The GOD Debate

[Lainemaa]

Is there a god? Which religion has the right of it if there is? Are agnostics the only people with a clue? What criteria should be used to judge?

etc.

All Debates about religion here. Be polite. Attack the argument, not the person.

I won't quote any previous posts so that we can start from a clean table.

[Ozaffer]

In my opinion there could be a "god" in a sense of something or I guess someone could have created us but I don't believe any religion that I heard of has a pure idea of god in their own sense let alone the right idea of who/what god really is.

[Skyguy]

i personaly belive in god and im christian
i just get depressed at the thought of nothing happening after you die
it just makes life seem pointless in a way
But if you think about it man created religion and the theory of god so its probably just ideas and gods not really real
i also realize that science has prittyy much proven that there is no god, but i still choose to believe
you can call me stupid for that but i dont really care. its always nice to just hope

[Orochimaru-sama]

although it is a depressing thought,that after we die, we die

nothing seems to contradict this, except for supernatural claims to the contrary

so in my opinion, emotions such as sadness because of total death
they should not say anything regarding the question of, is there a 'god', or is there no 'god'?

[Ozaffer]

Well we have no clue what happens when we die so nobodies guess is stupid, it's nice to think that our spirit selves go to a place of eternal bliss and to some that those who have done wrong will get their just punishment but that's most likely only our wish of an afterlife. I think death will be some what of life that or body and spirit (energy) will become one with the earth what this would be like seems incomprehensible if we could even conceive what was going on at all. Or a dream like state slowly fading into black in a never ending sleep.. Idk I just hope if it's painful time doesn't slow down.

[Orochimaru-sama]

are you replying to me?
i don't think i said that it was stupid



simply, that we have no basis to say whether there is or there is no after life
so if we cannot know if there is one, i have no reason to believe in one

[Ozaffer]

are you replying to me?
i don't think i said that it was stupid



simply, that we have no basis to say whether there is or there is no after life
so if we cannot know if there is one, i have no reason to believe in one

nope skyguy said people might think shes stupid because of her views and I was just saying there's nothing stupid about peoples opinion on the unknown. I had no problem with your post it's true as of now the scientific view of death is we are gone after death our body stops functioning from the brain to the heart and we rot. And fear of death is not really an argument for if god is real or not just a reason for belief.

[Skyguy]

although it is a depressing thought,that after we die, we die

nothing seems to contradict this, except for supernatural claims to the contrary

so in my opinion, emotions such as sadness because of total death
they should not say anything regarding the question of, is there a 'god', or is there no 'god'?

well i guess i am just afraid of death and the unknown
just like primitave man was afraid of death and the unknown which led them to think up a higher power and an after life and religion
but still its possilbe....the nice thing about the unknown is that it is unknown...so any one can be right about it.
if that makes any sense:D

[SquallLeonHart]

I personally believe in a God.

I've had my share of supernatural experience, more than I dare to count.

Also the fact that atom's cannot be created nor destroyed brings to the point of how they were form, and many other things that are unknown in this life.

[Manhunter098]

Actually, atoms can be destroyed (hence why we have atomic bombs and we attempt to study subatomic particles through the use of particle accelerators), and matter can be converted into energy and vise verse. You are thinking about the concept that matter (this actually also applies to energy) cannot be created or destroyed, so the idea is that something supernatural created all matter and energy in the universe. The problem is, that because of the big bang, we cannot know the entire history of our universe, we can only get evidence for events that occurred after this. This basically makes the question of where did all the matter and energy come from moot, because we cant know, all we can know, is that it was here after the big bang.

[Ozaffer]

I personally believe in a God.

I've had my share of supernatural experience, more than I dare to count.

Also the fact that atom's cannot be created nor destroyed brings to the point of how they were form, and many other things that are unknown in this life.

The atom thing has been explained so ill move on..

Have you ever tried to explain these "super natural" experiences with logical explanations or coincidence? You say more then you dare to count.. doesn't really make sense but any way would you mind enlightening us with a tale? Not that it will prove your case because these stories can always be half truths I'm just kind of interested.

What makes you believe so strongly that there is A god? such a statement implies that you actually spoke to an angel or something of that nature.

There are so many things that are unknown in this world but that really doesn't mean anything. In-fact we have found out so much about cause and effect from trial and error so far that it's hard to believe some magic being just created all of matter/energy. Then you come across the question of how "God" came to be religion doesn't really bring a solution to the creation of matter and energy, just an explanation to our current existence which science has proven false. You can twist a religion into an explanation but then it just becomes a personal belief.

[Aerodynamic]

Believing or not believing in god doesn't make any difference for me. Either way, my life will stay the same. Once my life ends, my brain and body will rot and I believe I'll cease to exist.

I don't think god exists because there is no proof. There's no disproof either, so it's a matter of faith. However, I have to ask myself the same question as everyone else: If god exists, why does he allow so much suffering? It makes more sense to me to think that he wasn't there all along.

[Orochimaru-sama]

@ aerodynamic

you believe that you don't believe?


???

" I don't think god exists because there is no proof. There's no disproof either, so it's a matter of faith."

[Ozaffer]

He is unsure but either way it doesn't matter because he doesn't believe in an afterlife and it doesn't effect how he lives, and that with how the world has been he leans more towards god not existing. Atleast that's what I got out of it.

[Locke]

The problem with debating about the existence of God is, you can't prove a religious person wrong.

Why has Jesus got superpowers? Oh it's symbolism.
Why does God let suffering go on every day? Oh he's just testing you.
Why would God let us create weapons to destroy each other with? Oh God just made you, he has no control over what you do next.

Even though none of these are facts, just opinions in a way, they'll have one for every question you ask and if you ask a question about the answer they gave, they'll have another one lined up.

Even with all the things Science has proved wrong in religion, they still flatout deny science as relevant. Claiming it often has no proof or evidence and a lot of it is guesswork filling in the gaps.

What's religion then? The only evidence I see for it are things like "Look at that plant, God made it." But that isnt evidence...

[Aerodynamic]

Basically I don't believe in god because we live in such a miserable world. But as locke said, debating god is just throwing opinions around. There's no facts to back anything up.

However, I don't want to waste my time on an apathetic god who seems to do nothing but play games with the people who worship him.

[Megabuster]

Basically I don't believe in god because we live in such a miserable world. But as locke said, debating god is just throwing opinions around. There's no facts to back anything up.

However, I don't want to waste my time on an apathetic god who seems to do nothing but play games with the people who worship him.

There is no such thing as good without the bad. The fact that there is bad is an argument for God, not an argument against him.

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a God, and he gave us Free Will. He would be allowing us to decide our own fates. To simply stuff his face into our business every time we have problems would be spitting all over the gift that he hypothetically gave us.

Secondly, a lack of action isn't necessarily apathy. Especially since, if you believe in God, you basically believe in an afterlife. Lack of action now means effectively nothing if life after death is eternal.

[nope]

There is no such thing as good without the bad. The fact that there is bad is an argument for God, not an argument against him.

Hypothetically speaking, if there were a God, and he gave us Free Will. He would be allowing us to decide our own fates. To simply stuff his face into our business every time we have problems would be spitting all over the gift that he hypothetically gave us.
Then, hypothetically speaking, why would he create his religion? Essentially telling people to live a certain way, the way he wants. If hypothetically good can not be without bad and vice verse and god is essentially "good" then you can't suggest that you are meant to do what you like because the only way to be truly good would be to follow strictly the dogma that that god has clearly laid out with no exception.

[Megabuster]

Then, hypothetically speaking, why would he create his religion? Essentially telling people to live a certain way, the way he wants. If hypothetically good can not be without bad and vice verse and god is essentially "good" then you can't suggest that you are meant to do what you like because the only way to be truly good would be to follow strictly the dogma that that god has clearly laid out with no exception.

You don't have to be good. If you had to be good, then Free Will would serve no purpose. Being good, would, in theory, just be being faithful to the hypothetical god that made you. But through Free Will, you would have the ability to reject that same, hypothetical god.

[keiichiman]

Then, hypothetically speaking, why would he create his religion? Essentially telling people to live a certain way, the way he wants. If hypothetically good can not be without bad and vice verse and god is essentially "good" then you can't suggest that you are meant to do what you like because the only way to be truly good would be to follow strictly the dogma that that god has clearly laid out with no exception.

Doesn't free will imply a choice? If there is only one option (to do what we think is best) then it isn't a choice, and it isn't free will. God presents us another option: to do what He knows is best.

So we have the free will to follow God's Rules, to make up our own rules, or use someone else's rules.

And of course you aren't meant to do what you like. But you can still choose to do what you like.

Basically, God's already selected all the right choices for you, and if He needs to amend anything that relates on a personal level, He will contact you. And you still have free will, because you can choose to disobey.

[nope]

You don't have to be good. If you had to be good, then Free Will would serve no purpose. Being good, would, in theory, just be being faithful to the hypothetical god that made you. But through Free Will, you would have the ability to reject that same, hypothetical god.
Doesn't free will imply a choice? If there is only one option (to do what we think is best) then it isn't a choice, and it isn't free will. God presents us another option: to do what He knows is best.

So we have the free will to follow God's Rules, to make up our own rules, or use someone else's rules.

And of course you aren't meant to do what you like. But you can still choose to do what you like.

Basically, God's already selected all the right choices for you, and if He needs to amend anything that relates on a personal level, He will contact you. And you still have free will, because you can choose to disobey.

And in turn you would be sent to hypothetical place of suffering. God in this scenario serves as the mafia boss that want's to break your legs unless. In this case the dogma you have to follow serves as the unless. Does the victim of the mafia boss have a choice when he can either pay respects to the boss or have himself killed? No, that does not qualify as a choice, that is extortion and compulsion.

[Megabuster]

And in turn you would be sent to hypothetical place of suffering. God in this scenario serves as the mafia boss that want's to break your legs unless. In this case the dogma you have to follow serves as the unless. Does the victim of the mafia boss have a choice when he can either pay respects to the boss or have himself killed? No, that does not qualify as a choice.

That's only because the modern understanding of Hell is misconstrued. Hell is just separation from God. Heaven is eternal blah-blah in union with God.

Dogma has nothing to do with heaven and hell. The merit by which you spend eternity with god is based on whether or not you realistically led a life of goodness, you feel sorry for the bad you've committed, etc. People don't go to hell for littering. You don't even have to believe in god to go to heaven. The requirements are pretty simple. You just have to not be a ****ing scumbag.

[nope]

That's only because the modern understanding of Hell is misconstrued. Hell is just separation from God. Heaven is eternal blah-blah in union with God.

Dogma has nothing to do with heaven and hell. The merit by which you spend eternity with god is based on whether or not you realistically led a life of goodness, you feel sorry for the bad you've committed, etc. People don't go to hell for littering. You don't even have to believe in god to go to heaven. The requirements are pretty simple. You just have to not be a ****ing scumbag.
So why does hypothetical god write dogma if he not only does not intend for you to follow it but strictly does not want you to follow it in many cases if you have to avoid being a scum bag.

[Megabuster]

So why does hypothetical god write dogma if he not only does not intend for you to follow it but strictly does not want you to follow it in many cases if you have to avoid being a scum bag.

God didn't right anything. The bible is, supposedly, divinely inspired but written through human hands. The only thing god, supposedly, did was give us the intelligence to discern truth. It is through that intelligence that we are supposed to discern what is a right and wrong life. Pious or not, the journey of any person is to find personal truth. It's through that truth that you find out what type of life you want to live.

Since this situation is under the presumption of gods existence, any 'truth' you find, is literally, objectively true. Since god's existence would necessitate objective truth. Meaning that there would be a right and wrong way, to live. This wouldn't mean everyone would have to live in a certain way, but it would mean that there are certain things that are wrong.

[keiichiman]

And in turn you would be sent to hypothetical place of suffering. God in this scenario serves as the mafia boss that want's to break your legs unless. In this case the dogma you have to follow serves as the unless. Does the victim of the mafia boss have a choice when he can either pay respects to the boss or have himself killed? No, that does not qualify as a choice, that is extortion and compulsion.

God doesn't want to break your legs. The Bible says that He wills that every men be saved. Hell is only seperation from God. god rejects sinful natures. All humans have sinful natures. The only way to have your sinful nature looked over and forgiven is to embrace God through Christ. The process varies depending on how much info you have been presented with about Christ in your life (even without knowing Christ, you can make unconscious steps towards Christ/God, it is assumed). If you aren't cleared for whatever reason, you are separated from God.

God doesn't purposefully send people to Hell. He'd rather He didn't have to. But his Nature simply auto-rejects them. We can only trust that God is a fair God in His selection.

In the end, God is more like a teacher who doesn't want to give the student an F but has to anyways because the student simply didn't earn anything higher.

[ottoman]

Believing or not believing in god doesn't make any difference for me. Either way, my life will stay the same. Once my life ends, my brain and body will rot and I believe I'll cease to exist.

I don't think god exists because there is no proof. There's no disproof either, so it's a matter of faith. However, I have to ask myself the same question as everyone else: If god exists, why does he allow so much suffering? It makes more sense to me to think that he wasn't there all along.


God give you freewill, a brain, a soul and a body....it depend on you to use these in your journey in this world to search for the truth.....your soul will tell you which one is the truth and you have to decide it by searching

[nope]

God didn't right anything. The bible is, supposedly, divinely inspired but written through human hands. The only thing god, supposedly, did was give us the intelligence to discern truth. It is through that intelligence that we are supposed to discern what is a right and wrong life. Pious or not, the journey of any person is to find personal truth. It's through that truth that you find out what type of life you want to live.

Since this situation is under the presumption of gods existence, any 'truth' you find, is literally, objectively true. Since god's existence would necessitate objective truth. Meaning that there would be a right and wrong way, to live. This wouldn't mean everyone would have to live in a certain way, but it would mean that there are certain things that are wrong.

So we have intelligence and a book that was obviously written by man. The assumption of god in this case is unnecessary. It is more rational to simply leave god out of the equation, isn't it?

God doesn't want to break your legs. The Bible says that He wills that every men be saved. Hell is only seperation from God. god rejects sinful natures. All humans have sinful natures. The only way to have your sinful nature looked over and forgiven is to embrace God through Christ. The process varies depending on how much info you have been presented with about Christ in your life (even without knowing Christ, you can make unconscious steps towards Christ/God, it is assumed). If you aren't cleared for whatever reason, you are separated from God.

God doesn't purposefully send people to Hell. He'd rather He didn't have to. But his Nature simply auto-rejects them. We can only trust that God is a fair God in His selection.

In the end, God is more like a teacher who doesn't want to give the student an F but has to anyways because the student simply didn't earn anything higher.

That is a cop out. God created hell and it is only from gods judgment that people are sent to hell. So in the end it is still gods responsibility that people are sent to hell considering the place is of his conception and the conditions for entering are of his conception and only his conception. When you say that he is "Separating" people he doesn't like from him that doesn't change the fact that it was originally due to his own judgment that they were sentenced.

The mafia boss analogy still applies.

"Come on Tony, the Boss doesn't want to break your legs, he is trying to help you. You could be living it up like a made man or you could be dieing on the bottom of the sea. You could be drowning, you could be beaten, you could be killed in many a most heinous fashion, Tony. That is unless you pay tribute to the Don. In any case it's your choice to make."

[Megabuster]

So we have intelligence and a book that was obviously written by man. The assumption of god in this case is unnecessary. It is more rational to simply leave god out of the equation.


The assumption of God is the whole basis of this argument. It's why the word 'hypothetical' was used so many times.

I'm not arguing that god exists. That's not an argument I believe in, nor is it one I can win.

[keiichiman]

That is a cop out. God created hell and it is only from gods judgment that people are sent to hell. So in the end it is still gods responsibility that people are sent to hell considering the place is of his conception and the conditions for entering are of his conception and only his conception. When you say that he is "Separating" people he doesn't like from him that doesn't change the fact that it was originally due to his own judgment that they were sentenced.

