GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What are your thoughts on god?

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 21:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 34271
PAGE 3 of 4

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:14 PM

BOWIE


I believe God is an entity who created man and the universe. I believe that I can understand his reasoning for this very clearly, because it is something he built into humans. Humans want things to hang with other then just humans, well a lot do, not all humans do. We want cats and dogs. Some people would say that we jsut want cute cuddly things to make us feel better, but dolls would do that, and I don't like dolls.

So why do humans like cats and dogs? For one thing because we can not compleatly control them. They have minds of their own, and they, especially cats, don't always do what we want them to. Humans are like that to God. I don't think personally that thats a bad thing.

If God exist why do bad things happen? If People exist why do bad things happen to animals? Even if as a cat owner I want to be with my cat, and keep him from getting scratches or scrapes, I can't be. I could lock him in the house, take away the wildness that I love in him, reduce him to being a pet, but even that wouldn't save him. Why? Because he has free will, and to put it frankly being perfectly safe all the time is boring. He wants to climb things, he wants to attack things. Someday he will climb the wrong thing, or attack the wrong thing, and all I'll be able to do is hope that he comes home. We are the same with God. Humans that did everything God wanted would be boring. For that reason I do not believe that God would send us to hell for disobeying him on small desgrees.

So why is there hell at all? Why not just heaven? Because sometimes pets turn bad. If a Dog goes wild and kills three little kids, you don't just forgive the dog and tell him not to do it again. You put him down because he has become a danger to the rest of the humans. In the same way humans can become dangers, not to God, but each other. Hitler did something that was unforgivable. I think that hell is for people who do that, go wild. Are no longer safe for other humans to live with. People who would kill other humans, not for any reason like self defence, or to save someone they love, but humans that would kill for something else. Even humans that would kill for a better world. This is not to say all killing is bad, it is to say the only reason there is a need for it, is because some humans go wild. God still loves them, as the owner of the dog still loves the dog, but he can not let the dog live. God still loves the people who torn evil, but he can no longer allowe them to be in heaven with those who did not go wild.

So are you saying you don't believe in Jesus? No. I believe in Jesus. If your cat gets hit by a car, you can't just pick him up and tell him to be well. You take him to the vet, and if the vet can save him, they do. In the same way if someone falls from God he can't just say come back. He needs someone to bring you back, someone who isn't spiritualy injuried. That is what Jesus is for. Its not the best show'll of what I mean, but its hard to put into words what I do mean. Thats my view on realigion anyway, I know its long, I didn't mean for it to be, but it is. sorry. :P

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:19 PM

ETHAN


The question of God is completely irrelevent to me. My moral compass would remain intact whether there was a god(s) or not. My appreciation for the world would likewise not abate, if not be enhanced in the absence of transcendance.

I think the most profound words I ever heard on the meaning of things went something like this; "If nothing we do has any meaning, then the only things that have meaning are the things that we do." Was it Joss Whedon who came up with that? Well what do you know....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:25 PM

MIRAMEL


im sure this view has probably already been stated, but im not about to read through that whole thread to find exactly whats been said and what hasnt, so i'll just give my two cents and keep it short.
i believe that most of the teachings of most major religions are good, and should be more or less followed. beyond that, i'm basicly agnostic; i'm certainly open to the possability, and on some levels it sure seems to make a whole lot of sense, but i'm also the kind of person who needs hard evadence, i'm not one for abstract thinking, im no good at it. so if i were confronted with some sort of irrefutable proof, i think i would believe in a god rather then that i was insaine or some such, but i would need that proof rather then the ideas of others. I tend to think that most holy books (bible, torah, que'ran etc) are so very old that whatever "proof" such as it was that they may originally ahve been based on, has since given way to whatever the religious leaders needed at any given time. imo, that would be why the bible is so very contradictory. one last point, i also tend to think that if god is as gentle and kind and forginving and all that as (s)he is often made out to be, WHY on earth does this being care weather or not we recognize/worship him? just doesnt make sense to me.
as for the whole heaven/hell thing, i have no ruttin clue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:55 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by Payne:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason we won't accept that is because it isn't true. Your lack of belief in leprechauns is just that: a lack of belief, not a religious opinion. You don't need to pretend you know everything about the world and the universe in order to go on the working assumption that leprechauns don't exist. Such an assumption is not religious, it's something we all believe in everyday life because we've never seen anything that might lead us to believe that leprechauns are real.

I am, of course, not putting belief in God on the level of belief in leprechauns. That would be offensive and inaccurate. I'm trying to draw an analogy that will help explain actual atheism. One of the most famous atheist quotes (paraphrased) says that we are all atheists with regard to most gods ever worshipped by man. Actual atheists simply refuse to make an exception for the God of the Bible, or for the gods of Hinduism, etc., etc.
I think ChrisTC did a pretty good job of elucidating my opinion, but I’ll elaborate. We aren’t likely to agree on this, but that is not unusual, because I don’t agree with many religious opinions, about one thing or another. Diversity of thought is really far more common among religious people then many give them credit.

