God is real?

[MarcAC]

As for dependent and independent things, the problem is this. Where does the independent thing come from? How does it come into existence? Nothing could simply arise from zilch. That makes no sense.

Exactly, thus the need for an independent entity. If you don't have one then you have infinite causation.

The other problem, is the Universe does not have to be dependent. The "Universe" encompasses everything, including a void - i.e. nothingness. The Universe does not have to be dependent on anything.

Well, the universe is not the universe without it's components. Therefore, it's existence depends upon those elements which comprise it. To say it is independent is to say everything which makes it up is independent. You can take that stance, however, the universe does not show intelligence as far as I can see and all the evidence as far as I, and I'm sure all theists see, point to an intelligent creator (after looking at their existence on a whole... including experiencing it).

 

[Sirius83]

Simply because I may never know the answer is no reason to simply accept the notion of "God" just to fill that void of "Where did all this come from?" Besides which, doing so doesn't answer where God came from, anyway.

I'm open to the notion of God, don't get me wrong...but only if there is a reasonable explanation to God's existence. At one point or another, our civilization will become so advanced, that compared to our current society it will look like a civilization of Gods. Think the ending to the original Men in Black movie.

But, even in such a scenario, we then have to face the question of "Where did that come from?" The cycle is never ending. I'll stay here knowing I don't have the answer. If one day the answer does come along, well then cool, that's great...but if not, no big thing. At least I won't have just accepted an answer that I know is flawed. That will eat at me more than not knowing the answer.

When you fall in love -- how much reason do you employ into believing that you are in love? How much reason do you employ into collecting evidence and proof that your parents and your friends love you?

Actually, I do put quite a bit of thought into it. Following emotions is all well and good, but emotions alone get you into a lot of trouble unless balanced off with some good sound reasoning. You're going down a side path here, seeing as you're comparing two incomparable things, but I'll play along anyway. Without stopping to put thought into it, I can tell that my parents and friends love me. If I do wish to stop and think about it, I find the same answer, because what comes to mind is the same as normal. I'm aware of what they do and say, I can tell how they feel about me. They are very real. You don't have to stop and think to follow reasoning.

Romantic love? Same thing. Except there are also a lot of hormones involved. In both cases, there is also the element of attachment. That has to do with becoming fond of what is around you. Without trying to degrade the issue, it is the same as why a dog cries for nights on end if moved to a new home. These are very real issues dealing with the workings of the human body and our attachment to our surroundings(people and places). On the other hand, God is just an idea that has no real proof. It's nowhere near the same boat.

I certainly don't see God's magic in life. What I see is precisely what it is; a collection of atoms and molecules, with some energy. It comes together in different ways. It forms life, it forms our surroundings. All by chance. Beautifully, indeed. But all by chance. I don't have to explain a beautiful scene or interpersonal reaction through some sort of higher being. I can explain it for the chance of nature that it is, and still appreciate it...in fact, be awed by it.

Reason is not all there is to us.

If we rely only on reason, we become robots.

Of course not. Humans have emotions, that makes us who we are. But reason explains why. On the other hand, reason doesn't explain God. God is a product of ancient times to explain what could be explained during that era.

Such a stance is like the one in Beckett's "Waiting for Godot": you will wait for ever.

and

So, if reason is all you want from life -- go ahead. But then I am surprised that you should be *waiting* that you get some data that may prove that your position of reason is not the only one. If reason is your only position, then reason is all you'll ever get.

Nice line. I'm content to wait forever in this matter, actually. We are dealing with the very essence of our existence. If I cannot get an answer to that, I will have at least died trying to find it, rather than accepting a flawed explanation, and dying knowing that I accepted such an answer instead of persevering for the one that feels right to me. Reason, by the way, is the only answer I want regarding our existence.

What would be real proof? Videotapes?
I don't mean to jest -- but approaching religion with logical reason as the only acceptable basis for thought will necessarily render religion irrational.

A videotape would be nice, yes. =P Actually, accurate historical references that do not conflict with each other will suffice. See Goddless' post for information on that...speaking of which, SVRP, I'm not ignoring your post. However, i think Godless has put it quite clearly why I disagree with you.