The mafia boss analogy still applies.

"Come on Tony, the Boss doesn't want to break your legs, he is trying to help you. You could be living it up like a made man or you could be dieing on the bottom of the sea. You could be drowning, you could be beaten, you could be killed in many a most heinous fashion, Tony. That is unless you pay tribute to the Don. In any case it's your choice to make."

This is like saying that its the law's fault that so many people are in jail. No, it's the prisoner's fault that he is in jail because he didn't follow the law. (except God doesn't make mistakes and He doesn't have unfair prejudices against race, class, etc)

And they're separated simply because they can't be in God's full presence. Its likely that His nature would flat-out reject them. He offered a way for them to be wiped of their sinful nature, but they didn't take it.

[Megabuster]

This is like saying that its the law's fault that so many people are in jail. No, it's the prisoner's fault that he is in jail because he didn't follow the law. (except God doesn't make mistakes and He doesn't have unfair prejudices against race, class, etc)

And they're separated simply because they can't be in God's full presence. Its likely that His nature would flat-out reject them. He offered a way for them to be wiped of their sinful nature, but they didn't take it.

You're interpretation is somewhat Roman. It's not so much God is rejecting them as it is them rejecting god. There are two paths. Everyone walks down one of the paths in a certain way. It's not like we all walk down one path in a certain way and are then filtered. Our thoughts, and actions are dictate the state of our soul. Our time on earth is supposed to teach us how to love. If you don't learn to love, you don't go to heaven merely because you literally can't. Not because anyone else is inhibiting you.

[nope]

This is like saying that its the law's fault that so many people are in jail. No, it's the prisoner's fault that he is in jail because he didn't follow the law. (except God doesn't make mistakes and He doesn't have unfair prejudices against race, class, etc)

And they're separated simply because they can't be in God's full presence. Its likely that His nature would flat-out reject them. He offered a way for them to be wiped of their sinful nature, but they didn't take it.

The law is the reason why people go to jail. Generally it is the criminal that breaks the law however they will not be sentenced without the judge, the jury, the lawyers and certainly will not have been a criminal if there is no law at all. What Laws we have and how they effect society positively or negatively is a different debate, however the fact remains that the prisoner would not be in jail if the law had not contradicted what he did. Sometimes the law is justified in handing out punishment and very often it is not. What we establish as right or wrong plays into what we think as a society and what is ingrained into our biology. Some Laws are completely irrelevant.

The bible is full of the sort of irrelevant laws that I am speaking of. There are literally thousands, some being followed and some not so much. you and everyone else would impose their own morality upon the bible to chose which you would like to follow. Perhaps you like shellfish, perhaps you don't want to grow a beards, and if god talks to you, perhaps you don't want to kill your son. But if the bible is to be believed then the standards of the bible are not being chosen but imposed on you and in some cases you would suggest that the morals are somehow a result of that bible.

However even with your response, you have yet to separate God from the Mafia Boss persona. He is still some big mean guy that will punish you if you don't do what he wants you to, or "Separate/be rejected by his nature" according to your interpretation. He is still in a large way presenting two options. If original sin is to be believed then you are done in from the get go, you can't put off the inevitable unless, as you stated, try to be "Wiped of their sinful nature". This is the clause I mentioned earlier, the "Unless". The mafia Boss will break your legs, there's no getting away from it unless. You are going to hell and there is no getting away from it unless.

[esis]

Since a long time ago there's so many religions that appeared in this world. Basically humans wont repel to belive theres God. They just dont know what to decide, which one is true and vice versa. Humans want to feel secure and God give us that. He wont let us live in this world without guidance because He created us. And of course He give us free will to live our live through the guidelines that He created. We are lost without guidance. Questions and phrases like "what is the purpose of this life?", "what should i do with my life?" "i feel empty" wont run anymore as long as we have faith. Religion is a pathway. God created religion. Human follow the pathway. If we do bad things, we'll get punish. We'll be rewarded is we do something right...that's fair enough for me...

[Locke]

Man Keii and Mega proved my point beautifully. They have an answer to EVERYTHING. But none of it's fact, they just tell you you interpreted it wrong. And claim only they know the right interpretation. Which is rubbish, I might add.

[Megabuster]

Man Keii and Mega proved my point beautifully. They have an answer to EVERYTHING. But none of it's fact, they just tell you you interpreted it wrong. And claim only they know the right interpretation. Which is rubbish, I might add.

.....

It's not an answer to everything, it's a response. No matter what stance you have, there is always a response to everything. Whether or not it's applicable or correct is the purpose of debate. If you're right, you should be able to prove it. Don't just say, "They have an answer for everything."


Edit: Also, the only thing misconstrued was the hypothetical hell. And that's just because the modern view of it has been bastardized by Hollywood. Think Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Frankenstein is the name of the monster in most movies, instead of the scientist.

[Locke]

But you do.

Look at your discussion with Nope, you pretty much just argued the meaning of trivial words for like ten posts. It doesn't really add very much at all but it's about the only things you can debate in a topic like this.

[Megabuster]

But you do.

Look at your discussion with Nope, you pretty much just argued the meaning of trivial words for like ten posts. It doesn't really add very much at all but it's about the only things you can debate in a topic like this.

Trivial words?

Like hypothetical and hell?

You mean the pivotal points for the entire argument? Do you even know what we're arguing?

[BFDD]

Our thoughts, and actions are dictate the state of our soul. Our time on earth is supposed to teach us how to love. If you don't learn to love, you don't go to heaven merely because you literally can't. Not because anyone else is inhibiting you.

I actually agree with this in a metaphorical sense. I don't think god has anything to do with it, but if you can't learn to love(be nice to people) you don't go to heaven (life sucks). If you are rude and a jerk to people, chances are they will be rude back. If you are nice they are more likely to be nice back. This isn't 100%, some people will always be jerks and some will always be nice, but society is much easier to live in when you don't go out of your way to be a jerk.

In general i have also noticed that people who are friendly seem to live happier lives than those who are rude. It would be interesting to see some studies on this.

[Aerodynamic]

Actually, I feel like it's the opposite. If you're nice to everyone around you then people just walk all over you and take advantage of you. It's incredibly difficult to be friendly when so many people aren't. Living that difficult kind of lifestyle for years on end for a reward (heaven) that I don't even know is there. Seems like god is playing with me a little here.

[Megabuster]

Actually, I feel like it's the opposite. If you're nice to everyone around you then people just walk all over you and take advantage of you. It's incredibly difficult to be friendly when so many people aren't. Living that difficult kind of lifestyle for years on end for a reward (heaven) that I don't even know is there. Seems like god is playing with me a little here.
Letting people walk all over you isn't being nice. There's a thing called moderation, we don't have to become Machiavellian to survive in this world.

[WOTG]

There can be no such thing as Free Will if God is an omniscient being, who has everything planned out. He's planned evil, and planned good. Big hole in Religious logic there.

[Ozaffer]

I disagree with "gods view" of whats right and whats wrong as do most people, but those arn't the teachings preached here. Because unless the teachings of the bible are constantly changed to meet social norms they are not even commonly accepted. Leading to people bending the words of the bible and the teachings of the church to meet their own views of how to get into heaven. If it were as simple as being morally right in gods view to get into heaven then there would be an easy explanation of such morality with out contradiction, instead we have constant bickering among followers of the faith and separate religions as to what god really wants of us. Once again it's just religions way of survival creating a broad changeable spectrum of what morality is leading to personal beliefs brought into one general idea to keep followers.

As others have said if god really wanted us to be one way he created us and he could have made us all think the way he wanted, that in itself is contradiction enough of "gods morality". To add to that for there to be a created morality we must follow to go to heaven then you would have to discredit science in it's findings of earths natural history and evolution, believing in the story of Adam and Eve in the very least a more literal sense. For god to not only give us life but reason is a remarkably human concept I could only understand as necessary of god if there was nothing before us, for nothing before us has morality in the sense we do.

Morality is a social animals survival instinct that's why it constantly changes from fear (unknown) to acceptance (good) or taboo (bad), that's why there are so many morally gray disputes/situations, and that's why until people understand that their choices are what matter rather then gods word they will fail to grow.

[Megabuster]

There can be no such thing as Free Will if God is an omniscient being, who has everything planned out. He's planned evil, and planned good. Big hole in Religious logic there.

That's asinine. Because you're viewing God as a linear existence. That would be true if God merely existed with all time. But to be transcendent. To be a first cause, you must exist outside that which you have created. Instead him seeing everything you do before you do it, he's seeing everything you'll ever do and what anyone will ever do after they've done it, before they've done it etc. He sees this all at the same time. Chronology loses its meaning when you transcend time. Because where he is, everything is ending and beginning being, all at the same time.

[Megabuster]

I disagree with "gods view" of whats right and whats wrong as do most people, but those arn't the teachings preached here. Because unless the teachings of the bible are constantly changed to meet social norms they are not even commonly accepted. Leading to people bending the words of the bible and the teachings of the church to meet their own views of how to get into heaven. If it were as simple as being morally right in gods view to get into heaven then there would be an easy explanation of such morality with out contradiction, instead we have constant bickering among followers of the faith and separate religions as to what god really wants of us. Once again it's just religions way of survival creating a broad changeable spectrum of what morality is leading to personal beliefs brought into one general idea to keep followers.

As others have said if god really wanted us to be one way he created us and he could have made us all think the way he wanted, that in itself is contradiction enough of "gods morality". To add to that for there to be a created morality we must follow to go to heaven then you would have to discredit science in it's findings of earths natural history and evolution, believing in the story of Adam and Eve in the very least a more literal sense. For god to not only give us life but reason is a remarkably human concept I could only understand as necessary of god if there was nothing before us, for nothing before us has morality in the sense we do.

Morality is a social animals survival instinct that's why it constantly changes from fear (unknown) to acceptance (good) or taboo (bad), until people understand that their choices are what matters rather then gods they will fail to grow.

Hypothetical God's view =/= interpretations of the bible. As you said yourself, the bibles moral messages are constantly changed to reflect the current time period. If there were a god, there would be objective right and wrong. Morals would be encompassed in that.


Realistically, morality is just something that allows for a political animal(man) to properly function in a communal setting.

[A4NoOb]

The only thing god, supposedly, did was give us the intelligence to discern truth.

According to scripture this is false. It was man who gave himself intelligence when he discerned whether to eat the fruit of knowledge on his own. God played no part in the actual enlightenment of man, but instead punished man for being enlightened.

[Megabuster]

According to scripture this is false. It was man who gave himself intelligence when he discerned whether to eat the fruit of knowledge on his own. God played no part in the actual enlightenment of man, but instead punished man for being enlightened.

Man was already intelligent. And the world was already intelligible. The only difference the fruit made was that it gave them actual knowledge. Not the ability to gain knowledge.

[Ozaffer]

Hypothetical God's view =/= interpretations of the bible. As you said yourself, the bibles moral messages are constantly changed to reflect the current time period.

Throw away religious history to continue belief thus no longer a religion at all but a personal belief of god and his wants ok, I have no problems with personal belief only organized religion.

If there were a god, there would be objective right and wrong.
what? why wouldn't there just be gods will? How about this : If there wasn't a god, there would be right and wrong based off cause and effect.
Morals would be encompassed in that.
"morals" is a word to describe the understanding of what helps and hurts society.
Realistically, morality is just something that allows for a political animal(man) to properly function in a communal setting
Yes what I said except it doesn't just apply to man it applies to any and all social animals, humans just take it a step further looking into the deep logistics of right and wrong because of technology and population caused from our higher intelligence.

[A4NoOb]

Man was already intelligent. And the world was already intelligible. The only difference the fruit made was that it gave them actual knowledge. Not the ability to gain knowledge.

The fruit of knowledge is just a metaphor for enlightenment itself. It's a common conjecture that before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were both ignorant. More precisely, ignorant of what is right or wrong (or as you adequately put it, "discerning the truth"). In actuality, God/YHWH lied to Adam and Eve by claiming the fruit would kill them. One must wonder why such a benevolent entity would lie to them. Could it have something to do with "being like Gods"?

[Megabuster]

The fruit of knowledge is just a metaphor for enlightenment itself. It's a common conjecture that before eating the fruit Adam and Eve were both ignorant. More precisely, ignorant of what is right or wrong (or as you adequately put it, "discerning the truth"). In actuality, God/YHWH lied to Adam and Eve by claiming the fruit would kill them. One must wonder why such a benevolent entity would lie to them.

He didn't lie to Adam in that case. Eating the fruit did kill them. It gave them sin, which in turn led them to death.

But that aside, being made in the image of God means they had some semblance of intelligence. Sentient, free thinking individuals would have to be intelligent. Or else how would we be made in the image of God? Anyway, if anything at all, the fruit would appear to have merely broken open the threshold to more advanced thought. Instead of inventing the wheel, it made the bicycle.

[Megabuster]

Throw away religious history to continue belief thus no longer a religion at all but a personal belief of god and his wants ok.

what? why wouldn't there just be gods will? How about this : If there wasn't a god, there would be right and wrong based off cause and effect.

"morals" is a word to describe the understanding of what helps and hurts society.

Yes what I said except it doesn't just apply to man it applies to any and all social animals, humans just take it a step further looking into the deep logistics of right and wrong because of technology and population caused from our higher intelligence.

If there were a God, there would be objective right and wrong on the basis that he created right and wrong. That makes it objective. If it's inherent in our existence and the world around us, it becomes a truth of the world, and as such an objective truth.



Morality is complicated. There are many things that wouldn't necessarily harm society yet are called immoral. Animals do not have morality. Or at the very least, the vast majority of them do not have anything like morality. Without free thought, animals are left to act based purely on instinct. You can't do anything bad based on extinct because instinct dictates you folllow certain rules. But you aren't following them in the same way you would morals, because they can't be broken. It's the framework of your instinct. Whereas for people, we can break morals whenever we feel, willingly.

[A4NoOb]

He didn't lie to Adam in that case. Eating the fruit did kill them. It gave them sin, which in turn led them to death.

The Old Testament doesn't quite work that way. The context which death was given, meant what I said. Namely, that Adam and Eve would die instantly. This is verified from the serpent's argument "You will not die". If the Old Testament wished to associate sin with death, it would have explicitly put that. Unlike what you think, the versus from the bible are not like the ivory tower parables of Jesus.

But that aside, being made in the image of God means they had some semblance of intelligence. Sentient, free thinking individuals would have to be intelligent. Or else how would we be made in the image of God? Anyway, if anything at all, the fruit would appear to have merely broken open the threshold to more advanced thought. Instead of inventing the wheel, it made the bicycle.

This is all subject to your opinion, which leads into a "Yes" "No" "Yes" pointless discussion. Where is your evidence from the scripture (because I'm assuming you're a literalist)? What is evidenced in the bible is:
1) Adam and Eve were conceptually and morally ignorant.
2) The fruit of knowledge gave them enlightenment which did not exist under the kingdom of God.
3) God punished Adam and Eve for arriving at some moral ground equivalent to God's (as verified by the serpent's saying).

[Ozaffer]

If there were a God, there would be objective right and wrong on the basis that he created right and wrong. That makes it objective. If it's inherent in our existence and the world around us, it becomes a truth of the world, and as such an objective truth.


I see now your saying our very survival is god's will his "objective", the creation of problems is to lead us together. Very.. convenient I suppose this will changing evolution into god's work rather then just our own. I always admire peoples ability to believe so strongly in a god, I wonder is your image of god the same as any other religions or do you acknowledge that you just follow your own belief? And if you don't associate yourself as christian or anything else why protect their ideas along with the idea of god? Why not just protect your own views as they hold a much stronger case in these days then those mythology's written, translated, and interpreted by other men (atleast from my viewpoint).

Really in such a case it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, there is no need to praise "him" all you need to do is live your life by what you know is right based off the reaction your actions will have on yourself, the people around you, and the world we live on.