Your entire argument is based on the way you have defined atheism. You first assume that I don’t believe in Leprechauns and that not believing in Leprechauns means they don’t exist; and therefore not believing in Leprechauns is not a religious position. You’ve made quite a few assumptions there. You’ve rationalized the way you define religion to conveniently eliminate anyone who doesn’t believe in Leprechauns or indeed, god, based upon the assumption that not having seen what you would call a Leprechaun means they don’t exist. That’s called hand waving and throwing around definitions.

But that’s not just limited to atheists, theists do it as well. In fact, most religions do it to some extent. Essentially, what you’re doing is claiming, without proof, that atheism is the normal or baseline, and then asserting that everything else deviates from it. The problem is that atheism is no more provable then theism. You can no more assert that god exists then that god doesn’t exist, but by establishing atheism as an axiom or fundamental assumption, you are alleviated from that justification. This is exactly the way most religions work. Most Christians have defined Jesus as the fundamental assumption; therefore everything else deviates from that. But a responsible mind must understand that this is a definition.

The difference between many theist and many atheists is that most theists, including most Christians, don’t deny their fundamental assumptions. They accept and even rejoice in taking these things on faith. Many atheists, who have no more bases for their beliefs then any other religion, deny that their position is faith-based. They take what they claim is a rational argument, that not having actually seen what they define as a Leprechaun means Leprechauns don’t exist. The problem is that rationally, that’s nonsense. First of all, Leprechaun could mean just about anything when it is separated from its religious context. It all depends on your definition. And I generally don’t consider myself to believe in Leprechauns, but how could you have known that? For many centuries, Irish pagans did, in fact, believe in Leprechauns as a function of the Irish Pagan religion. Denying that Leprechauns exist may be a religious assertion, because depending on how they are defined, they might be as difficult to assert or deny as god. So belief in Leprechauns can be faith-based and religious, just as denying the existence of Leprechauns can be faith-based and religious.

I’m not trying to ridicule atheists or claim that theists are better. I simply don’t see any tangible difference between them. They both assert, based on faith, a belief in something. Strictly speaking, the assertion that god exists or doesn’t exist is purely a religious opinion.



Je suis partie faire un tour aux confins de l'espace-temps pour entendre les vrais silences qui touchent toutes les étoiles attirées par le vide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:22 PM

BOWIE


(Quote)WHY on earth does this being care weather or not we recognize/worship him? just doesnt make sense to me.as for the whole heaven/hell thing, i have no ruttin clue.(end Quote)

Why do most Humans care if their cats spend time with them? Or if they get respect for good work they did? Why are they not happy just knowing that they did a good job without wanting praise? The answer is that God made us, and thus he wants praise for making us, and he also wants us, the things he worked to make, to spend time with him.

Why heaven and hell? Because sometimes people do things that force them to have to be seperated from the rest of mankind. If a charished pet kills a neibors kid, you don't just apologize and say you'll force it never to do so again. The pet has forced itself to be taken away from where it is a danger, ie life, and put somewhere where it can no longer do harm. The same goes for people. If someone does things that majorly hurt other people then they must be seperated from those people. And here I'm meaning spiritually, not physically.

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:27 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by Bowie:
If God exist why do bad things happen? (snip)

So why is there hell at all?


God created a perfect world where bad things didn't happen -- and would not have happened, if the people He made obeyed Him. Man didn't obey Him, so man and the whole of creation was put under a curse (which is why bad things happen, things decay, people get sick, injured, harmed, abused, etc.).

Could God have overlooked the willful rebellion (sin) against Him? Yes. But, if He did, He would not have been God. God is Holy. His holiness demands punishment for sin -- death (in the natural body, and eventually in eternal separation from Him).

Fortunately, God is also loving. And, in His love, graciously provided a means to escape our just punishment for those willing to receive it -- the sacrifice of One who fully kept His laws, and willingly took the place of those who would accept Him and receive the free gift of His salvation. (see my previous post with the "ocean-jumping" analogy)

So, instead of asking ourselves why bad things happen to us, we should be asking why anything good ever happens to us. Under the curse, we deserve nothing good. It's only because of God's grace that things aren't much much worse.

I agree that the concept of perfect holiness is difficult to contemplate -- particularly as we (as fallen, sinful humans) have much more in common with the worst of humanity than we do with a perfect God. That's why you or I might be more understanding with a disobedient cat, because you and I have more in common with that cat (or that cat's vomit) than we do with our perfect and holy Creator.

We can't conceive being perfect and having something we created from nothingness willfully telling us they know better than we do (which is what every sin is -- chosing OUR way over God's way -- saying to God, "You don't know what You're talking about. We know what's best for us, and this is what we want to do, even though it opposes what You said we should do.")

It's not an answer easily accepted, but (according to the scripture) it's why we're in the mess we're in. And you don't have to be too long of this earth to see that we're a rather dismal lot, and much deserving of our troubles.

The best of us (which certainly isn't me) are like filthy rags next to our holy God. That's why we have problems in this life -- (which, by the grace of God, we can escape in the next if we accept His way and stop demanding our own).




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:38 PM

RIVER6213


I believe in God and i also believe God uses evolution. Now with that out of the way...

