Originally Posted by tatsujay
The only reason i even posted the First huge chunk of that was because you said "bliss is in ignorance" I was just making sure you didn't exclude yourself, because of the chronological order that you placed that comment, it had seemed that you maybe had?
But that still leaves the Lower third of my original post that remains unanswered or commented upon:...Perhaps you too could entertain the thought of the opposition?
For all you know "God" could really be created by the devil to upkeep an illusion created by "The Devil"
This question has been asked billions of times... and I KNOW its off topic but...NO ONE WILL ANSWER...
"Why does there HAVE to have been a "God" to have made all that we know?"
also...
I really don't understand how you can say that "God" does in fact exist 100% when all the means to tell whether or not "God" exists are completely outside of the realm of human comprehension...
What would a being of such even look like, and how exactly would anyone know that this "God" even made us in their own image at all?
also...
If "God" made us in HIS image... Why are we not all knowing and omnipotent beings bound by time and space itself...And why isn't he an emotional sack of flesh and bone?...
And this was actually ment to be a debate discussing the logical problems of "God":Pertaining to Christianity
(Those last few are a bit of rant-like/pointless, but they are honest questions...)
...Let's see if we can clear up your "never answered" questions.
Why does there have to be a god to make up all that we know: There doesn't. We aren't saying its a definite fact that God exists. In fact, 70% or more of the people posting in this thread believe he doesn't exist.
How one can say that 100% they believe god exists when all means of comprehension of such are outside our realm: I think the main answer here is faith. People become hung up on their convictions which answer the many questions science has been unable to answer for hundreds upon thousands of years. Note* I am not saying these people are rational, in fact, most people don't believe 100% that God exists, but they have a stronger inclination that God exists than God not existing.
What would such a being look like: Who says it's one specific figure at one specific instance of time? God, most likely, is a spirit, outside our realm of time. That's if he exists.
God made us in his image: You are reading the bible LITERALLY when it should be understood and translated FIGURATIVELY. God didn't say "my face looks like this, so yours will too". Thats ludicrous. The figurative interpretation is that God created us to be holy creatures who believe in his higher power. We don't have to be "all knowing" and "all powerful" to be like him. Compare us to the other creatures god created, We are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and powerful. You think a rhino is strong? Try holding an AK-47.
Concerning the debate topic: Odlov created this thread with the intentions of posting some of the many valid philosophical and logical dilemmas which prevent him to believe in God. I am imagining he is looking for people to either reflect on his points and comment constructively towards his argument, or make counter arguments and points to show why Odlov should believe in some form of god.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by m0o
The exact same goes for science fags.
You don't know the origin of the universe.
But at least science fags don't pretend to know the orgin of the universe. They only give possible explinations while knowing that there is not enough evidence to support their theories.
Science fags tend to be more pious, stubborn, arrogant, and close-minded than religious fags.
And there is bliss in ignorance. Most Christians (or anybody with a religion) will live much happier lives than atheists and agnostics. Sure, maybe their happiness is illogical, maybe they're just fooling themselves, but the point is they're happy. Whether that's all for nothing is beside the point. Intelligence is a huge burden. I would love to waltz off to church every Sunday believing with my whole heart that there is a God and that Darwin was a cockface, but I can't fool myself like that- wanting to believe in something isn't enough if you know about contradicting theories and evidence.
And there is bliss in ignorance. Most Christians (or anybody with a religion) will live much happier lives than atheists and agnostics. Sure, maybe their happiness is illogical, maybe they're just fooling themselves, but the point is they're happy. Whether that's all for nothing is beside the point. Intelligence is a huge burden. I would love to waltz off to church every Sunday believing with my whole heart that there is a God and that Darwin was a cockface, but I can't fool myself like that- wanting to believe in something isn't enough if you know about contradicting theories and evidence.
How to complain in style: GG, Mahulk.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Science fags tend to be more pious, stubborn, arrogant, and close-minded than religious fags.
Citation needed. Although, in some respect I agree. Scientists aren't particularly closed minded (Einstein did not reject the idea of a creator and I think Newton believed in god, for example) and a lot of what scientists do is about being open-minded. It's generally the stupid ones who are closed-minded.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
And there is bliss in ignorance. Most Christians (or anybody with a religion) will live much happier lives than atheists and agnostics. Sure, maybe their happiness is illogical, maybe they're just fooling themselves, but the point is they're happy. Whether that's all for nothing is beside the point. Intelligence is a huge burden. I would love to waltz off to church every Sunday believing with my whole heart that there is a God and that Darwin was a cockface, but I can't fool myself like that- wanting to believe in something isn't enough if you know about contradicting theories and evidence.
CITATION REALLY NEEDED. Going to say it: Horse shit. Religious people are no more happy than athiests.
Originally Posted by Ladger
But at least science fags don't pretend to know the orgin of the universe. They only give possible explinations while knowing that there is not enough evidence to support their theories.
Citation needed.