Morality is complicated. There are many things that wouldn't necessarily harm society yet are called immoral. Animals do not have morality. Or at the very least, the vast majority of them do not have anything like morality. Without free thought, animals are left to act based purely on instinct. You can't do anything bad based on extinct because instinct dictates you folllow certain rules. But you aren't following them in the same way you would morals, because they can't be broken. It's the framework of your instinct. Whereas for people, we can break morals whenever we feel, willingly.

We see morality as complected but really it can be simplified down to life and death, every animals survival instinct to not only preserve their own lives but the lives of their offspring, and some times their "herd" or their "school". You need to realize it's only recently that equal rights for sex, race, and religion have been commonly accepted in some parts of human society. Even then we separate each-other by looks, idea's, and beliefs we cut the land into boarders and we think of ourselves as separate groups. So when it comes down to it we really arn't that far off from the beast of the savanna in a sense of basic morality. Now some people understand what is morally needed for all of humanity to grow stronger but that's just caused from humans need to survive the natural world to humans need to survive the human world.

[esis]

There can be no such thing as Free Will if God is an omniscient being, who has everything planned out. He's planned evil, and planned good. Big hole in Religious logic there.

thats why He gave us higher intelligent than those in animals kingdom to choose our lives, to seek for knowlegde, to find the truth. Animals wont be punished if they did something bad because they dont have that intelligent.

[nope]

thats why He gave us higher intelligent than those in animals kingdom to choose our lives, to seek for knowlegde, to find the truth. Animals, and other creatures wont be punished if they did something bad because they dont have that intelligent.

Humans are intelligent animals but animals all the same. It is a bit of a stretch to just look at intelligence and assume that it came from god. There doesn't seem to be a logical connection between the two. You could replace god with anything and make as much sense.

[Ozaffer]

thats why He gave us higher intelligent than those in animals kingdom to choose our lives, to seek for knowlegde, to find the truth. Animals, and other creatures wont be punished if they did something bad because they dont have that intelligent.

?

He gave us higher intelligence so we can chose how to live? Why not show us how to live? And we're going to be judged because we are intelligent and still have the choice to behave selfishly? What a strange concept.

Putting it this way I see why the Norse had such a vastly different view of god as they ransacked Europe compared to later years. You see they gained from their greed thus their gods praised bravery and war, until they turned to settlers and converted to christianity. I think it's our religion that mirrors our actions or needs rather then our actions mirroring gods teachings, kind of shows how humans created god.

Edit: Actually putting it that way I can see why christianity killed these "sinners" with this logic humans who are given intelligence and chose greed are nothing more then beast or worse "demons" in the eyes of the "holy". Given how these ideals are twisted to such broad terms it's no wonder such atrocious were carried out in the name of "god" throughout all of history.

[Locke]

God's done this, God's has done that. Where is the evidence for this? Or is it merely you bending what you've been taught in your religion to make sense of it yourself? How can you say God has given us anything, when you can't even prove God isn't something man made up to comfort himself on those lonely cold nights. You could easily take away the God part in your posts and add in the word sausage and the logic would stay the same...

[WOTG]

thats why He gave us higher intelligent than those in animals kingdom to choose our lives, to seek for knowlegde, to find the truth. Animals, and other creatures wont be punished if they did something bad because they dont have that intelligent.
There's actually no denying that God is a bad guy(was going to use another word, but that may be inappropriate). He's has everything planned out for everyone... and we know how this world works. Even if he didn't have everything planned out, he's still omniscient and therefore neglects his creations. There's nothing loving about this being people call God. Not to be that douche or nothing, but yeah.

There's a huge plothole in religious logic, really, it's complete contradiction after contradiction. I don't see how anyone can sanely defend these things.

[esis]

Humans are intelligent animals but animals all the same. It is a bit of a stretch to just look at intelligence and assume that it came from god. There doesn't seem to be a logical connection between the two. You could replace god with anything and make as much sense.

Brain is the magnificient organ in human body, besides, we differentiate human and animals by it. All the cognitive interaction happen in our brain. Theres where we have the intelligence. By having this, we also have another responsibilities compared to other animals. Do you think that we human just use intelligent to live without any direction? Only depend on how clever we are? and so, how to explain human being existence? Are we naturally existed? Who created this great brain?



He gave us higher intelligence so we can chose how to live? Why not show us how to live? And we're going to be judged because we are intelligent and still have the choice to behave selfishly? What a strange concept..

We can choose our lives and of couse after He gave us human the guidelines to live. To become a good or bad person is our options to choose. But both actions have consequences. Its not selfish. Being humble to God is the way to thank Him.

[Ozaffer]

We can choose our lives and of couse after He gave us human the guidelines to live. To become a good or bad person is our options to choose. But both actions have consequences. Its not selfish. Being humble to God is the way to thank Him.

I don't think you understood what I was saying.. first off you need to read back on my opinion of "gods guidelines" they're not the same for any religion. Not only that but they are written and interpreted by man in contradictive ways, and they constantly change throughout history to fit in with changing society for example woman's rights. Next I was saying if someone chose to act against "gods wishes" for their own selfish desires they would be punished because they where given this greater intelligence but yet free will? It doesn't make much sense it's like god gave people a choice to go left or right, and he punishes them if they don't chose the path he wants even if both are equally "good" paths. While dumb animals can go where ever they want simply because they are dumb.

Being humble to "god" is to blindly follow men of our past that have written commonly accepted laws as the word of god.

And the point that you blatantly ignored was describing how in different circumstances the "word of god" is different for every civilization, Mayans had sacrifices, Vikings had constant wars to enter Valhalla then switched religions when they settled, Romans had festivals and banquettes in their gods honor, Egyptians created pyramids for their Pharaohs who they saw as gods. The "word of god" is simply a tool of man used for control or used to reflect a reason for a cultures actions, just as the church of ancient Europe used the "word of god" to control and to "purify" their lands of conflicting views. Just as christianity in the states today was apparently just a frontier of the knights of the templar and their search for religious and ideological acceptance.

Brain is the magnificient organ in human body, besides, we differentiate human and animals by it. All the cognitive interaction happen in our brain. Theres where we have the intelligence. By having this, we also have another responsibilities compared to other animals. Do you think that we human just use intelligent to live without any direction? Only depend on how clever we are? and so, how to explain human being existence? Are we naturally existed? Who created this great brain?

The brain is a magnificent organ in any animals body the human brain has evolved over time and is still evolving to help our develoupment, hell if you want something gifted to our spices it would be opposable thumbs. Want to know how the human brain got the way it is today look to evolution and learn of our primate ancestors and how they adapted to see color, communicate, and work together against predators or to hunt and forage. It's not a gift from god it's evolution, survival of the fittest and all that jazz it's an easy concept to understand and it's been proven if im not mistaken.

[CasaHouse]

thats why He gave us higher intelligent than those in animals kingdom to choose our lives, to seek for knowlegde, to find the truth. Animals, and other creatures wont be punished if they did something bad because they dont have that intelligent.

But if God knows what we are going to do in advance, free will is an illusion. The path is already set in stone. For free will to be true, nobody, not God, not man, nobody could know what choices we would make until we actually made them.

If it is possible to know in advance, we're not really making any choices. We're just walking our little pre-determined path.

[nope]

Brain is the magnificient organ in human body, besides, we differentiate human and animals by it. All the cognitive interaction happen in our brain. Theres where we have the intelligence. By having this, we also have another responsibilities compared to other animals. Do you think that we human just use intelligent to live without any direction? Only depend on how clever we are? and so, how to explain human being existence? Are we naturally existed? Who created this great brain?

We can't be separated from animals simply because we are smart when we fit every other criteria for being classified as animals and when intelligence never really played into it in the first place. The human brain itself is certainly a fine brain indeed, however it is identical to that of a chimps and many other apes (especially chimpanzee's) with very little variation when it comes to the structure.

To explain the human existence the best explanation is that we have a natural origin and that we evolved. The brain is complex but it too is not irreducibly complex. Nobody created the brain, it evolved.

[Megabuster]

I see now your saying our very survival is god's will his "objective", the creation of problems is to lead us together. Very.. convenient I suppose this will changing evolution into god's work rather then just our own. I always admire peoples ability to believe so strongly in a god, I wonder is your image of god the same as any other religions or do you acknowledge that you just follow your own belief? And if you don't associate yourself as christian or anything else why protect their ideas along with the idea of god? Why not just protect your own views as they hold a much stronger case in these days then those mythology's written, translated, and interpreted by other men (atleast from my viewpoint).

Really in such a case it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, there is no need to praise "him" all you need to do is live your life by what you know is right based off the reaction your actions will have on yourself, the people around you, and the world we live on.



We see morality as complected but really it can be simplified down to life and death, every animals survival instinct to not only preserve their own lives but the lives of their offspring, and some times their "herd" or their "school". You need to realize it's only recently that equal rights for sex, race, and religion have been commonly accepted in some parts of human society. Even then we separate each-other by looks, idea's, and beliefs we cut the land into boarders and we think of ourselves as separate groups. So when it comes down to it we really arn't that far off from the beast of the savanna in a sense of basic morality. Now some people understand what is morally needed for all of humanity to grow stronger but that's just caused from humans need to survive the natural world to humans need to survive the human world.

I don't believe in God....for the record. If you haven't been paying attention to my responses in this thread. I just happen to have a basic understanding of religion and am rebutting in place of those that are too attached to their own side to argue effectively.

You also missed my point. If there was a God, it means that he created this world, and everything about it. Anything you learn about the world, he made. Anything that is right or wrong, is the way it is because he made it that way. And as such, if there is right, it is right because he made it right. If there is wrong, it is wrong because he made it that way. Objective truth would exist because it would be fact. You can't argue fact.

As for morality, sentience separates us from most animals. Sentient free will. Animals are bound by instinct. We deliberate issues with thought. They react based on their immediate circumstances.

[Megabuster]

The Old Testament doesn't quite work that way. The context which death was given, meant what I said. Namely, that Adam and Eve would die instantly. This is verified from the serpent's argument "You will not die". If the Old Testament wished to associate sin with death, it would have explicitly put that. Unlike what you think, the versus from the bible are not like the ivory tower parables of Jesus.

This is all subject to your opinion, which leads into a "Yes" "No" "Yes" pointless discussion. Where is your evidence from the scripture (because I'm assuming you're a literalist)? What is evidenced in the bible is:
1) Adam and Eve were conceptually and morally ignorant.
2) The fruit of knowledge gave them enlightenment which did not exist under the kingdom of God.
3) God punished Adam and Eve for arriving at some moral ground equivalent to God's (as verified by the serpent's saying).
Original sin brought evil into the world. The gravest suffering that evil brings is death. God didn't just smite them there on the spot, or else there would be no continuation of man. Adam and Eve being morally ignorant doesn't mean they weren't intelligent. Morality is only necessary in a world with evil. Which is a world brought about by sin. The act of eating the apple, made eating the apple necessary.
But if God knows what we are going to do in advance, free will is an illusion. The path is already set in stone. For free will to be true, nobody, not God, not man, nobody could know what choices we would make until we actually made them.

If it is possible to know in advance, we're not really making any choices. We're just walking our little pre-determined path.

You're assuming God to be a linear existence. As the first cause, he would exist outside of time. Seeing all of time at the same time. Chronology means nothing if you're omniscient. He exists at all times, seeing all times at the same 'time'.

[CasaHouse]

You're assuming God to be a linear existence. As the first cause, he would exist outside of time. Seeing all of time at the same time. Chronology means nothing if you're omniscient. He exists at all times, seeing all times at the same 'time'.

And you're assuming that time exists independent of our experience. Time doesn't actually exist as any kind of energy, element, etcetera. Time is a system we use to make sense of the progression of events over the course of our lives. Like distance. Distance itself doesn't exist, it is just a system we use to help us understand the world.

And again, if it is possible to predict our fate with 100% certainty, our fate is not in our own hands. Free will and Omniscience cannot coexist. Free will means we're unpredictable, Omniscience would mean we are predictable.

The first cause thing is kind of weird too. How did God happen? What made God? Creationism uses the argument that nothing can exist without being made to exist, but God is immune, because explaining why he breaks the rule would be REALLY inconvenient.

P.S. I salute what you are doing. Setting aside your own beliefs for the sake of keeping a discussion interesting is a very big thing to do.

[Orochimaru-sama]

I don't believe in God....for the record. If you haven't been paying attention to my responses in this thread. I just happen to have a basic understanding of religion and am rebutting in place of those that are too attached to their own side to argue effectively.

You also missed my point. If there was a God, it means that he created this world, and everything about it. Anything you learn about the world, he made. Anything that is right or wrong, is the way it is because he made it that way. And as such, if there is right, it is right because he made it right. If there is wrong, it is wrong because he made it that way. Objective truth would exist because it would be fact. You can't argue fact.

As for morality, sentience separates us from most animals. Sentient free will. Animals are bound by instinct. We deliberate issues with thought. They react based on their immediate circumstances.

wow! to not believe in god, you certainly are doing a good job of impersonating someone who does believe

"if there is a god/was a god, it means he created his world and everything?"

did i misread this or did I jump into a discussion that I'm not aware of what's going on?


big jump of logic, if there is a god, it depends on what god he/she/it is to determine if it created anything no?


this is aside from all the problems you would have proving the god, ok we have that done and done, but then 'proving' that he did anything etc

phew don't even wanna' get into more, because it's just way too complicated

[Megabuster]

wow! to not believe in god, you certainly are doing a good job of impersonating someone who does believe

"if there is a god/was a god, it means he created his world and everything?"

did i misread this or did I jump into a discussion that I'm not aware of what's going on?


big jump of logic, if there is a god, it depends on what god he/she/it is to determine if it created anything no?


this is aside from all the problems you would have proving the god, ok we have that done and done, but then 'proving' that he did anything etc

phew don't even wanna' get into more, because it's just way too complicated

If God didn't create anything in this world, then his existence doesn't matter. We're under the presumption that his existence necessitates his creating this world.

[Orochimaru-sama]

If God didn't create anything in this world, then his existence doesn't matter. We're under the presumption that his existence necessitates his creating this world.

and this assumption is because of what?

(i know you dont believe t his, or ....so you say xD)

but the presumption is only of a few christian gods and other gods

not of real 'logic' right?

[Megabuster]

and this assumption is because of what?

(i know you dont believe t his, or ....so you say xD)

but the presumption is only of a few christian gods and other gods

not of real 'logic' right?

No, because otherwise there would be no point to this debate. If God exists, but is irreverent of this world. There is no point debating his existence, because there would be no evidence and it would have no baring on anything.

Basically, it's like arguing what Einsteins 50th thought was. It has no baring on anything, and is a purposeless question..

[Ozaffer]

I don't believe in God....for the record. If you haven't been paying attention to my responses in this thread. I just happen to have a basic understanding of religion and am rebutting in place of those that are too attached to their own side to argue effectively.

You also missed my point. If there was a God, it means that he created this world, and everything about it. Anything you learn about the world, he made. Anything that is right or wrong, is the way it is because he made it that way. And as such, if there is right, it is right because he made it right. If there is wrong, it is wrong because he made it that way. Objective truth would exist because it would be fact. You can't argue fact.

As for morality, sentience separates us from most animals. Sentient free will. Animals are bound by instinct. We deliberate issues with thought. They react based on their immediate circumstances.
I didnt miss your point
I see now your saying our very survival is god's will his "objective", the creation of problems is to lead us together. Very.. convenient I suppose this "will", changing evolution into god's work rather then just our own.
that's exactly what I said. Its a view I have heard before, it's impossible to argue but it doesn't follow any orgonized religion that I know of so really it doesn't matter to me.

Edit : the morality topic was explained by Nope in a post below so I wont go further on that, it is simply instinct which I thought I explained earlier in different wording as "our will to survive and keep our offspring alive" but oh well.. I think your confusing humans ability to retain information better then an animal thus being able to debate our previous actions as evidence of an advanced morality when it's just a greater intelligence and which hasn't really been proven as only a human characteristic either.