I believe in God but I have totally lost faith in God to do the right thing. In order for God's will to happen...million/billions of innocent, human beings get sacrificed on the alter of just being in the way everyday.

In Firefly, I totally agree with Mal's take on God. God always lets people down. God fights for the "other side" God always lets evil win. God flies the flag of your enemies. God always gives power to your enemies.

God is a train that is no longer worth waiting for. God rewards the wicked. God rewards the cruel and evil.

My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:39 PM

BOWIE


its funny how, when you cut out the answer I gave you make it seem like I'm asking the question. I put a answer, so if you wanted to put your own answer, why not jsut have done so? Personally I think my answer makes more sence. I do not believe god made us perfect because perfect things are boring things. Things with small faults that are able to overcome their faults are far more intresting. Who cares if a great athelete who has never had any problems of any kind wins a metel? But what if that athelete had problems, like a bad nee, or another kind of disability, and was able to overcome that? Then the story is intresting. Just because my view of why there are bad things doesn't sound like I just copied a page out of the bible doesn't make it wrong. The bible is there to tell us how to avoid hell, to tell us the good and bad things other people have done, the things that god disaproved of and aproved of, its not there to tell us to memorize and site like we didn't know real languedge out side of it.

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:47 PM

CARTOON


Sorry, Bowie. I didn't snip your answer in an attempt to make it seem like you were asking a question. I thought you were asking a question, and attempted to answer. My apologies.

BTW, I'm not sure what the protocol is regarding lengthy threads, but I have dial-up, and these long threads take forever to load.

Is it possible for the person who started a thread which takes off and seemingly goes on forever to, at some point (perhaps at 50 posts) start a new thread and call it "What are your thoughts on god? PART 2" ???

It would be a big help to poor saps like myself who don't have cable internet connections.

Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:49 PM

CAPTBRYAN


Thats the sadest thing ever I heard ...

I was gonna post a response to it but if you say there is no point then I wont...










Saying that God authored confusion by creating Lucifer is like saying my sniper rifle goes out all by itself and shoots people 2 miles away so I dont get into trouble.

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:49 PM

PSYCHICRIVER


Hmm...interesting question. Well, to be honest...I'm young and haven't really made up my mind yet in regards to this question. But I have some thoughts...

Do I believe in god? Not exactly. I do believe there is a power greater than man...greater forces at work here, but I don't think that they are this "God" you speak of. I think maybe I just believe in fate...

I think that overall, I'm a man of faith. What I put my faith in? I can't exactly be sure. But I know I believe in it.

PsychicRiver

"Two by two, hands of blue."
"We'll take care of each other. I'll knit!"
"I swallowed a bug."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:30 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Carl Sagan's "The dragon in my garage" http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html from his book The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark says it better than I could: "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."

True as that may be I know of very few things that have veridical worth. Science, which brought me this very nice computer, is totally lacking in any such worth. Yet few would doubt the useful worth of science.

The things you are referring to, bliks, include such things as causality, existence in general, objective truth, the existence to time, the veracity of out senses, and various other things.

Cause and effect, for example, can not be proven or disproven, but it is the basis for just about everything we do. (Actually I think it is the basis of everything we do, but I don't like to commit to such absolutes. God is a far smaller matter by comparison.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:35 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I redacted my original post to avoid that controversy, but hey--Chris asked.

I just want to repeat that, I did ask, and if anyone is pissed off remember that I'm the reason Causal wrote what was writen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:09 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


To RiveR6213

I hope you are a happier person than you seem. Even if you have lost faith in god have faith in people. With all that is going on in the world, with all that has happened, it is only logial that there would be no good left in the world.

Yet there is, if evil wins and good still persists it is a testament to the power of good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:46 PM

SKYDANCE


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
... when he was stabbed out came water and blood.

You believe what you like, I'll believe what I like. I'm not entering a debate on the subject -- I am reasonably confident neither you nor anyone you can produce as a witness was actually there to see water. *laughs* Any debate would be based on stories we can't verify.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That and Taoism started in the 7th century BCE, so Christ's teaching couldn't have "survived as Taoism" unless they went back in time to 7th century China.

Okay, somehow you got really lost. I didn't say Christ taught Taoism, only that the root message of both Christ and Lao-Tzu was the same. You think you're reading something Christ wrote?

Both the Tao te Ching and the various Christian bibles (including the gnostic bibles, which are generally rejected by Catholics) were written by followers interpreting the words and actions of the Infinite Soul. That leaves a lot of room for mistakes. My position is that the (english translation of the) Tao te Ching is a more pure representation of the message from Lao-Tzu than the King James Bible is of the message from Christ.

Also, Am I supposed to take on her word that "Messages from Michael" is any more factual than her other 67 works of fiction?

Believe whatever you like. It really doesn't matter to me -- I'm just answering the question from the root post. I thought my opinion of Christianity was a valid contribution, since I believe the current Christian churches represent a gross distortion of Jesus's message. It's important for me to make a distinction between my belief in Jesus (which I do have), and my belief in the teachings of the Christian church (that he "rose from the dead" and he "died for our sins" -- neither of which do I believe).