Anyway RosaMagika, that is my point exactly. Religion is irrational. It doesn't make sense when thought about. To me, it's merely an outdated way of explaining life to the masses.

But do ask yourself: Isn't that snowflake just beautiful? Don't those flowers smell ever so preciously? -- And you wish to analyze this beauty with reason -- and you think this analysis will satisfy you?! Does it satisfy you?

Sure, the snowflake is beautiful. And the flower smells nice. Also, I do wish to analyze this beauty with reason. Why? It's interesting, and helps me understand the why behind the what is. I'm not content to just accept the end product, I want to know why it's like that. Coincidentally, it's like that because of the way the snowflake is formed, and the flower smells nice because the chemicals responsible for that smell attract animals that allow it to reproduce. Really quite beautiful, and I don't have to touch God to get an explanation why. The snowflake is shaped the way it is because of the way matter must exist to be stable. The flower smells nice because in its evolution from a simple coincidence which led to life, it found a fitting way to ensure the survival of its species. I appreciate these things too, but instead of just thinking "It's so beautiful, God must be responsible", I can be satisfied in knowing and understanding the why behind the beauty.

Exactly, thus the need for an independent entity. If you don't have one then you have infinite causation.

That can work. It has to do with the idea that time is just a perception, and that reality in fact loops back on itself in a sense...thus making the Universe dependent on itself, not an independent entity that created it...and then where does that independent entity come from? See the problem?

Well, the universe is not the universe without it's components. Therefore, it's existence depends upon those elements which comprise it. To say it is independent is to say everything which makes it up is independent. You can take that stance, however, the universe does not show intelligence as far as I can see and all the evidence as far as I, and I'm sure all theists see, point to an intelligent creator (after looking at their existence on a whole... including experiencing it).

And there is the problem again. You can take up the stance that the Universe is dependent on an intelligent creator. But then you ge tthe same question you were trying to answer slapped back in your face. "Where did the intelligent creator come from?" It's a neverending cycle...unless of course, it IS a neverending cycle as outlined above...with the Universe relying on nothing but itself, looping itself back through "time", although "time" is nothing but a mere perception.


Sirius83

 

[water]

They are very real. You don't have to stop and think to follow reasoning.
/.../
These are very real issues dealing with the workings of the human body and our attachment to our surroundings(people and places). On the other hand, God is just an idea that has no real proof. It's nowhere near the same boat.

First of all, it all depends on what you understand by "God".
Secondly, God cannot be "explained away" *only* with reason. Trying to explain God by means of reason renders the belief in God irrational -- so why talk about it only by means of reason?

I certainly don't see God's magic in life. What I see is precisely what it is; a collection of atoms and molecules, with some energy. It comes together in different ways. It forms life, it forms our surroundings.

There are always at least two aspects to everything:
1. what it is,
2. our evaluation of it.

Science is good at explaining 1. But when it comes to 2 -- where do we derive our ethics from? How do we assign values?
No science can satisfyingly explain why someone prefers apples over oranges.

All by chance. Beautifully, indeed. But all by chance.

Oh, you cannot know whether it indeed is by chance.

I don't have to explain a beautiful scene or interpersonal reaction through some sort of higher being.

I deliberately omitted mentioning this in the previous post, I wanted you to say it.

I can explain it for the chance of nature that it is, and still appreciate it...in fact, be awed by it.

And that's just it! To appreciate it, to be awed by it.

Reason, by the way, is the only answer I want regarding our existence.

Okay. So why are you wondering about God in the first place?

Sure, the snowflake is beautiful. And the flower smells nice. Also, I do wish to analyze this beauty with reason. Why? It's interesting, and helps me understand the why behind the what is. I'm not content to just accept the end product, I want to know why it's like that.

It is human nature to explore, wanting to know why and how things are the way they are.
I don't think this is contrary to the belief in a God.

However, and I can't stress this enough, scientific exploration definitely is against *some interpretations* of God.