[nope]

As for morality, sentience separates us from most animals. Sentient free will. Animals are bound by instinct. We deliberate issues with thought. They react based on their immediate circumstances.

We in a large way act on our instincts. Animals do have varying degrees at which they can process information. Naturally some are better then others. Animals have as much free will as humans do. They have a brain and they act as they are able to within the constraints that that brain allows. You can say that that is not free will or that it is free will however you can not separate humans from animals using free will. Humans too are only able to act within the constraints of our machine, or only to the extent that our mind allows us to act. You can try to raise us above animals however just as they operate on their own level we operate in the same way on a different level that happens to give us more leverage.

[CasaHouse]

We in a large way act on our instincts. Animals do have varying degrees at which they can process information. Naturally some are better then others. Animals have as much free will as humans do. They have a brain and they act as they are able to within the constraints that that brain allows. You can say that that is not free will or that it is free will however you can not separate humans from animals using free will. Humans too are only able to act within the constraints of our machine, or only to the extent that our mind allows us to act. You can try to raise us above animals however just as they operate on their own level we operate in the same way on a different level that happens to give us more leverage.

You could even argue that free will just frees us up to be stupid. Instinct is generally pretty good at preserving life, and Humans don't really have much instinct anymore. We've gotten too soft because not many of us are in life and death situations on a regular basis.

[Orochimaru-sama]

No, because otherwise there would be no point to this debate. If God exists, but is irreverent of this world. There is no point debating his existence, because there would be no evidence and it would have no baring on anything.

Basically, it's like arguing what Einsteins 50th thought was. It has no baring on anything, and is a purposeless question..

no, you presume
the debate has to be, because IF there is a god, he created everything
meaning that you think he has to have a purpose


but what if the debate is of his ACTUAL existence

meaning, is there a god, or is there no god?

what if the debate is of why he exists, if he/she/it is ever proven to exist somehow

as in why is he existing in this universe, and what is his role?


etc so many other things, you constrict the argument by going by the abrahamic religions way of thinking

you know, there are millions of religions and maybe also millions of gods (ideas of gods )

[nope]

no, you presume
the debate has to be, because IF there is a god, he created everything
meaning that you think he has to have a purpose


but what if the debate is of his ACTUAL existence

meaning, is there a god, or is there no god?

what if the debate is of why he exists, if he/she/it is ever proven to exist somehow

as in why is he existing in this universe, and what is his role?


etc so many other things, you constrict the argument by going by the abrahamic religions way of thinking

you know, there are millions of religions and maybe also millions of gods (ideas of gods )
Also, isn't it a little asinine to talk about gods attributes when you can't first establish his existence? It is sort of like arguing in detail about what color toadstools fairies commonly perch on.


God existed he talks to me all day, he say that we are foolish to talk about him in vain, and fegratin your fellow brothers and sisters... he appears every night, when the moon is brightest at the sky.

Hes word is law.
You are talking about him in vain right now.

[Ozaffer]

Have you ever looked into LaVeyan Satanism?

Not in detail no, the idea of self indulgence is interesting but I see myself as an animal living in a world where I have to achieve balance giving as well as taking and working for survival every day, rather then simply diluting myself into thinking I am a god.

Edit: Ahh looking more deeply into it I see alot of my own personal beliefs reflected in the "religions" teachings, I would think such a faith should be brought to light threw enlightenment instead of taboo labellings of Satan and self worship. An interesting faith I would have no problem supporting as long as the "Church of Satan" were abolished, such ridiculous places of worship and labels are only good for turning revolutionary teachings into amusing sideshows.

[Megabuster]

no, you presume
the debate has to be, because IF there is a god, he created everything
meaning that you think he has to have a purpose


but what if the debate is of his ACTUAL existence

meaning, is there a god, or is there no god?

what if the debate is of why he exists, if he/she/it is ever proven to exist somehow

as in why is he existing in this universe, and what is his role?


etc so many other things, you constrict the argument by going by the abrahamic religions way of thinking

you know, there are millions of religions and maybe also millions of gods (ideas of gods )

The monotheistic God is the easiest one to argue for. I can draw from hundreds of years of theological debate from some of histories greatest philosophers from all over the world. What great polytheistic theologists are there? Even the greatest ancient Greek philosophers mocked their polytheism, effectively admitting it's absurdity.


What if this debate was of his actual existence? Then we'd be arguing that. But obviously, this debate is multi-faceted as it's branched out into numerous topics concerning God. I didn't choose the direction of the debate, I just followed it.

[Sin eater]

In my opinion, there is only one God for all of us humanity.,and every religion in this world created by humanity to worshiped the God on their own way, because mankind realize there is a big entity that create all of this.. and they want to worshiped Him..
i hope every religion in this world did not hate each other, because differences in this world are made by god for beauty purposes, like a paint in a canvas that have different color..
so, love each other and peace :hug:

[Orochimaru-sama]

The monotheistic God is the easiest one to argue for. I can draw from hundreds of years of theological debate from some of histories greatest philosophers from all over the world. What great polytheistic theologists are there? Even the greatest ancient Greek philosophers mocked their polytheism, effectively admitting it's absurdity.


What if this debate was of his actual existence? Then we'd be arguing that. But obviously, this debate is multi-faceted as it's branched out into numerous topics concerning God. I didn't choose the direction of the debate, I just followed it.

easiest according to what rules?
also are we assuming there is only one monotheistic god?


and in reply to your second paragraph,
did you understand what I was trying to say?

you said- if a god exists, then we only have this discussion if this so called god created everything, or if he is RELEVANT
well you said something in the lines of that

and i say no, because you WANT to take the debate there, but it doesn't have to go there
and it's just not possible

let's say there is a god, let's say he created nothing

you at this point would say, what is the point of discussing if he doesn't have a purpose, ??

and i say there is plenty

why does he exist?
how does he exist?
what IS his purpose, if there IS one?

etc etc i could go on, and on

so my point is you are wrong

No, because otherwise there would be no point to this debate. If God exists, but is irreverent of this world.

[Megabuster]

easiest according to what rules?
also are we assuming there is only one monotheistic god?


and in reply to your second paragraph,
did you understand what I was trying to say?

you said- if a god exists, then we only have this discussion if this so called god created everything, or if he is RELEVANT
well you said something in the lines of that

and i say no, because you WANT to take the debate there, but it doesn't have to go there
and it's just not possible

let's say there is a god, let's say he created nothing

you at this point would say, what is the point of discussing if he doesn't have a purpose, ??

and i say there is plenty

why does he exist?
how does he exist?
what IS his purpose, if there IS one?

etc etc i could go on, and on

so my point is you are wrong
I'm not wrong. The entire argument up until this point has been God in relation to this world. If he doesn't affect it, he has nothing to do with the argument anymore.

God individually, is an entirely separate idea.


Have you noticed that I've never laid out one constructive argument for God? I've just been rebutting...how could I have taken this debate into this direction?

You didn't ask any of those questions...why would I nonchalantly bring them up while addressing other completely separate ideas?


Edit: You questioned my criteria for believing why the abrahamic god was the easiest to argue for? Why? I told you right there.

[Orochimaru-sama]

right where? i didn't catch it


if he doesn't affect it, the argument takes a different course
AND the first argument in my opinion at least, should be of does god exist, or not?
because if people can't agree on yes or no, the the argument has to be of that

not what ifs, but like i said just my opinion

you ARE wrong, if you want to cut the debate when some representation of god, does not affect the world, well let's take the debate in another direction and problem solved



EDIT: oh okay i see it, my response is
i can say the same thing of other monotheistic religions/gods
and other polytheistic religions/gods

there are people who mock these beliefs, and there are just as much 'arguments' for those gods as the abrahamic gods
just for the simple reason that they are all belief without evidence, and such things.

[Megabuster]

We in a large way act on our instincts. Animals do have varying degrees at which they can process information. Naturally some are better then others. Animals have as much free will as humans do. They have a brain and they act as they are able to within the constraints that that brain allows. You can say that that is not free will or that it is free will however you can not separate humans from animals using free will. Humans too are only able to act within the constraints of our machine, or only to the extent that our mind allows us to act. You can try to raise us above animals however just as they operate on their own level we operate in the same way on a different level that happens to give us more leverage.
I'm not separating them based on free will. I'm separating them based on freedom. The constraints of our machine are much more liberal than that of most animals. The capacity for freedom our minds have is the defining difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. Our free will, is 'free-er' than that of most animals.

[OutShoneGod]

Not in detail no, the idea of self indulgence is interesting but I see myself as an animal living in a world where I have to achieve balance giving as well as taking and working for survival every day, rather then simply diluting myself into thinking I am a god.

Edit: Ahh looking more deeply into it I see alot of my own personal beliefs reflected in the religions teachings, I would think such a faith should be brought to light threw enlightenment instead of taboo labellings of Satan and self worship.

It's taken on both those who do see themselves in it but care not for the taboo outlook of society. If you see what you believe to be right then I'd suggest you get the book, the rituals I find to be a a load of crap but it states in the book that the rituals are only if you feel you need them etc.

I find the philosophy of it all to be almost identical to how I feel about most things. Its called Satanism because Satan is the Opposition of God and everything that God based religions stand for and that is why it is named Satanism, because it is against Religions that believe in celestial beings and the worship of man made Gods. Worshiping man made Gods can lead to blame passing an inaction.

[Ozaffer]

I'm not separating them based on free will. I'm separating them based on freedom. The constraints of our machine are much more liberal than that of most animals. The capacity for freedom our minds have is the defining difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom. Our free will, is 'free-er' than that of most animals.

Lol you see yourself as "more free-er" then a bird or a wolf? how so? please indulge me on how you live this life of freedom. How your thoughts are more independent then that of a monkeys.

It's taken on both those who do see themselves in it but care not for the taboo outlook of society. If you see what you believe to be right then I'd suggest you get the book, the rituals I find to be a a load of crap but it states in the book that the rituals are only if you feel you need them etc.

I find the philosophy of it all to be almost identical to how I feel about most things. Its called Satanism because Satan is the Opposition of God and everything that God based religions stand for and that is why it is named Satanism, because it is against Religions that believe in celestial beings and the worship of man made Gods. Worshiping man made Gods can lead to blame passing an inaction.

very much so but I don't feel I need their book to understand their teachings from what I have read on their ideals I could probably be a "priest" for their cause lol. I just don't like to blatantly label myself as a satanist as I don't believe in giving the idea of god any sort of respect with labeled opposition, even if it's meant to mock the idea it does more harm to the cause then good. Instead the idea of self labeling as "rational philosophers" would be more suitable to this day and age.

[Megabuster]

The monotheistic God is the easiest one to argue for. I can draw from hundreds of years of theological debate from some of histories greatest philosophers from all over the world. What great polytheistic theologists are there? Even the greatest ancient Greek philosophers mocked their polytheism, effectively admitting it's absurdity.

right where? i didn't catch it


if he doesn't affect it, the argument takes a different course
AND the first argument in my opinion at least, should be of does god exist, or not?
because if people can't agree on yes or no, the the argument has to be of that

not what ifs, but like i said just my opinion

you ARE wrong, if you want to cut the debate when some representation of god, does not affect the world, well let's take the debate in another direction and problem solved

If he doesn't affect the argument, then there is a different argument to be made; yes. But no one took that argument. No one took that direction. You kept arguing the flaws that came if a God did exist. You can't just double back now and blame me.

Referring to the bold now, i didn't start this debate. Your side did. The original pretext for the argument was God's existence. If you want to start a separate argument for whether or not he exists, no one is stopping you except yourself. But don't just blame me for not bringing it up.

[Orochimaru-sama]

If he doesn't affect the argument, then there is a different argument to be made; yes. But no one took that argument. No one took that direction. You kept arguing the flaws that came if a God did exist. You can't just double back now and blame me.

Referring to the bold now, i didn't start this debate. Your side did. The original pretext for the argument was God's existence. If you want to start a separate argument for whether or not he exists, no one is stopping you except yourself. But don't just blame me for not bringing it up.

there is no separate argument, don't run away from the inevitable

they are all part of the same idea, god/s


i'm not blaming you by the way, i just think you are wrong for saying there is no purpose to the debate after an idea of god is not relevant to the world
if you're gonna' play ball, you better play the whole 9 innings


it's all i'm saying.

[Megabuster]

there is no separate argument, don't run away from the inevitable

they are all part of the same idea, god/s


i'm not blaming you by the way, i just think you are wrong for saying there is no purpose to the debate after an idea of god is not relevant to the world
if you're gonna' play ball, you better play the whole 9 innings


it's all i'm saying.

That doesn't mean they're all part of the same argument. Each argument focuses on one aspect of such an idea. Another focuses on several aspects. etc, etc.

I'm not running away either, I openly invited you to bring in this whole other argument. But at the same time, you have to acknowledge that it's a separate argument.


EDIT: oh okay i see it, my response is
i can say the same thing of other monotheistic religions/gods
and other polytheistic religions/gods

there are people who mock these beliefs, and there are just as much 'arguments' for those gods as the abrahamic gods
just for the simple reason that they are all belief without evidence, and such things.

When I say people, I mean people of note. Philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, theologists, etc. People of academic note. The classica paganistic gods weren't criticized because they dealt with gods, but because the gods were absurd themselves. The justification for the gods themselves were absurd. etc, etc.

[Ozaffer]

how bout you guy stop bickering over what your talking about and actually discuss something relevant to the topic before it gets locked. Who cares whos right and wrong at this point? really I don't even see the purpose of your guys argument anymore.

"im only responding", "well im only responding" well both of you stfu and wait for something to respond to then.

[Orochimaru-sama]

That doesn't mean they're all part of the same argument. Each argument focuses on one aspect of such an idea. Another focuses on several aspects. etc, etc.

I'm not running away either, I openly invited you to bring in this whole other argument. But at the same time, you have to acknowledge that it's a separate argument.

definitely
but they all lead to the center of the discussion
they are intertwined

like i said, if you're gonna play devils advocate
play through to the end

all i'm asking

since this is just semantics ........yet again
i leave it to you, to decide what happens next.



if they are intertwined, they can't be taken apart.
well......they can, but they don't really matter as separate entities.

[Megabuster]

definitely
but they all lead to the center of the discussion
they are intertwined

like i said, if you're gonna play devils advocate
play through to the end

all i'm asking

since this is just semantics ........yet again
i leave it to you, to decide what happens next.
If they intertwine, that means they're separate ideas to begin with. Or else they wouldn't be able to intertwine...>_>
Lol you see yourself as "more free-er" then a bird or a wolf? how so? please indulge me on how you live this life of freedom. How your thoughts are more independent then that of a monkeys.


Both humans and animals have a similar, basic framework. We react and adapt to stimuli, we gain habits, we can be taught/trained(different levels between human and most animals) etc. The difference is that an animal can't go against any of this. Animals don't do anything to hurt themselves. You don't see an animal do anything that inconveniences them. Animals don't think intelligently. They discern nothing. Everything they do is instinctive. We aren't restricted in the same way. Abstract thinking, subjective understanding and complex thought separate us from animals.

[Orochimaru-sama]

If they intertwine, that means they're separate ideas to begin with. Or else they wouldn't be able to intertwine...>_>


Both humans and animals have a similar, basic framework. We react and adapt to stimuli, we gain habits, we can be taught/trained(different levels between human and most animals) etc. The difference is that an animal can't go against any of this. Animals don't do anything to hurt themselves. You don't see an animal do anything that inconveniences them. Animals don't think intelligently. They discern nothing. Everything they do is instinctive. We aren't restricted in the same way. Abstract thinking, subjective understanding and complex thought separate us from animals.