Perhaps I crossed a line somewhere without realizing it. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone, only to state my position clearly.

__________________________
"They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:52 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Someone requested a new thread because of load time, so I’ve made a part two:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16682

Just pick up over there where you leave off over here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:53 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


oops

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:42 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryan:
Yes God did create Lucifer(or Satan or what ever name he goes by) and he had free will just as all Gods creations do that have the ability to tell right from wrong.

God has absolutes Lucifer chose not to abide in them.



So--God created free will, but he doesn't like it. If you use it for anything but what he approves, he tortures you, forever. Sounds strange.

Reminds me of the movie Bedazzled, the original version w/Peter Cook & Dudley Moore, not the recent remake. Moore's character asks Satan (played by Cook) why he was thrown out of heaven. Cook sits on a mailbox, and tells Moore to circle him, and tell him how great he is. ("Never mind why, just do it.") Moore does it for about a minute ("Oh, you're so great, you're wonderful, you're just a really cool guy...") but finally gets tired. "Hey, when do I get to sit up there?"

Satan snaps his finger. "And that's how I got thrown out of heaven."

I'd rather not spend all eternity at the mercy of an omnipotent paranoid, thank you.



Chaplain: Let us praise God.
[The congregation rises.]
Chaplain: O Lord…
Congregation: O Lord…
Chaplain: … ooh, You are so big…
Congregation: … ooh, You are so big…
Chaplain: … so absolutely huge.
Congregation: … so absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and…
Congregation: … and barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You're so strong and, well, just so… super.
Congregation: Fantastic!
Chaplain: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 8:44 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I brought up the point about how Lee Sobel argued you couldn't believe Jesus was just a good man because it was him I was arguing against in the first place, so I thought it fair to use his definition.


I think that argument was originally made by C.S. Lewis. It was that you cannot say that Jesus was a "good" man, whose teachings we should follow, but not believe that He was God -- as those two statements entirely contradict each other.

If Jesus wasn't God, He was either insane or a liar. Either way, you couldn't call Him "good", and you wouldn't be too smart following the teachings of someone who was insane or a liar.

And whatever one might think about C.S. Lewis, he wasn't an idiot. His argument makes sense to me. (But then, I'm admittedly not the brightest bulb in the socket.)


His argument only seems to make sense because Lewis was dealing from a stacked deck. Specifically, the unstated part of his argument is the idea that everything attributed to Christ in the Gospels is an accurate reporting of what he actually said.

Since most Christians take the infalability of the Gospel as a matter of faith, they're not allowed to argue with it. But a non-Christian, such as Jefferson, isn't so bound.

The historical fact is that the Bible in general, and the words of Jesus in particular, have been messed with, altered, misquoted, and mistranslated (both accidentally and deliberately) for any number of reasons, politial, religious, and other, over the past two millennia. (And don't even get me started about the Book of Revelations and its inconsistency with the rest of the New Testament.)

So if you want to accept Jesus as just a wise man, feel free. You are not bound by C.S. Lewis' articles of faith unless you want to be.

Myself, I figure Jesus was either a living Buddha or an Avatar of Rama. But Hell, I just like peeing in the soup...



"That's all right. It's okay to worship everything." -- Sophia Bangs

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 9:00 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
I believe in God and i also believe God uses evolution. Now with that out of the way...

I believe in God but I have totally lost faith in God to do the right thing. In order for God's will to happen...million/billions of innocent, human beings get sacrificed on the alter of just being in the way everyday.

In Firefly, I totally agree with Mal's take on God. God always lets people down. God fights for the "other side" God always lets evil win. God flies the flag of your enemies. God always gives power to your enemies.

God is a train that is no longer worth waiting for. God rewards the wicked. God rewards the cruel and evil.

My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.




Ditto

"Tell me all your thoughts on God
'Cause I would really like to meet her.
And ask her why we're who we are. "




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 9:05 AM

13


I rely on myself, believe in nothing but my own will. Nothing's going to ever change that.

-------------------------------------------------

'It's Braedan. With an A.'

'Shiny moments aren't a destination any of us get to, and stay put forever. They're unknowable, brief flashes in time. That's what makes them shiny.' -GorramReevers

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:07 AM

ZZETTA13


Do I belive in God?

Yes. I belive in a higher power. that not being ourselves. But also I belive being a creature of "God" you are given free will. This is for you to decide the person you will become. If that scares ppl, well why? If you take away God you take away hope. Just being here in existance with no hope,why should anyone follow rules? Because we happen to be good creatures? Nope don't think so.

No I think if you do something bad you feel bad. Even savages that have never come across a global God know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

That being said God is among us but so is evil. One exist with the other. Ying and Yang. I don't think that when your dead your just dead. I don't know where you go but there is more. To think that mankind is the greatest power around scares me.

I'm not a preacher but I will say that my view of this subject is more along the lines of S. Book. And as for the show. If you watch the pilot when Book asks if he can say grace at the table everyone respects his silent prayer but Mal. But deep down, in the OoG eps Mals hopes where answered. That salvage ship didn't just happen to be there.Course nothings for free, you have to work for it. Even Inara has her God in the BDM.