In the past, and still, some religious people and organizations interpret science to be against God. But I think those people and organizations are being misguided by their own weaknesses.

Unfortunately, this sheds an intensely bad light on all of religion, and on all of thinking about God.

Really quite beautiful, and I don't have to touch God to get an explanation why.

One could say that it is God who touches you.

"It's so beautiful, God must be responsible", I can be satisfied in knowing and understanding the why behind the beauty.

Saying "It's so beautiful, God must be responsible" can be a bit misleading -- on the part of the religious as well as on the part of the non-religious.

If the non-religious say that all that the religious think is "It's so beautiful, God must be responsible" -- then the non-religious are being narrow-minded and don't allow the religious the proper credit a sentient being deserves.

If the religious say "It's so beautiful, God must be responsible" and don't go further than that, then they are pushing themselves into serious perils, as, to put it bluntly, simply standing there in awe will not put bread on the table.

If anything, life is about appreciating that you are alive -- and this appreciation can have many names and conceptualizations. One of them is God.

That can work. It has to do with the idea that time is just a perception, and that reality in fact loops back on itself in a sense...thus making the Universe dependent on itself, not an independent entity that created it...and then where does that independent entity come from? See the problem?

If anything, most, if not all of our problems stem from our thinking, from the inconsistencies of our thinking -- rather than stemming from objective reality being inconsistent.

And there is the problem again. You can take up the stance that the Universe is dependent on an intelligent creator. But then you ge tthe same question you were trying to answer slapped back in your face. "Where did the intelligent creator come from?" It's a neverending cycle...unless of course, it IS a neverending cycle as outlined above...with the Universe relying on nothing but itself, looping itself back through "time", although "time" is nothing but a mere perception.

Maybe it is the way we think about cause and effect relations that is flawed, not the idea of an "intelligent creator".

 

[SVRP]

SVRP, I'm not ignoring your post. However, i think Godless has put it quite clearly why I disagree with you.
Sirius83

Thank you for the decent reply, Sirius83, and if you are as open-minded as you claim you are, then you will have no problem reading the article at this website that answers Dan Barker's Christian Challenge questions.

http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/Barker17.htm

 

[Godless]

Trying to explain God by means of reason renders the belief in God irrational --

LOL, no shiet!!

That's all we've been trying to tell you. USE logic, and Reason to derrive that mysticism, i.e. gods, devils, goblins, agels, deamons, unicorns, ghosts, etc.. of mysticism bs.. and i'ts all IRRATIONAL..

Furthermore I don't think you've got a very good analogy of what it means to "reason". So I'll explain with a little help from Ayn Rand.

Reason is the faculty that identifies and intergrates the material provided by man's senses. A.R.

*Reason is how we figure out what things are, and how they function, we give it "identity" call it a flower, or a tree, car or table. We figure out things by reason. How can one use reason to explain an unknown?. You can't then you just assume, speculate, use emotions to explain the unexplainable.

Reason intergrates man's perception by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic--and logic is the art of (non-contradictory identification). A.R.

*Evolution brought about in man the ability to think, however the change was not part of evolution, it was part of man's original invention, and that invention is what we call consciousness. This invention i.e. consciousness brought man from the perceptual to the conceptual level. In other words we don't only perceive what an object is but we conceptualise what it is, "identity". How can one (identify) an idea of a supreme being, which you can't explain, can't determine wether it exists or not, don't have any concrete evidence of it's existence, or any emperical evidence that it exists?. Other than by whims, wishes, and fantasy.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

Dr. Jason Gastrich; Another idiot who thinks has it figured out!.


There's contradictions of his own analogy if you were to examine it a bit closer;

6) Matthew 28:5-7 - The angel speaks, tells the women not to be afraid, and tells them Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. The angel also tells them to tell the disciples that He is risen and would meet them in Galilee.

Galilee is about 150 miles from Jerusalem, not even the fastes camels or horses at the time would have not gone far on a days journey to meet Jesus.

5) Luke 24:1-3 - Very early in the morning, they and certain other women came to the tomb with spices and found it empty.

