortuitousand accidental operation of it's properties. so lets go with the simpelist logical answer: indicate contrivance for a given purpose, and contrivance is the evidence of intelligence, and intelligence is the attribute of mind, and the intelligent mind that built the stupendous universe is God. man's consciousness tells him of his own existence; his observation proves the existence of others of his kind and of uncounted orders of organized beings. from this we must concludethat something must have existed always, for had there been a time of no existence, there would become no evidence, for from NOTHING, only NOTHING can be derived. we must conclude, then, that existance is eternal, that something has existed always. There are only two building blocks that make up the reality, of which,is the UNIVERSE: that which acts for itself, and that which is acted upon. matter and energy are eternal realities; but matter of itself is neither vital nor active, nor is force of itself intelligent;yet vitality and activity are characteristic of all living things, and the effects of intelligence are universally present. intelligence acts for itself, and matter is acted upon. God is often mistaken for enrgy, or also as nature. do not be mistan: that's like calling the design, the designer, the edifice the architect, the fabric the clothing. Rather, the system of nature is the manifestation of an order that argues a directing intelligence; and that intelligence is of an eternal character. coeval with existance itself. the system of nature is the manifetationd of an order that argues a directing intelligence.

the burden of proof as to the non-existence of God is a fool that denies his own intelligence. find in the contrivance exhibited by the ant in building her house, in the architecture of the honney-comb, and in the myriad instances of intelligence from which man may learn and be wise, will yet question the operation of intelligence in the creation of worlds and in the construction of the universe.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

When did I say it couldn't? Theres a good possibility the universe existed forever, and always will. But that doesn't mean a God can't exist with it. Nor does it mean a God does exist. There are no absolsutes when it comes to debating God and the universe.

This is where Occam's Razor comes in, and cuts down god.

That only works assuming you accept that as fact. And if you accept that the universe has and always will exist as fact, you've got a problem because theres no evidence towards that. Just like theres no evidence towards Gods existance. I have no problem with someone believing it, but just like I have a problem with people claiming Gods existance to be fact I wouldn't like someone claiming an infintie universe to be fact. You have to keep an open mind about things like this, like I said there are no absolutes when it comes to this shit. We really don't know anything.

And even still, while Occams Razor is interesting and has its place, it is my no means a fact. There is no evidence to prove that the simplest answer is always the right one. Accepting that as fact is just like accepting God as fact.

[This message has been edited by SEN D-F (edited 03-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

Is this good enough evidence, that he died and ressurected in three days?



I am assuming you are asking me if the prophecies are proof that that Jesus died and was resurrected.

Someone answered that it could not be true because the Bible is not true. I don't think that is a very informed response. The Bible is a book that must be taken seriously. There are many things in it that have checked out and a lot of it is recorded history witnessed first or second hand. However, you need to study it and evaluate what is and is not likely.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus died on a cross. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are 4 different historical accounts of events during the life of Jesus. In some places they corroborate each other very closely. Some places have minor contradictions. Some places are like WTF these can't all be true.

It does not take a ton of time to actually read this stuff for yourself. If you get a good study Bible, it will direct you to all the stories you want to read. It is a good idea to read all 4 accounts of each story at the same time so you can see how consistent they are.

As for my interpretation, they are pretty consistent that he died on the cross. All have some different details, but the jist of it did happen. Now when it comes to the miracles or prophecies being fulfilled, that is when it gets interesting. That is when something will only appear in one or two of the four accounts, or when the stories will contradict more. The miracle of the resurrection is in all 4 gospels, but it is probably the most inconsistent story in all the gospels too. It is actually quite amusing to read them all back to back.

Some other interesting things: The temple being physically destroyed was shown in some as a very dramatic event, but in others it was ignored. That was prophecy being fulfilled and an event big enough that none should have ignored it.

The part in the garden when they come to take Jesus away is in all the gospels as is the skirmish. However, Jesus healing the man who had is ear sliced off is in only one.

In Mark (I think) the earthquake/temple destruction action that occurred at the moment of Jesus' death actually turned into night of the living dead as it said many graves opened and many saints came back to life and many witnessed it. Who came back? Does not say. Who saw it? Does not say. What did they do? Does not say. And this dramatic event is not in the other 3 gospels. It is also hardly ever taught about in religious circles because it is nearly impossible to defend.

There are more interesting things and inconsistencies in the story, but my main point is that the stories are based in facts, but they evolved into legends too. It is kinda like Davy Crocket. Sure he existed and shit happened, but somehow the legend grew a bit. I don't believe he killed a bare when he was only 3, but at the same time I am not going to discount all the content of all the stories I hear about him.