1.) stating something does not make it so


2.) have you ever thought of the possibility that your abstract thoughts are partly because of our larger and differently developed brains?

free will, call it what you want, we have a differently evolved brain

god, i hate going off topic
so

to link it to the god debate i guess.........i can say that we aren't special
in the sense some religions want to portray us..........
there you go, right on the money (topic)

[Ozaffer]

Both humans and animals have a similar, basic framework. We react and adapt to stimuli, we gain habits, we can be taught/trained(different levels between human and most animals) etc. The difference is that an animal can't go against any of this. Animals don't do anything to hurt themselves. You don't see an animal do anything that inconveniences them. Animals don't think intelligently. They discern nothing. Everything they do is instinctive. We aren't restricted in the same way. Abstract thinking, subjective understanding and complex thought separate us from animals.

Your basically saying our thought process and circumstances being different separate us from animals. Animals have to survive and protect their young, all they do is hunt to eat and migrate or settle for survival. This would be the same for humans if all we had to worry about was survival. Sense we live in a world molded into safety by humans we contemplate different actions but they all revolve around the same concepts other then actions brought on by insanity. The evolution of the mind could be chalked up to gods creation or gods will but it can also be scientifically explained threw evolution so this isn't a strong case for gods existence.

If you want simplistic proof: kittens, puppys, cubs what have you in the curious state of infancy animals gain the habits they will carry out most of their life and will teach to their offspring to ensure their survival. It is the same for humans except instead of staying on the paths of these habits carrying out survival we have a higher intelligence like that displayed in monkeys we never lose our curiosity to learn more about the world around us and we have gained the intelligence to use our bodies to pass down information and creations.

[Megabuster]

Your basically saying our thought process and circumstances being different separate us from animals. Animals have to survive and protect their young, all they do is hunt to eat and migrate or settle for survival. This would be the same for humans if all we had to worry about was survival. Sense we live in a world molded into safety by humans we contemplate different actions but they all revolve around the same concepts other then actions brought on by insanity. The evolution of the mind could be chalked up to gods creation or gods will but it can also be scientifically explained threw evolution so this isn't a strong case for gods existence.

I'm not using it as an argument for God's existence. I'm merely displaying the fact that the human mind is broader and more intelligent than an animals. If I was a lunatic, I could bring out the intelligent design argument. But that holds no weight unless I can somehow prove a higher being exists, then prove that a theistic(in a sense, the abrahamic god) exists....which I doubt I can pull off.

[Ozaffer]

well of course the human mind is broader and more intelligent then most animals it's the most evolved, we are beings that have surpassed common nature normally only being threatened by famine/ each-other/ the cosmos/ and natural disasters. But that really doesn't pertain to the topic at hand it's from proven evolution..

[Megabuster]

1.) stating something does not make it so


2.) have you ever thought of the possibility that your abstract thoughts are partly because of our larger and differently developed brains?

free will, call it what you want, we have a differently evolved brain

god, i hate going off topic
so

to link it to the god debate i guess.........i can say that we aren't special
in the sense some religions want to portray us..........
there you go, right on the money (topic)
Not necessarily, but we are still special. It's our minds that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. What's possible with ours, greatly dwarfs the next smartest animal on the big chain of smart animals. As long as I prove that, God, religion etc can be linked back afterwards.

[nope]

Not necessarily, but we are still special. It's our minds that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. What's possible with ours, greatly dwarfs the next smartest animal on the big chain of smart animals. As long as I prove that, God, religion etc can be linked back afterwards.

Humans are animals. creatures are classified not by their differences but by their similarities. We have all the similarities of animals with almost no significant divergence and therefore we are animals. Using an analogy, humans come in a vast array of shapes and sizes however if you put a seven foot man next to 3 foot man they would both be classified as Homo sapien or human species. Just like if you put a man with hair covering his entire body next to a man with no hair at all. Using a similar analogy and also using your criteria for classification, a man with no intelligence next to a man with regular intelligence; the man with the regular intelligence would be human and the man without would not be. Humans are not separate from animals, humans are animals.


A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

[Megabuster]

Humans are animals. creatures are classified not by their differences but by their similarities. We have all the similarities of animals with almost no significant divergence and therefore we are animals. Using an analogy, humans come in a vast array of shapes and sizes however if you put a seven foot man next to 3 foot man they would both be classified as Homo sapien or human species. Just like if you put a man with hair covering his entire body next to a man with no hair at all. Using a similar analogy and also using your criteria for classification, a man with no intelligence next to a man with regular intelligence; the man with the regular intelligence would be human and the man without would not be. Humans are not separate from animals, humans are animals.

I'm not saying we aren't animals. I'm saying that humans are sapient. We are more free, and that we are more intelligent. We are, effectively, superior.

[nope]

I'm not saying we aren't animals. I'm saying that humans are sapient. We are more free, and that we are more intelligent. We are, effectively, superior.
That's why we are Homo 'Sapien'. Free would be a subjective term in the way that you are using it. Unless you get into the mind of the animal you have no way of knowing how "free" it is in it's decision making. The argument that decisions being the result of chemical reactions and those chemical reactions being uncontrollable applies to us as well, not just lesser animals. The argument against that is that even if our thought were the result of chemical reactions out of our control, those reactions cause us to act in a way that we would seemingly want and like to act. The ability to 'chose' in a way that we are able to be satisfied with the choice, even if the choice is constricted by our biology can still be called free will. The same should be so for lesser animals since they are able to act in a way that is satisfactory to them even though their choices are constricted by their mechanism.

[Orochimaru-sama]

Not necessarily, but we are still special. It's our minds that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. What's possible with ours, greatly dwarfs the next smartest animal on the big chain of smart animals. As long as I prove that, God, religion etc can be linked back afterwards.

well if our minds, our complex and different brains makes us special


can't things unique to other animals make them special?

this is why i prefer to say we are just different
there is no such thing as 'special'

of course this would totally negate the concept of 'specialness'
that some religions preach, which really is not an argument for the existance or non existance
of a god/s

it's just another appeal to emotions.

[nope]

well if our minds, our complex and different brains makes us special


can't things unique to other animals make them special?

this is why i prefer to say we are just different
there is no such thing as 'special'

of course this would totally negate the concept of 'specialness'
that some religions preach, which really is not an argument for the existance or non existance
of a god/s

it's just another appeal to emotions.

The Immortal jellyfish is an animal that can reverse it's age back to it's polyp stage (child stage) and relive its life as good as new and can in theory never die of old age. They have unsurprisingly managed to spread around the world. These are certainly "Special". Like you said there are no special creatures just different creatures, or rather, all creatures are special. To call your own species special among and above all the others is a little narcissistic.

[Timewave Zero]

Actually, atoms can be destroyed (hence why we have atomic bombs and we attempt to study subatomic particles through the use of particle accelerators), and matter can be converted into energy and vise verse. You are thinking about the concept that matter (this actually also applies to energy) cannot be created or destroyed, so the idea is that something supernatural created all matter and energy in the universe. The problem is, that because of the big bang, we cannot know the entire history of our universe, we can only get evidence for events that occurred after this. This basically makes the question of where did all the matter and energy come from moot, because we cant know, all we can know, is that it was here after the big bang.

Lolwut? Atoms can be destroyed?

You fail chemistry forever.

Also god cannot exist; the infinite powers paradox occurs.

Beliefs however can. That is the only difference.

[edit]

nope: Turritopsis nutricula, dear god man. You have frightened me terribly.

[Ozaffer]

Orochimaru should have been fascinated by that jelly fish instead of white snakes..

and you can alter Atoms turning them into energy essentially breaking them appart to have them reform anew.

[Manhunter098]

Lolwut? Atoms can be destroyed?

You fail chemistry forever.



Yeah, atoms can be destroyed. Matter cannot, but we can break down atoms into smaller components, they can be split through fission as well, which is a destruction of sorts.

[OutShoneGod]

The Immortal jellyfish is an animal that can reverse it's age back to it's polyp stage (child stage) and relive its life as good as new and can in theory never die of old age. They have unsurprisingly managed to spread around the world. These are certainly "Special". Like you said there are no special creatures just different creatures, or rather, all creatures are special. To call your own species special among and above all the others is a little narcissistic.

Isn't the Hydra special for having such an ability? They are biologically immortal, not physically and can also be killed by disease.

I would have to say though that although I do not believe we have be 'chosen' to be 'special' I do think that, possibly through evolution, we have undeniably become the ultimate and most powerful species on Earth. This is our planet. We stand everyday unopposed.

[nope]

Isn't the Hydra special for having such an ability? They are biologically immortal, not physically and can also be killed by disease.

I would have to say though that although I do not believe we have be 'chosen' to be 'special' I do think that, possibly through evolution, we have undeniably become the ultimate and most powerful species on Earth. This is our planet. We stand everyday unopposed.

Hydra do have a similar ability.

Unopposed, except by ourselves. For all the 'power' we have we are our own worse enemy. That in and of itself is a significant fault. A social species that can't get along is not very efficient so we still have a long way to go.

[esis]

I don't think you understood what I was saying.. first off you need to read back on my opinion of "gods guidelines" they're not the same for any religion. Not only that but they are written and interpreted by man in contradictive ways, and they constantly change throughout history to fit in with changing society for example woman's rights. Next I was saying if someone chose to act against "gods wishes" for their own selfish desires they would be punished because they where given this greater intelligence but yet free will? It doesn't make much sense it's like god gave people a choice to go left or right, and he punishes them if they don't chose the path he wants even if both are equally "good" paths. While dumb animals can go where ever they want simply because they are dumb..

God wont punishes if both are good. That's our option, that's free will. Our intelligent also take part in it. For example, our body lack of protein, we should take more foods that contain that nutrient. But there are so many choices, so it's up to us to choose…meat, fish, egg, mushroom, bean or other foods that rich in protein. Free will is as simple as our desires. To know what is good and what is bad, do and don't, look at the guidelines. Body, soul, intelligent and desire/lust, these what made us human.

Man deserves blame (punishment) or merits praise (rewards) only when he is able to decide and to act freely, otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.

Being humble to "god" is to blindly follow men of our past that have written commonly accepted laws as the word of god.

And the point that you blatantly ignored was describing how in different circumstances the "word of god" is different for every civilization, Mayans had sacrifices, Vikings had constant wars to enter Valhalla then switched religions when they settled, Romans had festivals and banquettes in their gods honor, Egyptians created pyramids for their Pharaohs who they saw as gods. The "word of god" is simply a tool of man used for control or used to reflect a reason for a cultures actions, just as the church of ancient Europe used the "word of god" to control and to "purify" their lands of conflicting views. Just as christianity in the states today was apparently just a frontier of the knights of the templar and their search for religious and ideological acceptance..

I don’t deny about the contradiction because there's so many religions and ideologies out there. He created us with brain to let us think. Find the truth. Don’t blame the God, don’t blame His words; blame the person who interpreted the words irresponsibly. Current laws which are made by human are also worse. We are lost. What I want to stress here is, our action, our lives, need guidelines. Only God knows His creatures. Let has this as an easy logic example. Computer, a very popular machine in this modern world. How to use a computer? If there are no guidelines, if there's no one able to teach people how to use it, they will use it blindly. That’s why the engineer who invented the computer writes the guidelines and shows how to use it, so people can use it properly without ruining it because the engineer knows it best. I'm not saying the computer engineer is God. It's just a concept of creation/invention. Creator/inventor, creature/invention and purpose. All things in this world have a creator including human. And the engineer who invented the great computer also has a Creator who created him, much much more Intelligent than him.


The brain is a magnificent organ in any animals body the human brain has evolved over time and is still evolving to help our develoupment, hell if you want something gifted to our spices it would be opposable thumbs. Want to know how the human brain got the way it is today look to evolution and learn of our primate ancestors and how they adapted to see color, communicate, and work together against predators or to hunt and forage. It's not a gift from god it's evolution, survival of the fittest and all that jazz it's an easy concept to understand and it's been proven if im not mistaken.

Nobody created the brain, it evolved. .

Evolutionary theory. As far as I concern, this theory is still doubtful facts. Some is true, and some is exaggerated. The earth has basic elements of land, water and gases. It became a suitable environment for organisms to live in. But the main questions here are, how the earth existed? How the organisms first appeared? How these 'ancestors' exist? Random atoms joined together and suddenly they alive by themselves? This makes no sense. Where the 'lives' came from? The best explanation is God. I do believe in evolution in some kind of ideas. But above all, God give us lives. There's no sudden exists or natural appearance in creatures existence. This world is the proof of God existence. He created all things, our brain is not an exception (whether it evolve or not).

[Skyguy]

one word : Bears

Blood thirsty kings of this world bears terrorize humans.. alright im just bored now..

WTF????
whats bears got to do with religion and god?
your silly
one thing i dont understand about christianity is the fact that there is a passage in the bible that says its ok to mutilate your body if that part of your body makes you sin? example if your hand causes you to sin cut it off, better you go to heaven with one hand than be a sinner
why would god want you to try and kill yourself because you did one bad sin
thats just crazy

[nope]

Evolutionary theory. As far as I concern, this theory is still doubtful facts. Some is true, and some is exaggerated. The earth has basic elements of land, water and gases. It became a suitable environment for organisms to live in. But the main questions here are, how the earth existed? How the organisms first appeared? How these 'ancestors' exist? Random atoms joined together and suddenly they alive by themselves? This makes no sense. Where the 'lives' came from? The best explanation is God. I do believe in evolution in some kind of ideas. But above all, God give us lives. There's no sudden exists or natural appearance in creatures existence. This world is the proof of God existence. He created all things, our brain is not an exception (whether it evolve or not).
False. The earth exists, that is only proof of the earth existing and nothing more. It is not as if it's impossible for inorganic matter to form into organic matter. It has been demonstrated in lab tests that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be formed from in organic matter. The best explanation is not god, that is simply all you can comprehend. Wonderfully arrogant viewpoint by the way. "I don't know how the earth or living things could have formed, therefor god did it". That statement has no logical value.

[esis]

False. The earth exists, that is only proof of the earth existing and nothing more. It is not as if it's impossible for inorganic matter to form into organic matter. It has been demonstrated in lab tests that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be formed from in organic matter. The best explanation is not god, that is simply all you can comprehend. .

I'm talking about 'life' here. Living things can formed by non living matters. But 'life' itself is given.

Wonderfully arrogant viewpoint by the way. "I don't know how the earth or living things could have formed, therefor god did it". That statement has no logical value.

I didn't mean to be arrogant. It's just to encourage thinking. Im sorry if you get me that way

[Phaxi]

I'm talking about 'life' here. Living things can formed by non living matters. But 'life' itself is given.


Cannot.....compute......


I didn't mean to be arrogant. It's just to encourage thinking. Im sorry if you get me that way

I find it odd for you to encourage people to believe in a God (the it solves everything word) while still saying you encourage thinking. The "as far as I'm concerned" line didn't help your "I encourage thinking" point either.

[CasaHouse]

Evolutionary theory. As far as I concern, this theory is still doubtful facts. Some is true, and some is exaggerated. The earth has basic elements of land, water and gases. It became a suitable environment for organisms to live in. But the main questions here are, how the earth existed? How the organisms first appeared? How these 'ancestors' exist? Random atoms joined together and suddenly they alive by themselves? This makes no sense. Where the 'lives' came from? The best explanation is God. I do believe in evolution in some kind of ideas. But above all, God give us lives. There's no sudden exists or natural appearance in creatures existence. This world is the proof of God existence. He created all things, our brain is not an exception (whether it evolve or not).

By your own logical process, God couldn't just suddenly exist. Something must have made Him/It. He couldn't have just suddenly sprung into existence, so what created God? And what created whatever force it is that created Him?

Stating that it must have been God because every creation needs a creator is fallacious, because you have already accepted that God didn't have a creator.

[Syfer]

Well.. to be honest
i dont actually believe on religious belief or the god thingy.
maybe i will believe that there is a god.
if i'll die and see him w/ my own eye's

[nope]

I'm talking about 'life' here. Living things can formed by non living matters. But 'life' itself is given.