So in ending, to each his/her own. What you belive is what you belive. Think I'll stick with having FAITH.

Z
PS: I'd like to stay away from the "Special Hell"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:

My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.


But... you are God; we all are.


Buddha-boy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:29 AM

JOSSISAGOD


As a Taoist, I belive God is undifinable and impersonal. I do not believe in God as a creator, I belive all things are connected by a "Force" if you will(Though, not through "The Force" as defined By Star Wars). I think I always believed this even though I was raised Episcopalian, that Faith never made sense to me. I also believe what is Scientific Fact. I just recently found Taoism so I don't fully understand EVERYTHING about it, I just know that it feels right to me.

JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!

"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:34 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Can a people truly be called "savage" if they know right from wrong, good from evil. Couldn't we refer to the folks that have been taught better and use "God" as an ace in the sleeve as savages. I see them all the time. Feeding off the weak and young. Filling their pockets to the breaking point with gold while others scrape the earth for something to eat. Forcing their pride and vanity on others who should see themselves for the amazing beings that they are. God has been twisted and exploited almost beyond the limits of belief. I will hold onto my faith without reservation. Might not believe in the Christian god that has been altered too many times to count, but I do believe. For those who don't, I don't blame you. Believe in yourself and abilites. At least you believe in something.
Love to all the 'skins and 'coats.

MAL: "What happen about me?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:42 AM

ZZETTA13


Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Can a people truly be called "savage" if they know right from wrong, good from evil. Couldn't we refer to the folks that have been taught better and use "God" as an ace in the sleeve as savages. I see them all the time. Feeding off the weak and young. Filling their pockets to the breaking point with gold while others scrape the earth for something to eat. Forcing their pride and vanity on others who should see themselves for the amazing beings that they are. God has been twisted and exploited almost beyond the limits of belief. I will hold onto my faith without reservation. Might not believe in the Christian god that has been altered too many times to count, but I do believe. For those who don't, I don't blame you. Believe in yourself and abilites. At least you believe in something.
Love to all the 'skins and 'coats.

MAL: "What happen about me?"


In a word NVGHOST "Yes" I can and do see these civilized savages all the time. I am in agreement with you.

" Vengence is mine" Sayeth the Lord " But you go right ahead and get your payback." HE adds

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:54 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Been taught a long time ago that meetings have to be arranged for some folks with the Big Man. Brought sad tears to hear Denzel Washington say so in Man On Fire. Had to let go of alot of things. Vengeance is his for a reason, I see that now.

MAL: "What happen about me?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:05 PM

PIZ


Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:31 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal


Boy you really like to stir up trouble don't you?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:49 PM

PIZ


Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Boy you really like to stir up trouble don't you?
I really had no plans to say any more on the subject, but yeah, sometimes I do. People need to have their heads rattled once in a while, to shake them out of their mental comfort zone, or at least to make them think a little about the boundaries of that zone. I do it to myself all the time, and always welcome it when someone does it to me.

So I have to ask: what makes you call what I said "trouble?"

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 3:54 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

*thwack*... That noise is the hammer hitting the nail on the head

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 5:01 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.

I would love for you to elaborate on that.

When someone tells me something is fact, as opposed to opinion, inference or personal belief, I want something to back it up.

What do you base that on?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 6:25 PM

PIZ


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I would love for you to elaborate on that.

When someone tells me something is fact, as opposed to opinion, inference or personal belief, I want something to back it up.

What do you base that on?
I base that on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for any of it. But that doesn't even matter. It's up to the one asserting a positive to prove the assertion. I'm only stating that something's not there. There's no need to show evidence that something doesn't exist - those who say something does exist have to show the evidence.

What's being asked here is the same as someone claiming that there's a little, invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus living on his shoulder, then daring me to "prove" he's wrong. An assertion isn't evidence (one can assert anything, as this example shows), therefore he's established nothing to disprove, so there's no need to disprove it. Others claim that "God" exists, but like our platypus that assertion establishes nothing that needs to be disproved. It's up to those claiming that something does exist to prove their claim, by providing evidence to show that it is, in fact, there.

There have been many arguments given for the existence of "God." However every such argument has been (a) based on no evidence and (b) long ago shown to be invalid. It's the same for every claim of mystical "stuff" or "action" or "platypi" or whatever. Information about the arguments and their errors is easily obtained, on the internet or in other readily available sources.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 6, 2006 6:52 PM