[This message has been edited by Easy Going (edited 03-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

However that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it simply means its a claim that can't be proven. But by no means does it mean he doesn't exist.

You're right; presumably the planet Pluto existed before we found evidence of it.

But before we found evidence of it, it would have been fairly stupid to believe it existed.

quote:Originally posted by 2CB4ME:

the begining of an ORGANIZED universe

You assert that the universe is organized; have you seen a disorganized universe that you can compare ours to?

quote:from this we must concludethat something must have existed always

And why is it more likely that a god always existed than the universe always existed?

quote:find in the contrivance exhibited by the ant in building her house, in the architecture of the honney-comb

Evolutionary theory has excellent explanations for both of these things. All you have is assertations.

Incidentally, most of that post was very difficult to understand. I assume English isn't your first language?

quote:Originally posted by P|Rawk:

There is the principle that matter can neither be created or dystroyed in the Physical Realm. So how did this matter come to be? the only thing that could defy the laws of physics would be an omnicient God.

Argument ad ignorantum. We don't know yet, so you assume a god.

Of course, this doesn't tell you anything about this god other than that it has the ability to create matter.

quote:It was also albert einstien who said something to the effect that a physicst who does not believe in a higher power is an idiot and should be discredited.

Why should I care what Einstein may or may not have said? (the least you could do is actually find the quote)

quote:Is this good enough evidence, that he died and ressurected in three days?

That would be fairly decent evidence.

Now do you have evidence that that actually happened?

And the Bible doesn't count, because otherwise we could use the Koran to prove Islam is true, or Dianetics to prove Scientology is true, or any number of other holy books giving testimony for mutually exclusive religions.

quote:Originally posted by Easy Going:

The Bible is a book that must be taken seriously. There are many things in it that have checked out and a lot of it is recorded history witnessed first or second hand.

Recorded by very interested parties; the leaders of a brand new and struggling religion.

A lot of it hasn't checked out. We can be fairly certain that even major things like the Exodus never happened.

quote:There is plenty of evidence that Jesus died on a cross. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are 4 different historical accounts of events during the life of Jesus.

By this logic, there is plenty of evidence that Mohammed moved mountains.

quote:It is a good idea to read all 4 accounts of each story at the same time so you can see how consistent they are.

And this couldn't be because there was a lot of copying between the gospels?

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

By this logic, there is plenty of evidence that Mohammed moved mountains.



Not at all. The amount of evidence for something to be considered possible is not the same for all claims. There is enough evidence that a man named Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Is it possible that it is all bunk? Sure. Is it likely? No. You need a hell of a lot more evidence for supernatural claims. I am not sure what standard you are holding historical facts to, but I highly doubt most of recorded history would meet it.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

And this couldn't be because there was a lot of copying between the gospels?

Yes it is possible. What is more likely though is that the gospels are mostly 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of facts in the process of evolving into legends. The less believable parts are recorded in fewer accounts and/or are less consistent. This suggests they are all getting different versions of the gossip/legend evolution as opposed to them just copying each others text.

Easy Going-Many of the discrepencies and inconsitencies you mention, in some ways speak more of the validity of the gospel accounts.

Alot of it i would say, comes from the fact that each of the accounts was written with a different intent- for instance Matthew's account to the Jews with an emphasis on being the Messiah, Luke's account more to non-jews with an emphasis on being a historical account. This is often reflected in which events are included and those which are omitted.

Another aspect is that any four accounts are naturally going to be different. The key issue in alot of it is where the accounts are divergent, but not necessarily contradictory i.e.in one account there are two angels at the post-resurection tomb, in another only 1 is mentioned. Or the possessed blokes at genessaret- theres 2 in one account , only 1 mentioned in another. While these accounts are both different, one does not preclude the other i.e. that there were angel(s) at the tomb.

To me, the fact that the accounts are divergent suggests that they are legitemate. If each of the accounts were the same it would suggest a centrally organised and controlled record rather than someone recording their own account. In some ways its nitpicking- looking for any area with which to raise doubt- but nonetheless needs to be questioned.

Contrast this with the areas where they are in agreement- places, times, locations of people, teaching. There can be little reasonable doubt about the accounts given for the doctrinally important parts i.e. that Jesus claimed to be the Christ, that he was killed, that he was resurrected and appeared to people after the event.

I think its actually Matthews account that mentions the resurrection of others. There is also genuine doubt surrounding 2 parts of Mark's gospel, which are not present in the earliest manuscripts. As you would probably know Matthew an Luke probably both used Marks account in the writting of their own- John's doesnt appear to have.

Does 2nd or 3rd hand information make it any less reliable? Luke's gospel in particular makes it known that he gathered information from various sources to construct his own account- its not hidden.

Re:destruction of the temple. Im assuming your refering to Jesus' recorded prophecy of it. Considering that it is most likely that all 4 accounts were written pre AD70, the same emphasis would not be given to that statement as we can, retrospectively, see could have been.

In the same way, does the lack of information re:Jesus' birth and early life suggest that the other accounts were wrong, the Yeshua in fact appeared on earth at the Jordan, and was here only for 3 years? Its not likely, but its possible conclusion.

Another intresting thing to look at is why were these 4 cannonized and the apocrypha, gnostic writtings and the "secret gospels" (i.e. Gospel of Light, Thomas etc.) rejected?

Craftian- I still think your dismissal of the gospel accounts is out of hand- i understand your reasons for it, but it is not necessarily rational.

Yes there was definately an agenda, and in no way is that hidden "this has been written that you might believe that Jesus was the son of God".

They were written by people who were, in some of the situations, participants, at other time they were either witnessess are absent. None of them make themselves the object or messenger of the faith- in fact they detail their own stupidity, failures and cowardice. Nor are any of them simply writing normative statements i.e "God exists cause i think so, or i had a vision in which i saw..."- the gospels all take the form of an account "Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he did such an such and because of that we also think that he is"

In that aspect i consider the gospels unique- however my knowledge of other religious texts is limited so i would appreciate any feedback re: the nature of their claims etc.

Also the whole "you cant prove/disprove God" thing is exactly what Pascal was talking about- that reasoning can not prove it either way. I still think his "Wager" is flawed, however i think we have done his idea a diservice by not mentioning the above.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Another aspect is that any four accounts are naturally going to be different. The key issue in alot of it is where the accounts are divergent, but not necessarily contradictory

Reread the accounts of the first Easter Sunday. Try to come up with a story that includes everything and does not contradict any scripture. I don't think it's possible. I am in the middle of debating some Christian on this, and he has not been able to do it yet. I may start a new thread on this soon.

All the accounts have some issues, but John's really screws it up.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Craftian- I still think your dismissal of the gospel accounts is out of hand- i understand your reasons for it, but it is not necessarily rational.

Can you give me a reason why you accept the gospels but not the holy books of any other religions, other than the tone in which they're written?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Also the whole "you cant prove/disprove God" thing is exactly what Pascal was talking about- that reasoning can not prove it either way. I still think his "Wager" is flawed, however i think we have done his idea a diservice by not mentioning the above.

LOL. Pascal's Wager makes no sense whatsoever.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

You're right; presumably the planet Pluto existed before we found evidence of it.

But before we found evidence of it, it would have been fairly stupid to believe it existed.

So, if a group of people saw something about the solar system that made them think another plant existed, and they somehow cloncluded that this planet did ifact exist and they were right, it would be stupid? Ooooookay.....

Ironically enough this is actually happening right now involving a planet called 'Planet X'. Whether or not its really there, I don't know, nor do I particularly care. But the point is, simply saying 'theres no proof lets forget about it' is JUST AS BAD as saying 'theres no explination for it so God did it'.

If we just ignore things, or forget about them we can't progress. Suppose for a minute that a God does exist, but the entire world, for whatever reason turns atheist. Everybody, over the course of a few generations has never heard of anything called 'God' and they have no concept of what a 'God' is supposed to be. They have never heard the word or been introduced to the concept, because past generations turned atheist and obviously found no need to teach anything about a 'God' to their children.

If God ever did anything to show he existed, even something quite clear, these people would have no idea that it was God and they would have no ability to determine that God does exist. Whatever they saw or experienced would be summed up as a phenomena. Even if God briefly came down, and said 'I am God, I exist' and did something like created a field of trees right before them, they would be so ignorant towards the concept of a creator this would just be considered an absolutly weird and unexplainable phenomena.

If we only believed in thigns, and looked into things that we could see or touch we wouldn't believe in or have proof of a lot of the things we do today. You can't see, or touch gravity, so if somebody never said 'hey, maybe theres this invisible force that holds us to the ground' we would never know about it. At soem point somebody has to look at what we can't see, or for the most part experience and investigate it to find out its there. Sure, for some thigns thats not the case; we can walk upto a tree and see it, and look at it and all kinds of things so believing it and investigating it is a different case, but some things we just can't do that with. Sometimes we have to believe in something that may seem strange or odd to investigate it. Nobody is going to investigate something that they don't believe is there.

So yes, it may seem silly now and you may think its stupid to believe in God now, but lets say 2 weeks from now some guy finds something that prooves a God is there. Whatever he finds prooves that without a doubt a God does exist. I suppose you'll say it was still stupid for people to believe in something that lacked evidence, despite the fact that without these believers we would never know it was there?

On the topic of Gospels, does anyone here know when they were written? Look in to it.

The answer may either support why the accounts differed, but it also could decrease their reliablility, or both.

I accept the testimony given in the gospel acccounts a)because what we have is accurate to what was originally written (b)several areas (not all) of the accounts are in agreement with archeaology and other contempary accounts(c) because of the nature of the accounts i.e their literary style, intent and general harmony.

As an example, ill use the Mormon books. Some of what i say maybe wrong and id appreciate someone to point out any errors.Id reject the Mormons because 1)There is no archaeolgical or textual evidence that supports the claims they make e.g. ancient jewish civilization in the US. 2)They were all written by the one guy, claiming to have had a divine revelation. No one else had it revealed independently or came to similar conclusions(to my knowledge) 3)The content of his divine revelation is no where pre-supported by the tradition it claims to be of i.e the Hebrew tradition (OT and others) no where says anything about Jews bailing to the US, nor of predicting the Messiah's tour of the US of A. There are other areas also that have been discussed in previous mormon posts.

Honestly, i dont know enough about most other holy books to give you a decent answer though.

Here's a little analogy I made.

Magic = God

illusion = science

the magician = the universe

The audience cheers happily for one of their favorite acts. This is the "magic act". There is a magician dressed in a cloak and top hat, much like a member of the upper class in old England. The magician stands up on stage, bows and receives an applause. He takes off his hat and shows the insides to everyone. It is pitch dark - nothing appears to be inside. He then takes it and sets it on a nearby stool. Reaching in with his arm, he pulls out a bunny rabbit. The crowd is in awe.

"Oooohh, MAGIC!!!"

He then takes the rabbit and places it back inside the hat, and it disappears from sight. When he shows the top hat to the audience again, they are amazed.

"Wow, Magic is so awesome!"

He continues performing other acts, some with cards, some dealing with objects inside his attire, and yet others with fire and levitation. But... there are some skeptics. Act after act, a group of talented individuals discuss possible ways that he can be explained with something other than Magic. One suggests that the rabbit may have been concealed in the hat to begin with. Others agree, yet some say it was up his coat sleeve. They argue about this sort of thing, finally coming to reasonable explanations of the phenomena. They call it illusions. If they were to believe it were magic, then they say there would be no real explanation for it. They do not despise the magician, however. In fact, they are quite impressed with his ability. The skeptics try to convince the crowd of what they believe.

"No way... it has to be Magic!"

The crowd is skeptical of the skeptics for a long period of time. It takes many months for them to believe that it is possibly an illusion, especially since there are some tricks that cannot be explained. The skeptics argue that many more tricks than not can be explained by illusion. Many people will not give up their belief of Magic, simply because it's all they have to hold on to. If all this time they were wrong, what really is left of their beautiful perspective of the Magic act? Some just think it's a lot more fun to believe in Magic.

"And now for the grand finale!"

Then, the magician performs the most elementary, astounding magic ever. The skeptics don't even have a clue how it could be done, the only reasoning they can come up with is circular in nature. Even they wonder about that one. The audience, holding on to their belief of magic, now have reason to disregard all the other disproofs of Magic, for this one is surely Magic in its essence. The skeptics can do nothing more to argue in the case for illusion, other than to say everything else can be explained by it. And so the story ends: some of the audience completely ignoring the facts of illusion; some using logic to agree with illusion in some areas, but magic in others; some are skeptics that believe the greatest act to be unexplainable; and lastly those that follow through logic, believing all of it to be illusion.

The end.

Now, I ask you. How much does "God" explain about the creation of the universe. He made it. He made it well. He's a really great guy. But he isn't a guy, he's also everything else imaginable. He's magic. One of the problems I have with this argument is that, supposedly, God can't really be explained. That's a fundamental principle all of us have, isn't it? Some say that God is the universe, but you still don't know how He has influenced the many belief systems if He really just everything that existed, not just a ruler over it. God is unexplainable. God explains nothing. Since God is everything that is and everything that isn't at the same time, I hypothesize that God is merely mankind's explanation for everything that cannot be explained. Magic.