This makes no sense. It appears you are using "life" with many possible definitions in many places at once. This can be confusing since this sentence appears to contradict itself.

You are talking about life? However, life can not form from nothing. Organic matter, the building blocks of life can. When you say 'life' are you referring to whole organism?

[BFDD]

It should also be noted that how the earth was formed or how the first life was created has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is only concerned with what happened to the first organism after it appeared and how we ended up with such a diversity of organisms on earth.

[Orochimaru-sama]

good points BFDD


and i would also like to say that no matter if evolution was wrong, or any other scientific theory for that matter, (look up theory in reference to how it's used in science by the way, for people who criticize evolution for being a 'theory' LOL)
anyways no matter if we have all the explanations of the world, through science
being wrong

that does not automatically mean 'god did it'

for one thing, anyone who suggests this, first would have to 'prove' there IS a god
so it's just non sense to say

'oh evolution might be wrong, so god did it'

[Ozaffer]

I don’t deny about the contradiction because there's so many religions and ideologies out there. He created us with brain to let us think. Find the truth. Don’t blame the God, don’t blame His words; blame the person who interpreted the words irresponsibly. Current laws which are made by human are also worse. We are lost. What I want to stress here is, our action, our lives, need guidelines. Only God knows His creatures. Let has this as an easy logic example. Computer, a very popular machine in this modern world. How to use a computer? If there are no guidelines, if there's no one able to teach people how to use it, they will use it blindly. That’s why the engineer who invented the computer writes the guidelines and shows how to use it, so people can use it properly without ruining it because the engineer knows it best. I'm not saying the computer engineer is God. It's just a concept of creation/invention. Creator/inventor, creature/invention and purpose. All things in this world have a creator including human. And the engineer who invented the great computer also has a Creator who created him, much much more Intelligent than him.

"I don't deny that there are contradictions through out every generation of religion, but I chose to believe my view (chosen interpretation) as the correct one." you then go on to say "If you follow these view's (the ones I find to be correct) then you will live life the correct way." Do you see how this logic is flawed? Do you see how human this concept is? You admit that these teachings are only the interpretations of men but yet you label them as the word of god even when there are various different interpretations with just as much backing to their "truth".
God wont punishes if both are good. That's our option, that's free will. Our intelligent also take part in it. For example, our body lack of protein, we should take more foods that contain that nutrient. But there are so many choices, so it's up to us to choose…meat, fish, egg, mushroom, bean or other foods that rich in protein. Free will is as simple as our desires. To know what is good and what is bad, do and don't, look at the guidelines. Body, soul, intelligent and desire/lust, these what made us human.

Man deserves blame (punishment) or merits praise (rewards) only when he is able to decide and to act freely, otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.
This makes no sense if god were real then he made all of these choices as options for us and he doesn't put clear cut restrictions on any of them but yet the church will give you multiple contradictory ways to get to heaven and hell. This also doesn't answer the question of why "god" would even make it an option for us to go to hell. The whole concept of punishing his creation for following a path he created is retarded. These "paths of evil" are "evil" only because of their effect on society, I pointed this out with multiple civilizations throughout the ages, it is a clear cut obvious answer showing how religion is merely a creation of man and not some "god".

Your last paragraph has been torn apart by a few other people so I won't bother..

@Skyguy about the bears
yea I was just being bored silly at the time :P

[esis]

It should also be noted that how the earth was formed or how the first life was created has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is only concerned with what happened to the first organism after it appeared and how we ended up with such a diversity of organisms on earth.

:P I know. It's just an opening word to talk about evolution. Earth is the place where we live. No earth meaning no evolution.

I find it odd for you to encourage people to believe in a God (the it solves everything word) while still saying you encourage thinking. The "as far as I'm concerned" line didn't help your "I encourage thinking" point either.

Hmm..really? I don’t feel it that way. The more we thinking about this world, the more we'll find the truth of God.

anyways no matter if we have all the explanations of the world, through science being wrong

that does not automatically mean 'god did it'

for one thing, anyone who suggests this, first would have to 'prove' there IS a god
so it's just non sense to say

'oh evolution might be wrong, so god did it'

You said both science and faith are false. Just wonder what is right (in your opinion) if you don’t mind sharing…For me, faith is more than logic. It's also related to our feeling and soul. Like we can't see wind but we can feel it.

By your own logical process, God couldn't just suddenly exist. Something must have made Him/It. He couldn't have just suddenly sprung into existence, so what created God? And what created whatever force it is that created Him?

Stating that it must have been God because every creation needs a creator is fallacious, because you have already accepted that God didn't have a creator.

God is no creature. If He is created, we don’t call Him GOD ;)

This makes no sense. It appears you are using "life" with many possible definitions in many places at once. This can be confusing since this sentence appears to contradict itself.

You are talking about life? However, life can not form from nothing. Organic matter, the building blocks of life can. When you say 'life' are you referring to whole organism?

Let me say this way. Life or soul/spirit. Our body can be built by non living matter. Both organic and inorganic matter is non living matters. The non living things (organic matters) can transform to living things, then we die while our body still created with living things and organic matters….(?)

"I don't deny that there are contradictions through out every generation of religion, but I chose to believe my view (chosen interpretation) as the correct one." you then go on to say "If you follow these view's (the ones I find to be correct) then you will live life the correct way." Do you see how this logic is flawed? Do you see how human this concept is? You admit that these teachings are only the interpretations of men but yet you label them as the word of god even when there are various different interpretations with just as much backing to their "truth".


God gave His words to prophets. They just spread the teaching among people to know God, avoid bad manners of people, and pursue to live peacefully. He's not creating the 'rules, laws, ethic' on his own. Some interpretations are needed, that's what brain for, to adapt with current period, but not everyone can interpret. We must learn. God teachings are perfect, suitable for every age. But the teaching became polluted when irresponsible persons interpret the Words to accomplish their own desires.

This makes no sense if god were real then he made all of these choices as options for us and he doesn't put clear cut restrictions on any of them but yet the church will give you multiple contradictory ways to get to heaven and hell.

I don’t know the meaning of 'multiple contradictory ways' you said but this is my explanation. God already give basic clear restrictions. We practice what we preach from prophet. We can live our life as long as we're in the line.

This also doesn't answer the question of why "god" would even make it an option for us to go to hell. The whole concept of punishing his creation for following a path he created is retarded.

Let me say this way. The options are just like a test to evaluate our faith, like we take exams or practical trainings after we finished our lessons. We know the right procedures but refuse to follow. So, our teacher must be angry because he already told us the correct ways yet we do it wrong. As the result, maybe we need to attend additional class as a punishment. God loves His creature that’s why He gave us guidelines. It's not like He asks us to go to hell; it's the other way around. He already taught us then why disobeying Him. Why choose to ignore? We deserved punishment then..

These "paths of evil" are "evil" only because of their effect on society, I pointed this out with multiple civilizations throughout the ages, it is a clear cut obvious answer showing how religion is merely a creation of man and not some "god".

For one reason, yes, evil does affect society. As I said before, only Creator knows His creatures. He made us to obey Him and be good and be responsible not only to creatures but also surroundings. He showed us the way to live beautifully, from the smallest things like ethics to biggest things like laws and politics. I can't imagine the world today if the bad manners from passed didn’t prevented. Man can't create thing as beautiful, universal, complete and complicated like it is until many people can easily take the path without hesitation (believe in God). Seemed like they were waiting for something to find peace and purpose of living; then finally discover it.

[Ozaffer]

OMG it's like.. :O---One ear --- The other ----> *!*God*!*Faith*!*Pwng*!*

It's so obvious what this crap is it makes my soal bleed to see you so blind, or so open to this conformity.

Read your opinion on god's "test", Look at what religion ultimately does, Look at religions history, Look at religions support, Look at what you said about what we know on god, Then look at what you said about listening to preachers, Look at Clerics and Missionary's, Look at the inquisition, Look at other religions and their civilizations. I'm not going to spell it all out again to be completely ignored.

As for the "soal" you feel well if it's the same feeling that I get, a tingling sensation that feels like your very life and moves and changes with your emotions. Then I would say that's the brain and your energy, there's also quite alot of religions that teach on controlling this energy some with enlightening ideas on how it can be linked to the universes life force in the idea everything is connected. Both idea's possible or perhaps it's just our chemical reactions and our bodies effect from such powerful changes in emotion and thought.. even in prayer/meditation the minds mental state changes drastically sometimes even coming to a dreamlike state. (mind is a powerful thing is what im basically trying to say.. this feeling along with your conscience not a very far jump to "soal"..)

[Winsome]

Imagine if there was no religion existed on this world, no belief in GOD.
Do you think, we would be what we are today?

If there wasn't a belief in God, I think the world will be on complete chaos.
(just remember what Hitler did)

God teach us what is right and wrong.

This sounds crazy but I will tell you this.
"Even if God doesn't exist. I will believe in Him."

[Ozaffer]

Hitler did what he did because he felt that he and his "superior race" was chosen by god EPIC FAIL

If there was no god we would have a world without as much blind people with emotionally controlled lives.

You feel that if there was no god then people would have no incentive to work together, that there would be no morals, that life as we know it would be completely different. Well history begs to differ. With the idea of evolution and our understanding of the primate social environment this is proven false again.

I pray to all your gods that you all gain the strength to see a future in yourself and the faith that you will learn right and wrong with the simple concept of helping your brother in the back your mind. To see the beauty and splendor of what you have today and how fragile it all is, to know how precious and important every moment is for yourself and everything you care about.

Edit: \/ I like this crack monkey \/

[Vafhudr]

Imagine if there was no religion existed on this world, no belief in GOD.
Do you think, we would be what we are today?

Who knows, but I would be inclined to think that it woulbe a be a very great and beautiful place, and a few hundred million less dead from silly infighting, biggotry, and negative aspects coming from these "teachings".

If only this world would exist...


If there wasn't a belief in God, I think the world will be on complete chaos.
(just remember what Hitler did)

How does that work ? If anything, Hitler is another example of religion gone wrong. He promoted christian values for his Reich mind you. Look what that did. Millions more dead.

Also, there was no chaos in what Hitler did. In fact, Hitler's method could be labelled efficient and rationale. We see the horrors, and we think its impossible, its madness, its chaotic. But it wasn't. Everything was planned, with cold logic, and with ruthless effeciency...

God teach us what is right and wrong.

We don't need a god to teach us this. Humans can fill this role. What we could us is ethics, rational, imagination, memory, intuition, and common sense. With these qualities, we can establish a sense of the others, understand the repercusions of our action, and see what is good what is wrong.

You have to understand the concept, and you don't need a supreme being to do that. You can come to your conclusions through experience and the people around you.

You look at the heavens in search for answers and understanding, while all you have to do is look around and understand.

This sounds crazy but I will tell you this.
"Even if God doesn't exist. I will believe in Him."

Ah ? I see.

Wouldn't you rather believe in other things ? Is god the only thing worth of believing ? Have faith in ?

Wouldn't you rather believe in those around you ? In the world in which you live instead of the one you hope to end up in ? Break the illusion and face reality ? Understandably, this can be hard, but also most worthwhile...

What does religion gives to you? Why do you feel you MUST believe in something that is bigger then you, that is out there. That is intangible, unprovable, and promises outlandish rewards while enslaving you in old laws ?

Does the promise of life after death so enticing ? Does believing that the day will be saved a dead savior helps you sleep better at night ? Does living in servitude is better to live in freedom ?

Is servitude easier since it only requires you to believe instead of thinking ?

[Winsome]

Hitler did what he did because he felt that he and his "superior race" was chosen by god EPIC FAIL
Do you think Hitler believe in God? Hitler believes only to himself.

If there was no god we would have a world without as much blind people with emotionally controlled lives.


What do you mean in Blind w/ emotionally controlled lives? are you talking about the broad Knowledge of men? What did that knowledge do eh? It only made them powerful and corrupt. Also, look at the result of men seeking for knowledge. We are now almost run out of resources and soon the Earth will be destroyed because of that.


You feel that if there was no god then people would have no incentive to work together, that there would be no morals, that life as we know it would be completely different. Well history begs to differ. With the idea of evolution and our understanding of the primate social environment this is proven false again.

Who first taught the people morals? -the religion
How come there was a religion? -because they believe there is God

And when I said "I believe in God, Even if He doesn't exist"
That does not mean that I believe everything on the Bible literary.

Like the story of Adam and Eve, I don't believe in that. But I could get some lessons from it.

Example: Why did the Bible tell us that Eve came from the left ribs of Adam, and why not God didn't just made Eve from dust like Adam?

- It's because the Bible taught us, that women should have higher dignity than men. And should be treated kindly.

[Vafhudr]

Do you think Hitler believe in God? Hitler believes only to himself.

Ah ah... maybe he did, maybe he did not. What I know is that several policies of the National Socialist Party where influenced by christian believes, and encouraged christian values, and that acted as a reactionary force against social gain by various groups, most predominently women, who where encouraged to stay at home, clean up, and raise kids...

And that will always remain one of my major grief with the catholic church : the submission of women to men.

Then again, I noticed that you don't believe in that. Good. It means that atleast something changed in the last few centuries.

Who first taught the people morals? -the religion
How come there was a religion? -because they believe there is God

I'm aghast at how people always come back to this: moral = religion.

They don't. Morals pre-exist any system of religion. It exist since the beginning of civilization. And as far as I'm concern, god wasn't there when that happened. He popped up out of the blue some 2000 years ago or so and his prophet claimed that all that happened was thanks to him...

Thank goodness for ineducation. I wonder how that would have worked today...

As for the origin of religion, I can see a few of those. Political system exist and maintain civilization, but don't come up with explanation of the world around them or possible other worlds. Religion filled that gap, taking power in this vacuum. Now, I will say right now that these historic details are not all clear or common knowledge to me, so I'll stop right there and will continue my little rethorics when I'll have info to back what I say...

The last thing I want to do is undermine myself with faulty info and theories.

What do you mean in Blind w/ emotionally controlled lives? are you talking about the broad Knowledge of men? What did that knowledge do eh? It only made them powerful and corrupt. Also, look at the result of men seeking for knowledge. We are now almost run out of resources and soon the Earth will be destroyed because of that.

Knowledge as saved more lives then all religions combined, and then some. Knowledge got us out of the dark ages and the stone age. The Churches would be more then glad to keep us there.

Knowledge is before all a tool. It is neither good nor evil. The same way religion is neither good nor evil.

It is all in the application. The same way you have monks educating young people without access to school and healing the sick, you have the Inquisition, snuffing an unbelievable amount of lives and the use of terrible torture...

Knowledge can make you live longer, or snuff out your life on the spot. The same we can provide energy with nuclear technology, we can overkill the planet with our nuclear armament...

And funny thing you mention greed, since many of those who are guilty of it are also followers of religions. It doesn't stop them, and heck, it seems god is on their side, seeing that they get away with anything. The good man suffers and the greedy one takes it all.

And never as this been more blatant with the last peak of the continuing crisis that has been dragging on since the 80'ies...

Religion, if anything, as added fuel to the fires that are consumming our good ol' world.

And god seems to be taking is sweet time about it. Then again, I doubt that if he even existed, could do anything about it. People wait for god's intervention, and fail to realize that it is their intervention that matters.

Its not about believing in gods, its about to believe in what is right, and understand why it is right. And this brings me back to the 6 qualities mentioned in my previous post...

[Siren-Hill]

Do you think Hitler believe in God? Hitler believes only to himself.



What do you mean in Blind w/ emotionally controlled lives? are you talking about the broad Knowledge of men? What did that knowledge do eh? It only made them powerful and corrupt. Also, look at the result of men seeking for knowledge. We are now almost run out of resources and soon the Earth will be destroyed because of that.




Who first taught the people morals? -the religion
How come there was a religion? -because they believe there is God

And when I said "I believe in God, Even if He doesn't exist"
That does not mean that I believe everything on the Bible literary.

Like the story of Adam and Eve, I don't believe in that. But I could get some lessons from it.

Example: Why did the Bible tell us that Eve came from the left ribs of Adam, and why not God didn't just made Eve from dust like Adam?

- It's because the Bible taught us, that women should have higher dignity than men. And should be treated kindly."Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
That was one of Hitler's speeches. He believed in God.

Some people have been brainwashed as a kid to believe in a God. I know a few of those would commit suicide if they find out there is no God. How do I know? I asked them myself. I'm not trying to be preachy here, but I think it's wrong to live your life for other people (particularly God, when you can't even be sure of his existence). I think you should live life for yourself.

To be frank, some people in the East believe in Buddhism and they don't have much to do with the Christian God. It's more about Enlightenment and escape from the cycle of life. It's hard to explain, but they don't need the Q'uran or the Bible to teach them moral. In my belief, morality is just a way for people to live peacefully with each other. If people allow to kill others and getting away with it, the society would be in ruin. The morality basically comes from what we can and can't do in a society. The common sense is what prevented from committing crimes. I think you've somehow mistaken the Adam and Eve story. The story showed the women as inferior, and that the women are the ones who will lead men astray from their path. If you read more into the Bible, they said that women should be quite in Church and should not be allowed to speak.

Do you know what the Bible believers had achieved? they used it to justify slavery during the colonization stage in America. They used it as an excuse for the Holy Crusade which killed literally thousands of people regardless of their belief. They used it to justify burning people alive on a stake due to some ridiculous witch accusations. The holocaust was also justified by God, according to Hitler. If you go to prison, I bet a lot of them believe in God. Just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you have more moral than the person next to you.

It's very hypocritical of you to condemn the knowledge mankind had achieved so far considered you are one of "those" people who are using up the resource of the Earth. I'm not gonna lie; I agree that human would drive themselves into extinction due to over consumption. However, I bet the majority of those people are the "religious" ones.

[Ozaffer]

What do you mean in Blind w/ emotionally controlled lives? are you talking about the broad Knowledge of men? What did that knowledge do eh? It only made them powerful and corrupt. Also, look at the result of men seeking for knowledge. We are now almost run out of resources and soon the Earth will be destroyed because of that.

If you don't like knowledge get off your pc and go live in the woods like a very strange isolated monk.
Look at the idea of god's "test", Look at what religion ultimately does Hint: (Control), Look at religions history, Look at religions support, Look at what we know about god and where this information came from, Then look at the idea of listening to preachers, Look at Clerics and Missionary's, Look at the inquisition, Look at the crusades, Look at the story of the Templar and America, Look at other religions and their civilizations. I'm not going to spell it all out again to be completely ignored.
I'm not gonna spell it out for yea all the time are ya illiterate, you need ta read in-between the lines. Learn for yourself or "your" faith will never be swayed.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
That was one of Hitler's speech. He believed in God.

Some people have been brainwashed as a kid to believe in a God. I know some people would commit suicide if they find out there is no God. How do I know? I ask them myself. I'm not try to be preachy here, but I think it's wrong to live your life for other people (particularly God, when you can't even be sure of his existence). I think you should live life for yourself.

To be frank, some people in the East believe in Buddhism and they have don't have much to do with the Christian God. It's more about Enlightenment and escape from the cycle of life. It's hard to explain, but they don't need the Q'uran or the Bible to teach them moral. In my belief, morality is just a way for people to live peacefully with each other. If people allow to kill others and getting away with it, the society would be in ruin. The morality basically comes from what we can and can't do in a society. The common sense is what prevented from committing crimes. I think you somehow mistake the Adam and Eve story. The story showed the women as inferior, and that the women are the ones that will lead men astray from their path. If you read more in the Bible, they said that women should be quite from Church and should not be allowed to speak.

Do you know what the Bible believers had achieved? they used it to justify slavery during the colonization stage in America. They used it as an excuse for the Holy Crusade which killed literally thousands of people regardless of their belief. They used it to justify burning people alive on a stake due to some ridiculous witch accusations. The holocaust was also justified by God, according to Hitler. If you go to prison, I bet a lot of them believe in God. Just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you have more moral than the person next to you.

It's very hypocritical of you to condemn the knowledge mankind had achieve so far considered you are one of "those" people who are using up the resource of the Earth. I'm not gonna lie; I agree that human would drive themselves into extinction due to over consumption. However, I bet the majority of those people are the "religious" ones.
someone else who gets exactly what I have been saying.

[CasaHouse]

I'm of the mindset that everyone should choose their own beliefs. The main problem is that so many people are told what to believe as kids and just roll over and accept it. The vast majority of any large religion don't believe what they believe because they think it makes sense, or because they choose to, they believe it because they were told to, and they accepted that as good enough justification.

Most of them have honestly never even considered that it might be false, they just take it in stride and it becomes part of their emotional and intellectual foundations. Breaking free of those foundations is the hard part. Not many people can do it, for fear of being all alone in the big scary world.

I have no problem with religious people who have analyzed their beliefs, and the beliefs of others, thought it over, and decided on what made sense to them to believe in. I have many friends whose beliefs contradict my own on a fundamental level, but I respect them, and their beliefs, because they have thought it over.

That being said, I do have a problem with people who assume that the first thing they were ever told is absolutely right and everyone else in the history of humanity is/was absolutely wrong. How arrogant can you be?

I don't think that what I believe is absolutely right for everyone that has ever existed ever, nor do I believe that anyone who has ever thought differently from me is/was completely wrong in every way. I just know what's right for me, so I believe what I believe.

[Ozaffer]

I hear yea casa and I try to be open minded as well I just really dislike Organized religion for those very reason's.

[CasaHouse]

In the simplest terms, it's a few people repeatedly stating that they are right and anyone who doesn't believe what they say will be tortured for eternity in the next life that exists in their system. So I guess you have to be somewhat convinced for the threat to hold any sway.

But then I'm a cynic.

[WOTG]

I'm of the mindset that everyone should choose their own beliefs. The main problem is that so many people are told what to believe as kids and just roll over and accept it. The vast majority of any large religion don't believe what they believe because they think it makes sense, or because they choose to, they believe it because they were told to, and they accepted that as good enough justification.

Most of them have honestly never even considered that it might be false, they just take it in stride and it becomes part of their emotional and intellectual foundations. Breaking free of those foundations is the hard part. Not many people can do it, for fear of being all alone in the big scary world.

I have no problem with religious people who have analyzed their beliefs, and the beliefs of others, thought it over, and decided on what made sense to them to believe in. I have many friends whose beliefs contradict my own on a fundamental level, but I respect them, and their beliefs, because they have thought it over.

That being said, I do have a problem with people who assume that the first thing they were ever told is absolutely right and everyone else in the history of humanity is/was absolutely wrong. How arrogant can you be?

I don't think that what I believe is absolutely right for everyone that has ever existed ever, nor do I believe that anyone who has ever thought differently from me is/was completely wrong in every way. I just know what's right for me, so I believe what I believe.
Having contrary belief is saying the other belief is wrong, because how would you not believe it, if it wasn't wrong?
Or would it be in a sense that people are guessing it could be truth; I wish it was like that, but people generally refuse to accept "beliefs" that way.

[CasaHouse]

Having contrary belief is saying the other belief is wrong, because how would you not believe it, if it wasn't wrong?
Or would it be in a sense that people are guessing it could be truth; I wish it was like that, but people generally refuse to accept "beliefs" that way.

It isn't "saying the other belief is wrong" when I don't insist that my own beliefs are right. Religion is mostly a coping mechanism, and my own beliefs would depress just about anyone who isn't me. I can never know whether they're right or wrong, so I don't assume that my beliefs are either. They're just what I believe.

I don't assume everyone who doesn't think like I do is wrong. I may well be wrong, or only partially right, or mostly right, or mostly wrong. It's all vague. You assume that every belief has to be either right or wrong with no middle ground.

I don't build my life around which religion I think is right for everybody, because none of them are. I build it around the one I've constructed to be right for me.

[nope]

I don't assume everyone who doesn't think like I do is wrong. I may well be wrong, or only partially right, or mostly right, or mostly wrong. It's all vague. You assume that every belief has to be either right or wrong with no middle ground.


Well, if a belief isn't right then it's wrong. If it isn't wrong then it should be right. You can take a middle ground however that is just a position of denying the true/false claim and not taking a position towards either. Can something be both right and wrong or neither?

[CasaHouse]

Well, if a belief isn't right then it's wrong. If it isn't wrong then it should be right. You can take a middle ground however that is just a position of denying the true/false claim and not taking a position towards either. Can something be both right and wrong or neither?

Again, you're assuming that every belief is either 100% right or 100% wrong. That's a false dilemma. A type of logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

How can a complex system of beliefs be simply right or wrong? If it is 99% right, does the 1% that's missing make it completely wrong? By your system, it would seem so.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that nine of the Ten Commandments actually are the word of some kind of god. Does that make the Ten Commandments right or wrong? What about Christianity as a whole? Is it right or wrong? Can you really simplify an entire religion into either a T or an F?

[nope]

Again, you're assuming that every belief is either 100% right or 100% wrong. That's a false dilemma. A type of logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

How can a complex system of beliefs be simply right or wrong? If it is 99% right, does the 1% that's missing make it completely wrong? By your system, it would seem so.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that nine of the Ten Commandments actually are the word of some kind of god. Does that make the Ten Commandments right or wrong? What about Christianity as a whole? Is it right or wrong? Can you really simplify an entire religion into either a T or an F?

No, you can't simplify an entire religion into a T or F. You can break things down.

9 of the ten commandments would be true. Each commandment would still be either true or false. I wasn't really stating a false dilemma, I just over simplified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

[WOTG]

It isn't "saying the other belief is wrong" when I don't insist that my own beliefs are right. Religion is mostly a coping mechanism, and my own beliefs would depress just about anyone who isn't me. I can never know whether they're right or wrong, so I don't assume that my beliefs are either. They're just what I believe.

I don't assume everyone who doesn't think like I do is wrong. I may well be wrong, or only partially right, or mostly right, or mostly wrong. It's all vague. You assume that every belief has to be either right or wrong with no middle ground.

I don't build my life around which religion I think is right for everybody, because none of them are. I build it around the one I've constructed to be right for me.
You can have your "belief" like this; Either you believe something is right/real/truth/fact, or you think it could be right/real/truth/fact. It's different considerations. If I say something like, "I believe Muhammad is the Messiah", I'm making a claim that is indeed insuring that other parties that accept different messiahs, are wrong. Unless I would be saying that, "I think he could be the Messiah" as in implying that you think there's a possibility or strong possibility, but not taking it as absolute fact/not so sure of it.
I also said that it's hard to see it as the "possibility" because people in general do not accept it like that. When they believe something, it is always taken for absolute for them. It isn't possible to respect others beliefs, when your own beliefs are not of "possibility".
Do you understand; see the contradiction? >_>

[CasaHouse]

You can have your "belief" like this; Either you believe something is right/real/truth/fact, or you think it could be right/real/truth/fact. It's different considerations. If I say something like, "I believe Muhammad is the Messiah", I'm making a claim that is indeed insuring that other parties that accept different messiahs, are wrong. Unless I would be saying that, "I think he could be the Messiah" as in implying that you think there's a possibility or strong possibility, but not taking it as absolute fact/not so sure of it.
I also said that it's hard to see it as the "possibility" because people in general do not accept it like that. When they believe something, it is always taken for absolute for them. It isn't possible to respect others beliefs, when your own beliefs are not of "possibility".
Do you understand; see the contradiction? >_>

It really comes down to Faith vs. Intellect. I really do believe in the system that I've created for myself, but at the same time, I acknowledge that it'd be slightly ridiculous for me to be the only one in all history to stumble onto the "true path". It's effectively my heart saying "This is what I believe." and my logical mind amending that "but I may be wrong."

And people only take their beliefs as totally absolute if they're afraid to be wrong. I'm not. If someone proved that what I believe is wrong, my beliefs would shift again.

[Baluga]

SO what really constitutes the existence of God?

[Timewave Zero]

Ah ah... maybe he did, maybe he did not. What I know is that several policies of the National Socialist Party where influenced by christian believes, and encouraged christian values, and that acted as a reactionary force against social gain by various groups, most predominently women, who where encouraged to stay at home, clean up, and raise kids...

And that will always remain one of my major grief with the catholic church : the submission of women to men.

Then again, I noticed that you don't believe in that. Good. It means that atleast something changed in the last few centuries.



I'm aghast at how people always come back to this: moral = religion.

They don't. Morals pre-exist any system of religion. It exist since the beginning of civilization. And as far as I'm concern, god wasn't there when that happened. He popped up out of the blue some 2000 years ago or so and his prophet claimed that all that happened was thanks to him...

Thank goodness for ineducation. I wonder how that would have worked today...

As for the origin of religion, I can see a few of those. Political system exist and maintain civilization, but don't come up with explanation of the world around them or possible other worlds. Religion filled that gap, taking power in this vacuum. Now, I will say right now that these historic details are not all clear or common knowledge to me, so I'll stop right there and will continue my little rethorics when I'll have info to back what I say...

The last thing I want to do is undermine myself with faulty info and theories.



Knowledge as saved more lives then all religions combined, and then some. Knowledge got us out of the dark ages and the stone age. The Churches would be more then glad to keep us there.

Knowledge is before all a tool. It is neither good nor evil. The same way religion is neither good nor evil.

It is all in the application. The same way you have monks educating young people without access to school and healing the sick, you have the Inquisition, snuffing an unbelievable amount of lives and the use of terrible torture...

Knowledge can make you live longer, or snuff out your life on the spot. The same we can provide energy with nuclear technology, we can overkill the planet with our nuclear armament...

And funny thing you mention greed, since many of those who are guilty of it are also followers of religions. It doesn't stop them, and heck, it seems god is on their side, seeing that they get away with anything. The good man suffers and the greedy one takes it all.

And never as this been more blatant with the last peak of the continuing crisis that has been dragging on since the 80'ies...

Religion, if anything, as added fuel to the fires that are consumming our good ol' world.

And god seems to be taking is sweet time about it. Then again, I doubt that if he even existed, could do anything about it. People wait for god's intervention, and fail to realize that it is their intervention that matters.

Its not about believing in gods, its about to believe in what is right, and understand why it is right. And this brings me back to the 6 qualities mentioned in my previous post...

In regards to this post for replying to the quote within it (which is not displayed due to board settings). I wanted to add something.

I was born in India, however I don't believe in any gods from that country. I do however believe in its philosophy which is vast and majestic. That said, Hinduism is the oldest documented religion on THIS planet. If you are going to focus on god and beliefs, start with them and then work your way up.

[tiburon]

I believe in the concept of "God" or just the supernatural in general. What I do not believe in is the literal meanings of the Bible.

1. Because it was written by people centuries ago with several versions of the same story and countless revisions that either conflict or entirely dismiss texts altogether.

Ex. A certain verse says that one can only consume certain animals because some are "impure". The consumption of which causes one to be "impure" and transmit that "impurity" through........touch. And doesn't just mean touching the animals...touching...the bowl from which it was eaten...so I guess that means breathing the same air, which the beast exhaled causes "impurity". Whoops, same chapter got texts on sacrifices that are rarely performed......

2. I have yet to encounter someone who can prove with certainty that he/she follows it in its entirety.

3. Because I said I can. (my favorite :D ) Some I'll take with a grain of salt, some I'll ignore entirely. I choose what I want to believe, because there's nothing that proves or disproves these actions....essentially I'm existentialist...

However, I still respect every aspect of someone's faith.

[tiburon]

Except that's not destruction. Atoms are still matter. You really DO fail chemistry forever.

Agreed, fission just splits the bonds in the nucleus, which just degrades the atom into another element due to losing some components but NOT destroying the components themselves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

[Manhunter098]

Except that's not destruction. Atoms are still matter. You really DO fail chemistry forever.