TRAVELER


You got it Bowie. The genius of God is he made existance imperfect. This produces interaction as the different forms of creation try to continually correct themselves. But they can't. He did a really great job. Atoms bounce around. Galaxies spiral. People argue. It just goes on and on. But never think God does not care. If you care than why not God. He cares so much he gave us our freedom. It is not easy, this thing called freedom. A lot of people have paid a high price for it. But the choice is yours. I'm talking to the person who first started this thread now. Bowie already understands what I'm talking about. By the way Bowie thanks for reminding me. I need to be reminded of this, myself, sometimes. So back to the guy who started this shindig aka thread. You can do good or you can do evil. God won't stand in your way. You have a lot of things influencing you as you mature. Some will be hard and some good. If you say "Why should bad things happen to me?" you are being silly. Bad things happen to everyone. Some worst than others for sure. But that is life. It is not perfect. See above. I know people with loads of money and they waste their lives worring to death about it. I know people who can't put two nickles together and still share what they have with others. If you want to see a miracle go to the blood bank and give your share. Dish out food at soup kitchen. There are plenty of miracles to be performed. God does not work alone. He likes it if you join him. I have seen people do the simplest things and receive the greatest rewards. God doesn't make medals or plant your picture on the front page of the Journal, he gives a feeling inside that no one can take from you.
If you want that feeling, than volunteer. You don't have to join a religion to give blood. I have served coffee at a club I belonged to that helped Alcoholics Anonymous. I got more hugs than you could ever count. The smiles on those people faces, knowing there was a safe place to go to keep sober, will last me a lifetime. So just do it and the rest will follow. So you wanted some thoughts about God. Well these are mine. He's good. He wants the best for you. And He has given you the gift of freedom to find your path.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 1:18 AM

ZZETTA13


Is there going to be a tomorrow or a next thursday ? Prove it.

Z

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:22 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
I'm only stating that something's not there. There's no need to show evidence that something doesn't exist

You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.

After all there isn't a shred of evidence that you do exist, the words I've seen here could have been typed by anyone, it happens all the time.

ZZETTA13, for example, might have joined twice so he/she could have a second voice, and then come into this thread under the guise of PIZ to say something easily disprovable so he/she could then rush in and say, "Is there going to be a tomorrow or a next thursday ? Prove it."

I've seen it done before.

-

However I generally find it easier to take some things on the assertions, if someone comes to a board I assume, unless I have reason otherwise, that they are a distinct person and not just a second account. If people post pictures that they say are of themselves I take them at their word.

Why? Because in this world the burden of evidence (though not proof) is always on the naysayer.

If I say, "I have a pet cat," I don't have to back it up, I never have to back it up. You know why that is? Because it is impossible to prove it is true. Even if I take you to my house and show you my cat you don't really know that I'm telling the truth. How do you know the person who you met is me? You only have the assertion of that person and myself, you don't know the house is mine, even if I show you the deed it could be forged, and you don't know that the cat in it really is my pet.

But I do have a cat, and a dog, and a gecko. I can not prove they exist because that is impossible, I could show you pictures of them, I could show you pictures of me with them, if you are in the area I could even let you touch them. I can't prove that my pet cat exists.

How many people here believe that a cat named Hannah, a dog named Cindy, and a gecko that doesn't have a name really exist as pets in my house? I offer no proof, I can offer no proof.

I certainly hope most do. But if I say, "there's a little, invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus living on my shoulder," those very same people will not believe me. And the reason is not that there isn't a shred of evidence for it because there isn't a shred of evidence for my cat, or for my own existance for that matter.

The reason is that there is evidence AGAINST it. Actually there is proof against it, for something to be a platypus or a Jayne hat it needs to have certain physical properties, those properties make them visible. Thus there can not be an invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus anywhere in existance, which is where I assert that my shoulder is.

What if I said there was a live natural dinosaur in my garage, and offered the same evidence I offer that my cat exists, that being none? Well people still won't believe it because there is evidence against that. Not proof, never proof, but evidence. Dinosaurs are living things, they don't appear out of nowhere and since I said natural it needs to decend from something, it would have parrents and grandparrents. For it to be alive now it would need to have a considerable population surviving down through the ages, not evolving, but eating and breeding.

That would leave bones and such, a fossil record 65 million years long.

While it is possible that that does exist the fact that it has not been even hinted at makes it unlikely, the statistics add to the evidence against the dinosaur.

If I just said a live dinosaur, not a natural one, then you take into the account that there's plenty of reason to believe I am not capable of creating one or getting one from someone who is, because such a person either does not exist or would not do buisness with me.

Of course it is possible that I have one, but the evidence is stacked agaisnt that, and it is only after that evidence comes into play that the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion.

Unless you're telling me that every time someone says something like, "I've got a cat," or, "I have a sister," you say, "Bullshit," and maintain that they're lying until the bring proof. Is that what you do? Do you require a geneticist every time that someone says, "This is my sibling,"? There's no evidence the relationship exists other than the assertion (if you didn't see the births yourself) so clearly, according to you, it doesn't. Burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion after all, according to you at least.

No siblings without genetic tests, and how do we know the people doing the testing are honest? Assertions. So maybe there are no siblings at all.

-

In my opinion the reason that most believe me when I say, "I have a pet cat," and not when I say, "I have a live dinosaur," in spite of the fact the statements ("I have a [adj] [noun].") are exactly the same and backed with exactly the same total lack of evidence is that there is evidence against the dinosaur.

The evidence isn't proof, it isn't even good, but it does make the difference between the response, "What's its name?" and the response, "Bullshit."

If the burden of proof is to fall on the one asserting existance even when there is nothing implying non-existance people will need to go around believing almost nothing.