Plenty of science fags will run the big bang model into the ground, proclaiming it as though it is most certainly the origin of the universe. What science fags do pretend to know is that somehow the universe was not the product of a benevolent creator or "god". Again, this is generally the stupid ones who consider themselves "intellectual".
Heck, some people will even claim that evolution is most certainly the origin of species today (particularly human beings) even though it is not fact. There is actually a missing link in the evolution of human beings, which is quite famous and I am sure many people know about. I am certainly a believer though, but am open minded to other possibilities. I also think that non-believers are fools
Last edited by m0o; Feb 7, 2010 at 02:52 PM.
First of all, I think you are confusing terms; omnipotence means unlimited power. The word you are looking for is omnipresence.
That aside, your paragraph hasn't answered my question or offered any viable solution. I am a separate entity from this hypothetical omnipresent god - i have a mind of my own. Moreover, if it's the biblical god we are talking about - I supposedly have responsibilities to him, that alone means we are separate. Neither do I see how our lack of experience with "timelessness" (if such a thing exists) helps the free will defense. Perhaps if i take some shrooms...
I would say omnipotence covers about all never ending everything which would include omnipresence but it again shows we cannot grasp something that is that big.
How is it you know so certain that you are a seperate entity?
If you want to take some shrooms i wont stop you,though it seemed sarcastic which could be interpreted as you being against them for some reason
Wait what?
Did you just say that the fact that we can't get "outside of time" is somehow the strongest point for existence of god? :|
Let me as you this: why do you think god is necessary?
I don’t think god is necessary,
do you understand out of time? Have you experienced out of time? Do you know what the universe looks/feels like when you experience everything faster then te speed of light?
I didn't choose to not believe in god.
I am stumped by that answer, I think I don’t even understand
I am not one to support gnosticism - I have said numerous times in this thread that i am well aware that neither presence nor absence of god can be scientifically proven as long as he stays as dormant as he is now (assuming he exists).
However, I think a claim must meet a high standard of evidence to be anywhere near as influential to our lives as the claim of biblical god. People vote based on how religious a candidate is, and build their lives and outlooks on social issues around these canonical books.
This is what the true problem is, here you state your believe, you believe your high standard of evidence is worth more or is better then those people there believes. In this I see you believe you are not clueless and you think scientific facts are closer to the truth. Which obviously we cannot know for sure. That is how I see science and belief systems have things in common.
If in the outer rings of the cosmos something changes dramatically that influences all of reality to change everything you know, even yourself, science would “probably” start over again because rules would no longer apply, like new physics formulas. Taking that chance in to account makes it clear science does actually know nothing 100% sure. Which is something science fanatics cant stomach, because just like Jehovah they need something to hold on to.
Well, he is omniscient, no?
He just knows everything, thus all his actions are "shaped" by his will one way or another. One thing an omnipotent god can't do is gamble. If i throw a dice, i wouldn't know what I will get. God would, even if he did the throwing.
Just because “you” can’t understand, knowing and not knowing being in the exact same spot doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, you just said you don’t understand god, which I can’t blame you for because god is many concepts your brain can’t handle. ( at least I think so ) unless you know how it is to be omnipotent.
I don't think I need to have experienced "timelessness" (what the hell does that mean anyway) - all i need to do is read the bible and see God act in history. Any act requires time to take place in.
Timelessness would be without time, something you cant experience ( not yet anyway, or you are but you just don’t know ) that’s why you are having trouble understanding, because then you state the only thing you have to do is to read the bible and see god act in history, just because you experience time doesn’t mean it is there, you don’t even know this for sure, at the core of things you are not even sure if you yourself will end., or just transform into something else, or when you die just wake up just to realize you are now a rondumfurnlesquatch wich is a total different reality ( hypothetically )
I think I could be swapping idea's, concepts and whatever with you for +/- a fraction of forever, but in your last post I saw still just more and more reasoning out of consious bound by dimensions, without the experience of not being bound by time we cannot state with a 100% certainty any of the statements you’ve made, the difference between your reasoning and mine is that you see some things as true because they are proven, were I see mankind’s endless labeling of things they don’t understand for more detailed communication and the hope for understanding and knowing why they are the way they are. I think Science can be just as dangerous as any other belief system, when people get fanatic. We were probably born without anything, into a reality, we had no words nothing, we created all words and concepts for things we perceived, but on what we perceived our reality didn’t promise not to change. Some people that hang on to science seem to forget that.
It is a tool not a truth perse
Anyways i now reacted to your rejection of god, this will be my last post in this thread, i dont care if you think, i leave because my points are weaker or that i might think i will lose a debate, i just reacted to point out we are all equally dumb and naturally ignorant, so if we can get that through our skulls ( all of us ) maybe we would accept our different perceptions in reality and learn from eachothers experiences. Instead of saying this is better or that is better. It seems the only eternal thing on this planet is arguing about which belief is supreme. lol
I dont mean any disrespect by not posting here anymore Odlov, i just have the feeling we will not be able to agree
"I dissaprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
I mean more along the lines of just living and not worrying about things that cant be known...)