Mark 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

I ques there were more than just the two marys? no contradiction here sinse they use "they and other certain women" but who the hell were they?. I assume the certain women were the two marys.

From the site provided:

6) Mark 16:5-7 - They found the stone rolled away, enter the tomb and see a man with a white robe (an angel) sitting in the tomb. He tells them that Jesus has risen and that He would meet them in Galilee.

6) Luke 24:4-8 - The women went in the tomb and found two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening (angels). One spoke and told them that Jesus had risen.

Ok so there was one angel or two?. Smells like contradiction or someone does not know the difference between ONE PERSON OR TWO!!

Mathew 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mathew contradicts Mark; Mark does not speak of an earthquake, I quess Mark did not notice there was an earhtquake that opened the tomb, however Mathew did, I like to know what kind of weed was Mark smoking that he did not feel or heard, nor documented an EARTHQUAKE!!. Unless there's discrepacies on the accounts. Which truly there are even by Dr. Jason Gastrich own rationalizations.

Godless.

 

[MarcAC]

...and then where does that independent entity come from? See the problem?

As defined, and independent entity does not depend on anything (including a concept of time). It has always been and everything that is is dependent upon it. We are really saying the same thing except you seem to be leaning towards the universe as independent while I and most theists who think like me think that is inadequate to explain away the same things that you and The Magic Rose are discussing (beauty, love, morality) through non-personal and non-intended causes.

And there is the problem again. You can take up the stance that the Universe is dependent on an intelligent creator. But then you ge tthe same question you were trying to answer slapped back in your face. "Where did the intelligent creator come from?" It's a neverending cycle...unless of course, it IS a neverending cycle as outlined above...with the Universe relying on nothing but itself, looping itself back through "time", although "time" is nothing but a mere perception.

It is equally rational to suppose that it isn't. When you look at infinite causation... it just doesn't make any sense to me. You will still have to try to figure how that series of infinite causation arose. Even this: What is reality? Is there anything else? And even looking back at that "race on the road to infinity" concept: if I stopped at one cause in the series of inifinite causes and you continued to search for and discover causes it would seemingly make no difference with regards to any of us.

However the point is that there is objective morality, love, appreciation of beauty, and that ever present longing or yearning for *something* which is greater than ourselves. Physicists find it so unbelievably stunning that we are here at all that they have considered the possibility of an infinite number of universes because if they don't the implications would force everyone to start searching for God. Sooooo many other eventualities point to God. I find it hard to believe how an open minded rational person cannot believe in at *least* some intelligence behind it all.

 

[water]

How can one (identify) an idea of a supreme being, which you can't explain, can't determine wether it exists or not, don't have any concrete evidence of it's existence, or any emperical evidence that it exists?. Other than by whims, wishes, and fantasy.

Do not make light of wishes: they are after all what keeps us going.
And fantasy: why deride it?! Think of the creativity, the imagination that is required to improve, say, the irrigation technique or sewing machine! How much creative thinking was needed to make all those technological advancements!

 

[Godless]

Do not make light of wishes: they are after all what keeps us going.

'What a sorry way to live!.

And fantasy: why deride it?! Think of the creativity, the imagination that is required to improve, say, the irrigation technique or sewing machine! How much creative thinking was needed to make all those technological advancements!

A fantasy does not equal a sewing machine. It took reason, logic, and brain power to create things, fantasysing about them would have not brought forth anything!!.

The world is a very old place, England, Spain, Egypt, countries that are millenia older than the US, however it was the FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION that brought man were he is today. Free to think, without having church leaders burning down your house for some new gadget you invented,or some new herb that healed. Yet, even here in the US we had a time of witches burning them silly old fools religiousnist in Salem, and that was not fantasy, that's the reality of what the church has brought to human kind, destruction, wars, calamity, human oppresion, and all for trying to live off fantasy.

Godless.

 

[Sirius83]

Trying to explain God by means of reason renders the belief in God irrational -- so why talk about it only by means of reason?

And that right there is the point! Using emotions and faith to explain things does not provide you with a real solid answer. It gives you the answer you want to hear rather than the real answer. Reason gives you a supported answer. The point made was that by using reason, to get a supported answer free of personal desire, was that religion is irrational. The reason it is irrational is because God is outside of the realm of reason. It is irrational along with the religions that follow it.

But when it comes to 2 -- where do we derive our ethics from? How do we assign values?

It's quite simple, really. Our ethics are, at the end of the day based on what is necessary for our own survival. They are the code of behaviour that has been found to be the best way of preserving and advancing the human race. They have existed since the days of the caveman. Existed since way before the various religions, even the ancient ones. As a result, these behaviours, or perhaps I should now say morals, filtered down into the different religions upon their creation.

Oh, you cannot know whether it indeed is by chance.

We can see the different stages of creation when we look to the stars. We can backtrace our own biological development and infer how we came into being. Sure, it's not necessarily 100% accurate, but at least it's supported, unlike religion that requires faith rather than reasoning to back itself up.

I deliberately omitted mentioning this in the previous post, I wanted you to say it.

and

And that's just it! To appreciate it, to be awed by it.

So then you concede that beautiful sceneries and relationships do not need a higher being(God) to explain them or be awed by them. Now we're getting somewhere!

Okay. So why are you wondering about God in the first place?

Because I am willing to accept God as an answer if it can be reasonably explained. As it is, it has not, and in the meanwhile, I will show how I believe the God answer is incorrect - unless I of course am proven incorrect...which really can't be done by saying reason renders God and religion irrational, since that's the very basis of my argument. By saying that, you support my position; not argue against it.

It is human nature to explore, wanting to know why and how things are the way they are.
I don't think this is contrary to the belief in a God.

However, and I can't stress this enough, scientific exploration definitely is against *some interpretations* of God.

In the past, and still, some religious people and organizations interpret science to be against God. But I think those people and organizations are being misguided by their own weaknesses.

Unfortunately, this sheds an intensely bad light on all of religion, and on all of thinking about God.

See, the problem is that regardless of which interpretations of God are for or against scientific exploration, the same scientific exploration renders all the interpretations irrational. Thinking about God and religion with logic and science renders them irrational, and as such, seriously questions their validity.

If anything, life is about appreciating that you are alive -- and this appreciation can have many names and conceptualizations. One of them is God.

Perhaps that is one thing life is about, appreciating your own existence...and perhaps, one of the names and conceptualizations of this appreciation is God. However, by definition, God is the supreme being that created the Universe. This is not just an appreciation, this is an attempt at explaining the unknown. One which, by some logical thinking about how God is presented and explained, and the Universe around us, is an irrational attempt.

If anything, most, if not all of our problems stem from our thinking, from the inconsistencies of our thinking -- rather than stemming from objective reality being inconsistent.

and

Maybe it is the way we think about cause and effect relations that is flawed, not the idea of an "intelligent creator".

We may have a flawed way of thinking, and quite frnakly there's no way to prove or disprove that. However, the fact remains that until such a time comes where we are proven to be thinking wrongly about the Universe, we apply our current ideas to our explanations. And by doing this - and I can't see it changing even with other ideas about our Universe - we STILL end up with the problem of "How did this intelligent creator come into existence?" Something cannot simply just exist there without becoming itself at some point, be in inside or outside of our understanding of time. Far less some intelligent supreme being. This answer applies to MarcAC's post as well.

SVRP - I looked at the page you linked, but I must side with Godless here. The author still has contradictions, as outlined in Godless' post.


Sirius83

 

[Jenyar]

So then you concede that beautiful sceneries and relationships do not need a higher being(God) to explain them or be awed by them. Now we're getting somewhere!

Do you need Henry Ford in the passenger seat to drive a Ford, or to admire its functionality?

 

[water]

“ Do not make light of wishes: they are after all what keeps us going. ”
What a sorry way to live!.

Why a sorry way? Have you no wishes? Why do you work hard, why do you study hard? Because it is your wish to accomplish something. If you wouldn't have that wish, you would do very little.

A fantasy does not equal a sewing machine. It took reason, logic, and brain power to create things, fantasysing about them would have not brought forth anything!!.

Who said that a fantasy equals a sewing machine?! If you want to *invent* something, if you want to *create* something, you do need the powers of imagination. Reason without imagination is lost.

The world is a very old place, England, Spain, Egypt, countries that are millenia older than the US, however it was the FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION that brought man were he is today. Free to think, without having church leaders burning down your house for some new gadget you invented,or some new herb that healed. Yet, even here in the US we had a time of witches burning them silly old fools religiousnist in Salem, and that was not fantasy, that's the reality of what the church has brought to human kind, destruction, wars, calamity, human oppresion, and all for trying to live off fantasy.

You are confusing the actual historical institute of the church and religion.
Being religious doesn't necessarily mean that one is stupid or narrow-minded.
But to cover up one's stupidity and narrow-mindedness, religion is often used -- and this sheds a bad light on all of religion.

***

And that right there is the point! Using emotions and faith to explain things does not provide you with a real solid answer.

Why wouldn't an emotional answer suffice? I can understand that many times, we need the judgement of reason, and we'd be lost without it.
But not at all times. For example, explaining art with sheer reason is the maddest asceticism I can imagine.

It gives you the answer you want to hear rather than the real answer.

Not necessarily. The judgements of the heart can be quite cruel sometimes.

Reason gives you a supported answer. The point made was that by using reason, to get a supported answer free of personal desire, was that religion is irrational. The reason it is irrational is because God is outside of the realm of reason. It is irrational along with the religions that follow it.

How can we be interested into something that is free of personal desire?

We can see the different stages of creation when we look to the stars. We can backtrace our own biological development and infer how we came into being. Sure, it's not necessarily 100% accurate, but at least it's supported, unlike religion that requires faith rather than reasoning to back itself up.

We have determined before that religion is not entirely rational. If so, it is outside of the realm of rational discussion -- and thus we cannot rationally judge religion. It is like saying "Apples don't have legs" -- this is a pointless observation, isn't it?

So then you concede that beautiful sceneries and relationships do not need a higher being(God) to explain them or be awed by them. Now we're getting somewhere!

Now you are getting somewhere, I was waiting here for you all along. All I am trying to say that for some people, beauty is conceptualized with the help of God, for some other people it isn't. This doesn't mean that some are right and others are wrong -- they just have different names for this beauty.

The religious as well as the non-religious are using the same words, but those words mean very different things to each of them. On the surface, it all looks as if they are words of the same language. But the religious and the non-religious are speaking two different languages, while it just *seems* that they are using the same one, and it is just that "the other party is using the words wrongly".

Because I am willing to accept God as an answer if it can be reasonably explained.

But we have determine before that there is no reasonable explanation for God! God cannot be explained solely by the means of reason, and we therefore cannot set the condition you have set.

As it is, it has not, and in the meanwhile, I will show how I believe the God answer is incorrect - unless I of course am proven incorrect...which really can't be done by saying reason renders God and religion irrational, since that's the very basis of my argument. By saying that, you support my position; not argue against it.

Of course I support your position that God cannot be reasonably explained, can't you see that?!

We differ in me saying that reason is not all there is, and you saying that reason is all you want.

See, the problem is that regardless of which interpretations of God are for or against scientific exploration, the same scientific exploration renders all the interpretations irrational. Thinking about God and religion with logic and science renders them irrational, and as such, seriously questions their validity.

It only questions their validity from the position of reason.

However, by definition, God is the supreme being that created the Universe.

Duh, this is a bloody forced reduction. It has been argued about it at great lengths here in this thread.

We may have a flawed way of thinking, and quite frnakly there's no way to prove or disprove that. However, the fact remains that until such a time comes where we are proven to be thinking wrongly about the Universe, we apply our current ideas to our explanations.

And until such time comes, we are left to ourselves, to each and every minute of each day. Will you live it in the hopes that one day, someone smarter than you may come and solve the problems you were having? Or will you be so brave as to take what you have here and now, do the best with it, and not hope for a distant time that may come or not?