For example Venice. I've not been there in more than three years, and though there is nothing implying that it doesn't exist (it doesn't have a history of not being there but instead the opposite, there have been no reports on the news that it was destroyed, cities don't have a habit of disapearing without people mentioning it, so on so forth) there is also no evidence right here and now that it does exist.

If the burden of proof is on the one claiming existance I should believe the city does not exist and keep on believing it until I have proof, and as soon as that proof is outdated, which is more or less as soon as I can no longer see the city in real time, believe it does not exist again.

I should become a "fair witness" in the style of Stranger in a Strange Land. Not even believing that the sun is up on a cloudy day and not believing the house is red unless I can see it right now.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be benifit to such an outlook, but I think it's far easier to say that the burden of proof only rests on the asserter when there's a reason to believe what they say might not be true. Also, even if I did become a fair witness I still wouldn't say that any statement, be it of existiance or non-existance, was "fact" unless it had something to back it up.

-

By the way, have you ever heard the argument for the existance of god based on your argument?

Your argument says (unless I missed your point totally):
"there's not a shred of evidence for any of it" therefore "in any and every form" it "is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact."

If that is not correct please tell me now.

There is an argument for god that states:
"The belief in a universe without a divine creator, in any and every form, is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.

This is because there's not a shred of evidence for any of it."

It's a nice argument to be sure, but it's all cotton candy, no real logic involved because when you apply it to anything it doesn't work. Take a room containing nothing but one clothed man, you can use the "I base it on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for it," to aruge that there are no eunuchs in the room, or that there are no testicles in the room (in which case the man is a eunuch and there thus is a eunuch in the room.)

Argument based on lack of evidence always leads to contradiction.

-

Pirates of the Caribbean is out, if you can't tell what that has to do with this post you might want to watch the first one and listen to what Jack calls Will.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:29 AM

PIZ


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.
(snip)
Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:53 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Because you deliberately made a statement you knew was going to offend any and everyone in this thread. Which I can only assume you did to gain attention. As for your assertion that you hadn't inteded to say anything else on the subject - BUit. You knew it would incite response and I am sure you had your answers ready and waiting.

As for your original statement, it was probably one of the dumbest things I have seen on this forum and there have been some doozies.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 5:55 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.
(snip)
Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal



and now you are being deliberately obtuse Piz. It is easy to pick the first line of a response and find issue - keep reading, what chris is saying is valid.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:12 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.

Then say it in symbolic logic becasue what I thought you said was that because of a total lack of evidence supporting religion or mysticism those things were invalid.

Evidence, E, supporting religion, R, or mysticism, M, is written, in logic, as follows:
E -> R\/M

If there's not a shred of evidence for religion or mysticis that is writen, in logic, like this:
-E

I thought your argument said that religion was invalid and incorrect, -R, and mysticism of any kind was likewise incorrect and invalid, -M.

When asked why you said it was because there is not a shred of evidence, that means you said
-R/\-M
because
-E
where
E-> R\/M

in other words
E-> R\/M
-E
Thus:
-R/\-M

Well that's got more than one problem with it, but at the heart it is a very simple thing, you're argument is based on denying the anticedent, a logical fallacy.

If that is not your argument why not tell us what your argument is? For something to be fact it needs to be backed up by more than just, "Because I said so," or, "The other guy doesn't have proof either."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:19 AM

PIZ


Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Because you deliberately made a statement you knew was going to offend any and everyone in this thread.
No more than I'm offended when there's religion everywhere and everyone assumes that's OK and that it's wrong to disagree with it. You speak up when you're offended - you just did so. Why don't I have the same right?
Quote:
Which I can only assume you did to gain attention.
I couldn't care less about attention.
Quote:
As for your assertion that you hadn't inteded to say anything else on the subject - BUit. You knew it would incite response and I am sure you had your answers ready and waiting.
Actually, no. Why would I waste my time doing something like that? So, except for commenting on one more post (because I think it's necessary), I'll drop out of this thread.
Quote:
As for your original statement, it was probably one of the dumbest things I have seen on this forum and there have been some doozies.
If what I said (and I'm far from the first one ever to say it) can be refuted I'll hear it gladly. Thus far no one in history has been able to, though. I'll refrain from responding to your "it's dumb" argument.

BTW, everyone seems to be getting all angry, but I don't want to read emotion into what people post on a discussion board. There's no emotion in my posts, unless you read emotion into them. They're meant to be quite dispassionate, and that's how they ought to be read. What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:25 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


You can disagree with religion. State what you think is wrong with it and support it with facts.

Making a blanket statement that ALL religion BASED ON FACT is invalid and incorrect is inflammatory and insulting.

It isn't making an argument.

I am not religious, and quite frankly I could care less what you think.

But I don't think it is necessary to insult people.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:25 AM

PIZ


Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
and now you are being deliberately obtuse Piz. It is easy to pick the first line of a response and find issue - keep reading, what chris is saying is valid.
*sigh* I did read the whole thing, I just wanted to save screen space by not quoting it all.

Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.

OK, I'm done with this.

--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:37 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?

Nothing about it scares people, not here at least.