Science focuses on reality, a perspective hopefully not skewed by culture and old wives tales. Science says that we should know, that we should search for an answer. God says we should remain ignorant. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and look what happened to them? They and all of their descendants were cursed to live in misery. Their love of Magic and simplicity told them not to eat, or they would surely die. And they did die. But God didn't say what would happen if they didn't eat, did He? Would they still have died if they hadn't eaten. I think they would have, just like a person who believes they have been miraculously healed by a televangelist believes they will live, and then dies of cancer.

This is all theoretical, and heretical as well. What do you want to believe it is, Magic or illusion, or both? It doesn't really matter. You'll end up the same way no matter what you believe, and you can't believe something you honestly think can't be true. Would God send me to hell if I researched the subject for my entire life, and after all I tried I still believed deep within my heart that Magic was all really illusion? Ironically, in believing what I think is right, I'm going to hell.

In summary: I believe everything can be explained, even if it is not clearly evident by standards of science today.

Just thought I'd throw in my perspective.

I believe in God but I also accept science. Science shows proof of what its saying, science is concrete and evidentiary.

I think its silly, or rather stupid to deny science. I fail to understand why anyone, of any religion or any belief system could ever deny science. I just don't get it. With science, they coem out and not only tell you what they found, but how they found it, why its like that, and how it works. Its completely stupid to deny science.

I guess some people think science is against religion or God because its trying to prove some of the things claimed in certain religions, only they know these explinations won't invovle God. The creation of the universe being a perfect example. I myself think there can be a scientific explination for everything in the universe, but that in no way shows a God doesn't exist. But then again, I don't follow any religion so Im not trying to hold on to stories of creation and what not.

Simply put [very simply!] I believe in God because I feel there is more to existance, the universe and beyond then what science can explain. While I don't doubt for a second that we could some day explain everything in the universe [not to say we will, but we I feel there is a scientific explination for it all] I still feel that there is more to existance, and that there are things outside the universe.

Many people go on rants about evidence and proof, but I don't give a shit. Believing in thigns like this requires one to look into themselves and mucyh more. I have researched many thigns, including certain phenomena, science, religion and so forth. I have come to the conclsion that there is a lot to our existance that can't be explained; there have been many occurances of things that simply cannot be explained, and defy logic. So I feel that we do not simply exist within this universe and this physical realm, and that in death we will all experience wat exists beyond the physic world.



But once again, its nothign more then a belief. I don't know anything, just like any religious person, any scientist or any atheist doesn't know anything. We know as much as we can see and explain, however theres no way to prove that what we see is real, and that what we experience is actually happening. I suppose all we can do is assume it is and live our lives, but much like a belief in a God is nothin more then a belief, an asusmtion that everything in this world is real is nothing more then that; an assumtion.

I think there cannot be an all powerful benevolent God here on earth YET. This is obvious from the state of the world. I do think people could be hard-wired to believe in God, however. See C.S.Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for a through explanation of that idea. I do believe we could be created beings (I think I am). Our Big Bang could be what happened when a huge someone tried to conduct a scientific experiment. They may be trying to split their atom or create life. These huge beings could be standing around even now watching their experiment and hoping for the best. We may be their salvation. Due to our smaller size we maybe able to enter their bodies and fix their ailments. These beings may be able to introduce transforming substances into our universe which could allow any number of possibilities. They may be able to harvest organized electrical activity. Hopefully they are nicer than we are.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Here's a little analogy I made.

Magic = God

illusion = science

the magician = the universe





That is awsome. I hope I have your permission to pass it on. Thank you.

Mmmm... not that I would mind. Totse.com is all about free speech, anyways.

I started out as an aetheist,but am not so sure now.At the same time when it comes tospecific gods I still disagree If god is what we understand from what most religions tell us,then god is all powerfull all knowing et.Two ways we can look at it.If we look at a blade of grass and contemplate its complexities,It is difficult to imagine how it could have accidentally evolved-a chance event,like a watch being accientally evolved.If however we assume that god created it,then we have to agree that god is atleast 1000 times more complex than a blade of grass So the dilemma!how can god,a much more complex entity have evolved on its own?

Well, why does God have to have evolved? Perhaps he is and always was the entity he is.

As for the whole 'the worlds to complex for random chance' argument, it annoys me. The problem is people ignore the fucked up stuff, they come out acting like everything in the world is perfect. Why about kids that are born unable to see, hear and speak? And what about the fact that our environment is very sensitive to many of the things we have? Smoke, toxic chemicals, thigns like that all destroy our envirment. Why if God was creating such a perfect world did he not take care of those problems?

Like I said, most people look at the thigns that are the way they should be and ignore the fucked up things when they use that argument.

If you ask me, evolution takes a hell of alot more faith to belive in than creationism.