 

[SVRP]

SVRP - I looked at the page you linked, but I must side with Godless here. The author still has contradictions, as outlined in Godless' post.

Thank you for the reply, Sirius83, but if you are reasonable and logical then consider these explanations for those previous responses.

Matthew 28:5-7 - The angel speaks, tells the women not to be afraid, and tells them Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. The angel also tells them to tell the disciples that He is risen and would meet them in Galilee.

Galilee is about 150 miles from Jerusalem, not even the fastes camels or horses at the time would have not gone far on a days journey to meet Jesus.

Did the angel say Jesus would meet them on the same day? This is what you want to imply, but that is not what the message says. The message was whenever the disciples get to Galilee, Jesus will meet them there whether it would be two, three, or seven days later.

6) Mark 16:5-7 - They found the stone rolled away, enter the tomb and see a man with a white robe (an angel) sitting in the tomb. He tells them that Jesus has risen and that He would meet them in Galilee.

6) Luke 24:4-8 - The women went in the tomb and found two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening (angels). One spoke and told them that Jesus had risen.

Ok so there was one angel or two?. Smells like contradiction or someone does not know the difference between ONE PERSON OR TWO!!

If ten people witness an event and give testimony on what they saw, you would have ten different versions of the same event, according to psychologists, officers, judges, and attorneys of law. Yet the fact would be clear that an event took place whether the details do not coincide with each other. The tomb was empty and an angel announced that Jesus has risen.

Mathew 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Mathew contradicts Mark; Mark does not speak of an earthquake, I quess Mark did not notice there was an earhtquake that opened the tomb, however Mathew did, I like to know what kind of weed was Mark smoking that he did not feel or heard, nor documented an EARTHQUAKE!!. Unless there's discrepacies on the accounts. Which truly there are even by Dr. Jason Gastrich own rationalizations.

Omission does not necessarily mean a contradiction, which Dan Barker agrees to as well.

Sirius 83, if you are interested in reading both sides, the pros & cons of a debate, go to the following link.
A debate using Extra-biblical resources regarding the resurrection.
http://members.iglou.com/nomad/religion/Debate1.html

 

[Godless]

Yes svrp, and if you were to read the whole debate, it seems like Nomad makes an ass of Liona!.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

Regardless it was a very good link SVRP, thanks for providing it.
It was very educational, however it seems that their debate is not over. And from my point of view, (which may be bias since I'm an athiest) it seems Nomad, has Liona evading and complementing much of Nomads findings.

Godless.

 

[Alpha]

- "You, you, you. Try to walk in someone else's shoes."
- "Are you implying my own are insufficient?"
- "You are a bit stiff sometimes, yes."
- "And how does that imply that my own experience is insufficient?"
- "I did not say that it is insufficient."

It seems to me that you did imply it.

You just think what could be termed "typically manly". I am not saying this to offend you, and indeed, it is more professional to argue the way you do -- but I like it when people get emotional.

I find emotion gets in the way of logical and intelligent debate, so I keep it under control when debating.

Not in terms of getting sappy or losing their temper -- just a little warmth and creativity in thought and style.

I'll keep that in mind.

"Well then, who created God?" If this is a valid argument against God's existence, then "Who created the Universe" is also a valid argument.

Which is one reason neither are valid.

We don't know for sure, how the Universe came into existence. However, we still try to explain it. We may not be able to right now, but we attempt to find out. That is the difference. In the case of God, it is just a matter of accepting that God exists, always has, and has no creator(brrr?). To one such as myself, accepting such a flawed argument is to believe in something I don't. I will, instead, accept that we do not know how the Universe came into existence, but will continue to seek out a viable explanation to its birth.

You are assuming the Universe had an origin in the first place.

Even if you follow logic, you inherrently follow faith.

Bullshit. What is with you religious people always insisting that everyone relies on faith, just because you do? You're just trying to give some sense of reasonability to faith.

But do ask yourself: Isn't that snowflake just beautiful? Don't those flowers smell ever so preciously? -- And you wish to analyze this beauty with reason -- and you think this analysis will satisfy you?! Does it satisfy you?

You're looking at it all wrong. Beauty is subjective. You use reason and logic with objective facts, for determining truth. Emotions have their place, and so does reason and logic, and they are mostly seperate domains.

Trying to explain God by means of reason renders the belief in God irrational -- so why talk about it only by means of reason?

Because the existence of God falls under the domain of objective truth, so logic and reason applies. The existence of God is not a subjective thing, even though one's belief about it is.

Why wouldn't an emotional answer suffice? I can understand that many times, we need the judgement of reason, and we'd be lost without it.
But not at all times. For example, explaining art with sheer reason is the maddest asceticism I can imagine.

Again, art and other "emotional answers" are subjective, and determining subjective truth requires nothing more than introspection. Reality is outside the domain of subjective beliefs though, and falls under the domain of logic and reason.
Logic and emotions have their place, and you are misusing them at times by attempting to determine an objective truth as if it were a subjective thing to be determined by emotions.

We have determined before that religion is not entirely rational. If so, it is outside of the realm of rational discussion -- and thus we cannot rationally judge religion. It is like saying "Apples don't have legs" -- this is a pointless observation, isn't it?

The problem here, is you're saying that something determined to be irrational simply falls under the subjective domain. But this is not so. It is still objective, and that it has been determined to be irrational/illogical only means it's wrong, not that it should be determined emotionally.

 

[water]

Alpha,


I'm afraid we could argue and argue ad nauseaum, but never reach a conclusion.
As far as I can tell, there is a major difference between us that determines most, if not everything: My starting position is "The ultimate way to explain phenomena is feasibility." While yours, as far as I gatehred, is "The ultimate way to explain phenomena is logicality." Feasibility and logicality are compatible, but only to an extent, and I think we have reached the realm of their incompatibility here (quite a while back).

As far as logicality goes, I can only support all your conclusions, and there is nothing I could add or change.
However, concerning feasibility, logicality doesn't always apply (as we have seen before with the problems of induction, limited resources of time and energy to collect and analyze data etc.); and I firmly believe that in effect, feasibility takes the upper hand.


I can only once more thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

 

[SVRP]

Regardless it was a very good link SVRP, thanks for providing it.
It was very educational, however it seems that their debate is not over. And from my point of view, (which may be bias since I'm an athiest) it seems Nomad, has Liona evading and complementing much of Nomads findings.

Glad you enjoyed reading it, Godless, but I will have to disagree with your biasness. Liona has explained himself very well. Plus, this link was meant for Sirius83 who considers himself as “open-minded”.

 

[jpcguy89]

I don't claim to know the answers about God...In fact I'm searching for them myself. I'm only a teenager, so for those of you who don't agree or think I'm senseless or dumb because of that fact, please don't became angry at my thinking or me myself. Question it all you want...it's my feelings not yours.
Here's my thinking. First off, know that I want to believe in God but have doubts. For those who can't understand why theirs so many religions and since there are, how can their be a god? Lutheranism and Protestantism were all created because they didn't agree with things like the church giving pardons for money or etc...they disagree on some fact like Jesus didn't exist (I'm not calling this a small fact).
But almost all religions fundamentally believe in God. Budha is God. Allah is God. (Again it is just my thinking) I think long ago we all started out believing in God, and then we twisted and turned religion in different ways, arguing trying to prove ourselves right or change the religion to better fit our way of thinking. Again, I'm just a kid giving his opinion. I've survived two brain tumors, the second of which I came out after only three days. Practically the same as I was before. I recieved phone calls from prayer groups of thousands of people all saying how they were praying for me. My classmates, all of them, from two different schools, sent cards, called and gave me their support. If there is a God, and he helps people, I am surely blessed.

 

[Godless]

Glad that you made it, however if you had died, then they would have just said. (That was god's will). So what good was it? then if it's the will of god for you to be ok, or did the all mighty sky daddy was influenced by prayer?. What about those who still die, even after half the world been praying for them?. God was an sob, and didn't listen to prayers then?.

Godless