You still have a problem though, you said your claim was fact. Not theory, not opinion, not infereance, not even logical deduction. You called it fact. Fact requires something to back it up.

You assert that it is fact without a single stated shred of evidence, if you have such evidence please state it now. When asked what you did base it on you said, and I quote, "I base that on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for any of it."

Well that isn't grounds to claim something is fact. The reason it isn't is because it just says, "The other side doesn't have proof." It is certainly a reason to claim that the opposing viewpoint is not necessarily fact, and had you said that I'm sure everyone would have agreed with you.

You didn't.

You said it was fact and then chose not to back it up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:45 AM

ZZETTA13


Sorry I've only joined once. Only have one brown coat.


the question "Is there going to be a tomorrow or next Thursday?" only means that theres a good posibility that there will be. But theres no facts or evedince that there will be. Just because theres a today and a yesterday.

What someone belives it truth is their own belief. I don't know who PIZ is. He/she comes from Atlantis? And has their own opinion. So there you go.

The thread here asks if you belive in God. My feeling tells me there is. What others belive is up to themselves. Faith. Its what I'm putting my trust in.

Z

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 6:50 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.

How could you teach yourself for 30 years and then not be able to point out what makes it invalid without teaching a course?

I mean you say it is invalid but not how. You came in here, denied the anticedent, and then called someone else's stuff invaild without even stating in what way it was invalid.

I'll distill it for you if that would make it simpler:
1 Traditionally people believe things without proof unless they have a reason not to because if they don't they are left believing almost nothing, which is not practical.

2 Using lack of proof as evidence leads to contradiction.

Please reply to 2, which shouldn't require a whole course in logic.

Quote:
OK, I'm done with this.

If your argument really is vaild why are you afraid to state it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:30 AM

HOTPOINT


I'm an Atheist for the simple reason that I've yet to see any evidence of either God's existance or any need for there to be a God for the Universe to exist just as it is.

That doesn't mean for certain that a God can't exist it just means there's no reason to believe they do.

Regarding "proof" of the existance, or non-existance, of God it must be always kept in mind that the burden of proof lays solely with the Theist since there is no possible way to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient does not exist (for one thing it could always be argued they themselves faked the evidence).

Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.

Link to an earlier post where this ground was gone over http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=18220


...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 7:41 AM

ZZETTA13


Ok to throw gas on the fire.

Do aliens (space) exist?

IMO, another yepper.

Z

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 8:11 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.

How can it be proved?

I've never heard of any way, hypothetical or otherwise, and I am eager to learn of one if it exists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 7, 2006 9:23 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Having just looked at that thread again what I've come across are only three ways cited to, "prove," that god exists, and none are possible even in the hypothetical.

The first was:
Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.

The problems with this are several. First off being the creator of life does not make one a god, that has been done by scientists but Hotpoint does not believe them to be gods, otherwise Hotpoint would believe in gods.

Also "divine intervention" is an undefined term, without definition it can not be considered but we do know something about it: if it could be proven then it is, by definition, part of nature.

Whether or not we can work with that I don't know. Perhaps there is some well defined version of "divine intervention" for which it is possible to hypothetically prove god. If there is such a thing I'll change my whole stance on this.

The second one was so much nicer:
Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God".
It is simple, requires no undefined terms, and is just as much a way to prove something as saying:
"If there was a mechanism in the universe that prohibited a creator that would be proof of the nonexistance of 'God'."

It sounds nice when you hear it, but it is no more a way of proving god than what I said is a way of disproving god.

This one also mentioned evidence that falls short of proof:
Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.
Evidence for him/her perhaps, but hardly useful as proof.

I'd like to know which miracles that would convince for though. I mean feeding the masses would just cause us to rethink what we know about the concervation of matter, turning someone into salt causes us to reevalute other things, water to wine or blood is just like turning someone to salt, it would make us think that transmutation is scientific fact and introduce entire new areas of study, but it hardly implies anything remotely divine.

there is one last thing:
But there are things that conceivably only a God could do. For instance so-called "Creation Scientists" are always on the look-out for an irreducably complex mechanism in nature that could not have evolved. So far every one they've claimed turns out in fact not to be irreducably complex but that doesn't mean for certain that will always be the case.

Show me something that could not have evolved, or been created by random chance, and I'll believe in a "creator".
Ya'll see the problem with this one?

Everything, even god, could be created by random chance, that's what makes it RANDOM. Because anything can come out of it. If there were something that couldn't come out of it then it would not be random now would it? It would follow a pattern.



The statment isn't a possible proof because it isn't possible. Even in the hypothetical it breaks down because saying, "What if there were something that couldn't evolve randomly?" is like saying, "What if the statement, 'This statment is false,' were true?"

It's a fun little paradox, but useless for proof. I suppose you could claim that the possiblity of showing that the statement, 'This statement is false,' is proof that logic is falsifiable, the same way, "something that could't happen randomly," is being used here.

But even if it were proven what would that do? Force us to reevalute probability and evolution, nothing to do with god. Even if evolution is false it doesn't mean god is true. All that it means is that the Catholic Church was wrong when it embraced evolution as, "More than just theory."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL