God does exist.

Re: Re: Re: Looks like this is it...

Hello wesmorris,

If everything in the universe/world could or could not exist, then there must have been a time when nothing in the world existed.
When something existed, it cannot suffciently be the cause of it's own existance, for nothing was there.
I believe God was...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like this is it...

Hello havalina..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, science estimates the age of the planet to be about 4 Billion years. So before that, yes.. nothing in the world existed because there was no world for it to exist in.

How do you know? Maybe something was there but it's state was different? Maybe it only existed abstractly in a space in which consciousness existed to identify. Maybe a LOT of things. Maybe god... but how would you propose to test your hypothesis?

You believe as in you're sure?? (if so, please inform me where I can dig up some compelling evidence) ... or as if you've presented a hypothesis? In which case I propose the question above with the testing and the bizness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah only in your mind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

www.atheists.org
www.infidelguy.com
www.infidels.org/index.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god is a santa claus for adults

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well ... he is the most in-depth fantasy character on the market. I would go so far as to rate him over Gandalf even!

 

Would something first existing abtractly defy physics? Motion as a natural state of affairs?

I believe as to have faith... no absolutes unfortunetly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And how are we ontologically given this ability? Did we humans all of a sudden smart ourselves into thinking of something higher and more capable than a human? If there isn't anything more capable, how did we know there WAS something better than us if our falliable human minds are all we have to work with? How did we know we weren't the best there is?

Focus on your word choice, "is"....
With all due respect, you have as much absolute proof that God is a fantasy than I do that God is real.

 

GOSH!!!!!!! This **** thread is long! I did not bother to even read more than the first page for I am an egotiscal bastard who thinks only his views matter. But you will nevertheless read mine. As to why you will read mine, I dont want to type on this page for it is Friday night and ****.

But just so this post is not waste: Does 'God' exist? Who **** cares!!!!!!! Of course there is no scientific proof cos what we call science cannot allow his/her/it existence; doing that would violate every 'scientific' rule in the major fields, except that of Biology and Computer Science.

But most importantly, it is stupid to argue against or behalf of 'faith'. For it come down to a 'belief'. And a belief is simply accepting something regardless of 'fact'. Fact is in quotation because you can 'disprove' fact through diction and philosophy, and you can disprove 'science'through faith or belief. And u can likewise disproive MOST 'faith' through 'science'. Which makes this thread a waste. For a 'true' beliver would noty waste their tme on this thread; neither would a real 'scientist'. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**** i LOVE MYSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Either way, arguing for or against the existence of God is stupid and a waste. Morever, it amuses me that suposedly 'enlightened' geeks and 'pjilosopohers' have wasted such tme on it. **** Follow MY lead! LMAO.


The 'idiot' and 'intellectual' alike will miss the point of the post and 'invent' 'facts' as to my belief in God!!!!!!!!

LM*AO!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Moderator edit: The intellectual does not need every second word to be f**k. I'm not so sure about the idiot.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never claimed to be an 'intellectual'!!!!! LOL.

As to my diction, I should be able to use whatever words I choose, neh? How I express my views should be up to me---and if I choose to use FUCK a trillion times, it is not an indication of stupidity or intelligence, merely my choice of words.

 

You didn't really answer my question directly. I was asking if you are presenting a theory. Maybe you did, you said "you have faith". Why? If it helps you I suppose that's cool, but I'd generally argue that if you're intelligent and emotionally healthy, you don't need faith in that kind of crap. Further, you seem to have skipped over the fundamental philosophical quandries regarding the nature of knowledge etc. For instance do you exist? Are you absolutely positive? Prove it! Hah! More difficult than it sounds. I would agree that faith is a good thing to have, but I place mine in more reasonable and fundamental assumptions as in "I DO exist" and "Reason and logic are reasonable and logical". Kind of redundant, but hard to prove on a fundie level. Therefore I assume... and my faith as such is strong. Hence my own brand of dogma "faith in reason". Regarding dogmatic responses, that is the only one I deem reasonable.. do you see why?

How should I know? It seems that through processes within the universe this ability has manifested itself inside us. At least that's how it SEEMS eh? If you make further assumptions as to the origin of this ability, you'll narrow yourself right out of a proper solution set. For instance, since you've so conveniently chosen to have "faith" in your answer, you're not likely to be the person who discovers the actual reason since you've already written it off. If you simply don't want to fuck with it, that's cool... but you should sack up and admit it eh?

Hehe, I'm sorry but I find your reasoning amusing. NO, we didn't start out very smart. Let me ask you a question.. you're a bright person right? now say you had literally no education. How do you think might be the simplest explanation as to the wonders before you? Might you attribute it to something you'd tend to personify (since that's what you can relate to) and something greater than you? Imagine if you will the first conscious human emerging from a cave into a beautiful pre-historic forest. He is a social animal. How might the first communication regarding an attempt to establish their context within their surroundings go? I don't think it's much of a stretch (it could take thousands of years before a "caveman epiphany" whereby said caveman thinks to himself "WAIT A SECOND, I GET IT! THE FIREBALL IN THE SKY IS A GOD!!" and then there's the grass god and the tree god and on and on and on. Since groups most likely evolved in isolation, it's likely that there would be many variations of stories along these lines... why? For any particular group: Best explanation at the time. Don't you think that makes a bit of sense?

Did you follow me with the caveman and the business?

 

Finally, some sense from an atheist. Faith is fundamental to human ratinality. You believe what you want - but it has consequences.
Most people have faith in reason - except agnostics - (which means anything which doesn't stand up to their logical critique is crap). Some [theists] just avoid that narrow path of placing faith in reason only, and also place their faith in a higher power.
Some people (theists) do not believe that the main components of the human aura are just biochemical. Some beleive that there is another part to you - other than that which is immediately visible - which will also provide knowledge and iinput (of a creator and worlds/dimensions beyond our physical 3 or 4 if you wish). You can liken the experience to experiencing the passage of time.

 

Nah, I wasn't presenting anything so ground breaking my next stop is ending world hunger. Just making a couple of **impassive** proposals. Since the overwhelming general consenus of Atheists, Humanists et al is that Christians ride on pure emotional generalities and doom and gloom arguments (that which I won't dismiss altogether).

This girl is going to get lambasted but here it goes.... Because there isn't enough reasonable evidence to eliminate the need for faith. Just like you use faith to fill in the blanks in your Logic, so do I. I do not want to define your views for you, so I will say faith is relative. Your faith may very well mean "uncertainty". And my faith means "trust".

Being intelligent and emotionally healthy isn't going to resolve what faith stands in the place of. Like understanding the Trinity for example.

I'm not sure how Nihilism(sp?) is either here or there. I can still assume my proposals if nothing is objective.

Hey! Points for originality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree to an extent. I am from the school of thought that proposes the universe has a beginning. These processes that manifested you speak of, assuming they came from said universe, cannot sufficiently be the cause of our abiltity to think infinitely. For, if we are given the ability to think about/of infinity, causelessness, perfection, Super Man, etc... I do not understand how something that isn't infinite gives something an abilty to think infinitely.

Please do not assume my faith = laziness.
I have faith for lack of proof. Just as I have faith that gravity exists, though we cannot prove it.

Yes something personified or greater. It seems people have natural, innate desires...thirst, hunger, sex, etc. These natural desires have a corresponding object to it (water, food, [insert sex object here]. We have a natural desire to know where natural wonders came from. Since every other natural desire has a corresponding object to it, there is good reason to think the same who created natural wonders.

It's hard to think of what their 1st mode of communiation would be. The eyes most likely. And I agree, their intellectual skills would more than likely evolve from there. However, I believe primitive cavemen were as real as pixies. IMO, from the beginning of mankind, humans were always able to think as competely as we can today. We never evolved, rather tapped into different ways of thinking. You more than likey don't agree with my creation stance, but we'll have to agree to disagree so this thread isn't hijacked

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After you've picked yourself off the floor from laughing at my reasoning, let me know if I failed to answer your questions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I get your point - 'is' is never a good word to use. I just feel in my personal opinion that, as with most things, there is only one way to be right, but lots of ways to be wrong. Whereas someone could take God as being *real*and have their own direct unique opinion and possibility/belief of God: for that one possibility--there are thousands upon thousands of other possibilities--one of course being that 'God' does not, has not, and will not exist ever in any shape or form, and on top of that thousands and thousands more possibilities of a 'God' existing, but in no terms of reality that correspond with anyones opinion or understanding of what God is.
If you throw a million sided dice, i would not place a bet upon it landing on the side that says 'God' - I would however put a bet on the dice landing on any of the sides but 'God'.


Hmm my drunken babble lol, gone off track a bit I think!

 

LOL well I got your point anyway!
I'd like a of retort on my last post. Anyone?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll eventually get to it, promise.

*wonders if she's interested or grimacing*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Without reading the entire thread:

Maybe concepts like "existing" or "not existing" are irrelevant to God.

Why do people insist on insulting him by claiming to know ANYTHING about him?

 

Thanks.

I exactly agree.

Here I disagree, and I'll show you why..

That path isn't as narrow as you'd think. IMO, it's just the path to being honest with yourself, whereas that's technically impossible as a theist, even worse if you're a member of a religion. Here's why: The path of reason merely means "I'm going to be reasonable" but if god smacks me in the face and say "hey punk, wake up" I'll be all into finding a reasonable solution. If at the end of the day it was "god" well.. then it was god. However, technically it would be a ridiculous statement to say "this is god" because really you'd be saying "this is something that is advanced enough to appear to me to be god", and IMO THAT is what agnosticism is all about.

Agnosticism is not a theistic perspective. ConsequentAthiest spent a lot of time opening my eyes to that fact. The term "agnostic" implies a perspective on epistemology. I'm an absolute agnostic from the perspective that "all knowledge is tenative", from this result, I too am a consequent atheist, because atheism is the part where you don't "believe" in god. If you need more convincing on this, please read the thread "consistent or delimited agnosticism" started by ConsequentAthiest. IMO, it was a VERY interesting thread. He and I really went at it and in the end, I think we learned a lot from each other (I from him more than he from me I'm sure, but regardless, it was awesome).

*sigh* Okay, if you insist. I'm just not sure which "higher power" you're talking about. I don't want to go round and round really so.. I'll drop it for now.

I don't either, but our best research methods at this time say they are. IMO, the responsibility of the part who contends that this isn't true is to come up with a reasonable alternative, rather than "it's our soul". That statment makes zero advance in understanding. As a matter of fact IMO, it's a NEGATIVE statement to all further attempts towards REAL UNDERSTANDING... this is the main reason I HATE RELIGION. It impedes quality thinking.

I mostly believe that too, but have come up with my own funky theories as to how the universe may work rather than sinking to the despicable bullshit that religions would have me believe. Man I hate religions. They would sacrifice my brain and curiosity for another faithful monetary contributor. "save my soul" to kill my fucking brain. Goddamn traitors to the species. Your brain is a fucking gift. Perhaps it, and what it connects you to, is the greatest thing going.. and religious folk exactly betray that IMO.

 

As long as posters attack the argument and not the person, I am interested! Make no mistake.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A4Ever, where in ANY Bible does it say getting to know God is insulting? Thanks.

 

And the debate goes on....
I believe in God, but do not like organized religion.

 

Hehe, I have a bad habit of doing both, but in YOUR case I'll take it easy on the personal attacks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My question really revolves around how YOU view your hypothesis "god exists" or "religion is the right answer for me". Do you view it as tentative, until something more "fitting" comes along or do you view it as "this here shit is RIGHT ON, forget about all that other junk."? It's an important disctinction which speaks to your perspective regarding epistemology.

I use my faith to establish that logic and reason are indeed worthy of my faith. It is a circular argument, but it's on the level fo the definition of the word reason, so it causes the minimal logical damage.

Well I suppose to some degree everything is relative. In this type of conversation we do need to agree on what we're talking about, you're right. I'll try to take your definition into account when responding. I do believe however that in this case we're using 'faith' in the same sense of the word: "trust" is pretty much what I mean.

Are you sure? What I'm saying is that if you are intelligent and emotionally healthy, you shouldn't need to believe in something that is pretty much bullshit, like the idea of the trinity in terms of the standard christian definition that I'm familiar with "father/son/holy ghost" or whatever. That last part there is almost surely a crock of shit made up by people who were trying to socially engineer humans so that they didn't kill each other, and simulatneously using bullshit to explain that which they thought they understood, but really didn't have a fucking clue about. For instance. I'd be all the money in the world that most people living throughout all of time have ended up thinking they had pretty much figured all the important shit out, whereas if you pick up a math or physics or atronomy book, you know better. Unless of course, you're unreasonable (the proverbial "you".

Nihilism: Nothing is there. Hehe, my point had nothing to do with nihilism. It has to do with knowledge, consciousness and the core of philosophy (as I see it). If one asks the appropriate questions I believe one ends up with "well shit, I can't prove it's not the matrix". That's the core of philosophy to me, that one really can't "prove" much regarding the nature of conciousness's place in "reality". That's not Nihilism. I'm not saying "Nothing is there.", just "Nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", or more succinctly "all knowledge is tentative.

How is it that you can "think infinitely"? I think you're exagerating. It certainly seems infinite but that is really just poetic language don't you think? I'm of the same school of thought that says "the universe has a beginning" but only because there is a bunch of extremely plausible sounding evidence suggesting that the universe is a bit over 14 Billion years old. There are some interesting theories as to what might have "existed" before that. My problem is that with religions in general what is the point of thinking of something that might have existed before the big bang besides to say "god", when that description does nothing to really increase our understanding of the process that lead to the universe. Actually I guess that fine as long as it makes you ask "what is god?" rathere than "how may I serve god?". See the difference? See why one is wrong? Hehe, okay.. well it's VERY wrong to ME.

So then, why would you presume to be able to answer such a sohpisticated question with a simplistic answer like "god"? Eh, I'm getting tired and don't want to type a whole bunch.. so I'm dropping it for now.

faith for lack of proof is laziness. at least that's how it sounds to me. you basically just told me "I don't have proof, so it must be this explanation". That is lazy and worse, to me it wreaks of despair, hidden behind a veil of religion. I don't mean to imply that you are some wretched thing, I'm just saying that in general that's how the concepts in question relate to me from what you said. *shrug* just saying that's not a personal attack. It's just an analysis of your words.

That is not a reasonable conclusion to draw. You're thinking of things in a poetic and beautiful manner and drawing "happy thoughts" conclusions from your line of pretty thinking. Are the desires which are a result of my mind unnatural? If so, why are there so many freaky feet fetish people? Ick! It's obviously some sort of genetic thing, an anomoly of some sort!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL. I'm not trying to be rude I swear, but your reasoning is not good here. Can someone else explain why this is false quicker than I can? I'm getting tired. Thanks in advance, for real. Booya Kasha.

1st mode of communiation? I don't know what that means, but it sounds pretty uh... well, religious. *shrug* Okay.

Primitive cavemen are as real as pixies????? I'm sorry, but this is why I didn't respond in the first place. IMO, you don't seem serious about your interest or you wouldn't say things that are so grossly un-informed. How do you explain the skeletons? What about the science behind it? It's pretty plausible. It's certainly far more plausible than an invisible sadist in the sky and a dead guy who you think absolves you of sin. *shrug* That's a true statement. I would say that if you argue against the basic idea of evolution, you are not earnestly interested in objective reality.

Hehe, you're fine and sorry I tend to sound rude but I really didn't mean it that way.

 

Faith... as usual