Now your really just nitpicking with word choices. Im not out to write a science paper here, Im not concerned with getting all of the terminology perfectly right.

[Timewave Zero]

Now your really just nitpicking with word choices. Im not out to write a science paper here, Im not concerned with getting all of the terminology perfectly right.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm just telling you that you fail chemistry forever. Because you don't understand the difference between a fission reaction and actual particle destruction.

[trigger happy]

Well here are my arguments being a straight up atheist.

What is god:

Many beleve god is an almighty being. This is because it is the only god that can even come close to being justified. In my opininon it makes most sense to assume god is female considering the fact the all life comes from females. As many may know when wars affected culteral society and men took controll of society god became male. However god is said to be omnipotent. If this true, god should be said to be sexless. Having said that in this essay I will refer to god as he, him etc. This is because most religens refer to god as a male (no offense girls).

Qualities a diety must posses to be omnipotent:

1. He must know everything, everything that exists, everything that has been or will be.

2. He must be worth our worship. If one decides that a being is not worth worship, the being cannot possibly be a god.

3. He must be able to do everything. If there is a single thing god cannot do he is definatly not omnipotent.

4. He must be above time, space, and all dimensions.

5. Any diety being said to be onmipotent cannot be good or evil.

Arguments suggesting that god does not have these qualities:

1. To know everything and everything that will be you must know every position and every momentum.

2. Almost nobody worships god. They may pray to him which is commonly confused with worship.

3. If there is a single thing god cannot do he is definatly not omnipotent.

4. If god is above space, time, and all dimensions, how was god created.

5. Most say god is all good, if that's true he is not omnipotent, some say you can be all good without doing any evil. Either way good or evil he cannot not be omnipotent.

Let's say for a moment our god is good or evil. What's to say saten isn't the soul creater of everthing that has been and will be. What's to say there is even a god what if theres only saten. (Not intended to justify satens existance.)

Things that are impossible:

Think logically for a moment, it is impossible to cover a 2 dimensional plain with mutiple 2 dimensional circles without overlapping even if you had trillions of circles. It is imposible to add 2 and 2 together and get 5. It is imposible to count all the numbers between 2 and 3. The amount of impossible things is amost infinate. Now if god were almighty and able to do anything, he would be able to achieve these listed imposibilities.

Why god is self cotradictory:

If you really think about it omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god create flame he cant extinguish, can god create a rock to heavey for him to carry, can god create a wall even he cannot tear down. Think about this if god knows everything he knows what will happen in the future he knows everything he wil do. Saying this would mean everything god will do is already predestined. If that's true, then god has no free will. Also if that's true who created the predestined events that god will do? Is there a higher being than god?

Conclusion:

God is said to be above everything, this means he is above time and space. So this means he lives outside time and space suggesting that nothing could've created him. Thus god is non-existant.

[Manhunter098]

I'm not nitpicking, I'm just telling you that you fail chemistry forever. Because you don't understand the difference between a fission reaction and actual particle destruction.

When you destroy a building do you destroy the matter it is made of? When you destroy an atom do you have to destroy the matter that is in it? I was using destroy in that sense of the word.

And I do understand the difference between the two, I think you came to the complete and utter misunderstanding that I did not.

[Detharos]

Personally, I believe in God and am a Christian... I however don't simply believe in God like some, as a means to justify a seemingly meaningless existence or anything like that, or to make convenient the thought that there is something after you die. I believe in God because there is scientific evidence of God's existence. Furthermore, there is more evidence of a god existing than not existing. This is the funny thing, people often pit things out to be a simple issue of Religion vs. Science, but the truth is, the two go hand in hand, and the truth is found somewhere inbetween. In actuality, it takes far more "blind faith" to believe in spontaneous generation and random sequences of events than it does to believe in a God. Pretty much any real scientist will know, that true random doesn't exist.

At the same time, why I believe the idea of one, single supreme god rather than there being many gods is also that there is much scientific evidence pointing to the fact. If you try to trace matters of creation back as far as possible, generally speaking, you'll get to a single smallest point that is the cause of everything after it. That single point is God, the one God, that created everything.

I highly recommend to anyone who is having trouble comprehending the possibility of a God existing to check out the book One Heartbeat Away: Your Journey Into Eternity by Mark Cahill. Its a work on the topic that I think is worth a read, even if your dead set against belief in a god. It'll give you a fair amount to ponder.

[nope]

Personally, I believe in God and am a Christian... I however don't simply believe in God like some, as a means to justify a seemingly meaningless existence or anything like that, or to make convenient the thought that there is something after you die. I believe in God because there is scientific evidence of God's existence. Furthermore, there is more evidence of a god existing than not existing. This is the funny thing, people often pit things out to be a simple issue of Religion vs. Science, but the truth is, the two go hand in hand, and the truth is found somewhere inbetween. In actuality, it takes far more "blind faith" to believe in spontaneous generation and random sequences of events than it does to believe in a God. Pretty much any real scientist will know, that true random doesn't exist.

At the same time, why I believe the idea of one, single supreme god rather than there being many gods is also that there is much scientific evidence pointing to the fact. If you try to trace matters of creation back as far as possible, generally speaking, you'll get to a single smallest point that is the cause of everything after it. That single point is God, the one God, that created everything.

I highly recommend to anyone who is having trouble comprehending the possibility of a God existing to check out the book One Heartbeat Away: Your Journey Into Eternity by Mark Cahill. Its a work on the topic that I think is worth a read, even if your dead set against belief in a god. It'll give you a fair amount to ponder.

Could you list a bit of the scientific evidence that you have for god? No offense, but what you are using probably isn't scientific evidence.

[Detharos]

Ok to put it into some simple terms, when you look around do you see anything random? Do you see anything that exists for absolutely no reason, something that just spontaneously came to be, just because?

Well at any rate, let me start with universal origin. The common belief now is that the origins of things is with what's known as the "big bang".

Now to borrow a quote from Mark Cahill's book that I mentioned:

"The problem with this theory is that it provides far more questions than it does answers. There had to be something to go "bang". Where did the matter come from? What energy source caused the bang? What catalyst set the matter into motion to form the universe?"

Its believed that matter cannot be created; implying that it has simply always existed.

Now, another quote:

"Think about that. If you believed matter existed for all eternity, had the ability to spontaneously start up the universe, and it was powerful and intelligent enough to put together the universe with order, precision and beauty, that's in essence defining God. Not understanding god is no cause for doubting god's existence."

Continuing on on with more Mark Cahill quotes:

"There is something in science called the law of Cause and Effect. Its an indisputable, universal law that states that for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence. Your parents created you, your parents were created by your grandparents, etc. But continuing to go further and further back there will not be an infinite regression. You eventually will reach a first cause, or an uncaused cause, which created that first effect. Something doesn't just come out of nothing all by itself. In other words, there had to be some casual agent that began the process."

After some further reinforcement of quoting well known scientists, it is summarized:

"According to this law, it's irrefutable that everything has a beginning and a cause, including the universe. The universe [an effect] cannot simply bring itself into being. It requires a cause that is outside itself."

I think that causal agent is God.

Now, as per evidence of things being created/designed rather than just "random" distribution, consider this [More quotes out of this lovely book]:

"1. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun [too hot] or else too far [too cold] to sustain life.

2. Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. Ie. if the earth were to rotate at 1/10 its current rate all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.

3. Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.

4. The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240, 000 miles, causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5 of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!

5.The thickness of the earth's crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life could not exist.

6. The earth's axis is tilted 23 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth's revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.

7. The earth's atmosphere [especially the Ozone layer] serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.

8. The earth's atmosphere also serves to protect the earth by burning up approximately twenty million meteors each day that enter it at speeds of about 30 miles per second. Without this crucial protection, the danger to life would be immense.

9. The two primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are nitrogen [78%] and oxygen [20%]. This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.

10. The earth's magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation."

Now seriously, all of this happening by chance? Our logic indicates to us that when we look at a building or a home, it has a creator/designer. When we look in the same light to our own circumstances of existence, the same holds true. Just looking at such precision and trying to picture it as spontaneously generated, or caused by something of that nature, seems to require massive blind faith.

Even the well-known astrophysicist Stephen Hawking concluded:

"The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop and so on."

In summary, it isn't really all that unscientific to believe in the existence of a god.

Edit: Also, to put this out there, a lot of the quotes Mark Cahill stated is material that I was in contact with before reading his book. I actually believed in God prior to reading his book, for many of the logical reasons he happened to state, so I'm not really just basing my opinion of what another person has stated either. I just happen to find that particular book a very convenient organized source/reference of facts.

[Detharos]

Also to throw this out there, even assuming one didn't believe in God and had sufficient evidence not to, why is it so hard to try to make an honest effort to avoid committing sin, or put in more human terms, straying from our moral framework. What's so painful about it?

Even if you don't believe there's a possible punishment after death, why attempt to falsely justify things such as praising murderers, giving in to greed and sloth/laziness, misinterpreting love as simply sex, turning women into sex idols, pretending murder is justified in any form, and the whole shabang? Even assuming God didn't exist and there was nothing after death, trying to be a better person doesn't exactly hurt someone in that case or detract from their would-be fate. However should it turn out something like God does really exist, then to be caught unrepentant with nothing but a dirty sheet of sins you've committed would really suck. Is it really worth the risk of thinking, imagining and falling into delusions that you can be immoral yet have no form of punishment for it?

Remembering a quote, I believe from one C.S. Lewis which I think is appropriate here:

"Christianity, if false is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

Also, to my knowledge morals have yet to be explained scientifically. As far as I know, we're the only creature that has them. Where does one suppose they came from?

Edit: Frankly, I've heard many self proclaimed atheists claim that in a lifestyle of trying to avoid sin [also putting this out there, there is no such thing as being sinless; its not like one's expected in a faith to never sin at all, one is simply required to have a repentant heart] and be moral, and going to church and the whole mess that they pulled out, someone like myself isn't free. However that's incorrect, such a lifestyle provides a greater freedom than exists in one without. Freedom from being tied down to sin and immorality. Someone who is still stuck in such a world is, while they may not accept it themselves, anything but free. They are a slave to their own sin, and as a result often unable to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie.

Second Edit: Also don't misunderstand, I myself am far from being anywhere near "a perfect Christian" or "a perfect follower of God". If I was, I highly doubt I'd be on such a forum. Someone like myself is simply grateful that even a wretch like myself can be saved.

[nope]

Ok to put it into some simple terms, when you look around do you see anything random? Do you see anything that exists for absolutely no reason, something that just spontaneously came to be, just because?
Random does not describe it well but spontaneous does a pretty good job. Yes, I see things around me that are spontaneous.


Well at any rate, let me start with universal origin. The common belief now is that the origins of things is with what's known as the "big bang".

Now to borrow a quote from Mark Cahill's book that I mentioned:

"The problem with this theory is that it provides far more questions than it does answers. There had to be something to go "bang". Where did the matter come from? What energy source caused the bang? What catalyst set the matter into motion to form the universe?"

Its believed that matter cannot be created; implying that it has simply always existed.

We don't know what caused the big bang, nor do we know what came before it. You are correct in that what we do know suggests that matter has always existed and that it has not and in fact can not be created.


Now, another quote:

"Think about that. If you believed matter existed for all eternity, had the ability to spontaneously start up the universe, and it was powerful and intelligent enough to put together the universe with order, precision and beauty, that's in essence defining God. Not understanding god is no cause for doubting god's existence."

Continuing on on with more Mark Cahill quotes:

He assumes that intelligence is required to have an ordered universe, as if the laws surrounding the universe have no part in the matter. He even calls the universe spontaneous which goes against his assumption. He also acknowledges here that matter has always existed so logically the laws would have always existed as well. Spontaneous universe ladies and gentlemen. He also uses words like beautiful which are subjective.


"There is something in science called the law of Cause and Effect. Its an indisputable, universal law that says that for every material effect, there had to be a cause. There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a cause behind its existence.

However we don't know what instigated the big bang so any cause beyond that is speculation.


Your parents created you, your parents were created by your grandparents, etc. But continuing to go further and further back there will not be an infinite regression.
Why can there not be infinite regress?


You eventually will reach a first cause, or an uncaused cause, which created that first effect. Something doesn't just come out of nothing all by itself. In other words, there had to be some casual agent that began the process."

Something can not come from nothing. Therefore something must come from nothing to create everything? God is the "first cause", however, everything needs a cause. If everything really does need a cause then god needs a cause. If god does not need a cause then nothing does. Your conclusion is full of contradictions where the conclusion of infinite regress is logically sound based off of what we already understand and have established in the argument.


After some further reinforcement of quoting well known scientists, it is summarized:

"According to this law, it's irrefutable that everything has a beginning and a cause, including the universe. The universe [an effect] cannot simply bring itself into being. It requires a cause that is outside itself."

I think that causal agent is God.
Again your premise contradicts your conclusion. "Everything must have a cause" is not followed logically by "there must then be a first cause".


Now, as per evidence of things being created/designed rather than just "random" distribution, consider this [More quotes out of this lovely book]:

"1. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the sun so that we receive exactly the proper amount of heat to support life. The other planets of our solar system are either too close to the sun [too hot] or else too far [to cold] to sustain life.

That is not evidence for creation. There are many planets that are suspected to be able to support life. This isn't compelling evidence for any creation, only evidence that we are lucky.


2. Any appreciable change in the rate of rotation of the earth would make life impossible. Ie. if the earth were to rotate at 1/10 its current rate all plant life would either be burned to a crisp during the day or frozen at night.
We exist because of this phenomena, this phenomena does not exist because of us. Chancey events or phenomena do not constitute evidence of any kind.


3. Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of the earth around the sun.

Again, we wouldn't exist if this wasn't so. Why are you surprised that you are here making this argument if we did not rotate in orbit around the sun.


4. The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240, 000 miles, causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5 of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!

5.The thickness of the earth's crust and the depth of the oceans appear to be carefully designed. Increases in thickness or depth of only a few feet would so drastically alter the absorption of free oxygen and carbon dioxide that plant and animal life could not exist.

6. The earth's axis is tilted 23 degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. This tilting, combined with the earth's revolution around the sun, causes our seasons, which are absolutely essential for the raising of food supplies.

7. The earth's atmosphere [especially the Ozone layer] serves as a protective shield from lethal solar ultraviolet radiation, which would otherwise destroy all life.

8. The earth's atmosphere also serves to protect the earth by burning up approximately twenty million meteors each day that enter it at speeds of about 30 miles per second. Without this crucial protection, the danger to life would be immense.

9. The two primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are nitrogen [78%] and oxygen [20%]. This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.

10. The earth's magnetic field provides important protection from harmful cosmic radiation."

All of these, you are simply listing things and suggesting a higher power behind it when there is no reason for that to be so. Why is any of this, no matter how unlikely, evidence for god. Your conclusion makes no sense. If we look at any common occurrence the chance of that occurrence, occurring are astronomically high. However in the universe, which is 14 billion years old give or take, there is time and a half to roll those dice. In the time that the universe has existed there is little chance that there wouldn't ever be a planet or planets sustaining life very well like ours does.


Now seriously, all of this happening by chance? Our logic indicates to us that when we look at a building or a home, it has a creator/designer. When we look in the same light to our own circumstances of existence, the same holds true.
No the same does not hold true. You can logically assume a building or a watch has a designer. When you see a building or a watch then you know that a building is manufactured or that a watch is manufactured. A watch would not have formed naturally under any circumstance. When you are walking along a nature path and you see a watch lying on the dirt, you pick it up and think "wow, this must have had a creator." you are correct. When you look at everything else and think the same thing you are coming to an incorrect conclusion. Everything that is natural has a way in which it grows naturally. Nothing is created from nothing.


Just looking at such precision and trying to picture it as spontaneously generated, or caused by something of that nature, seems to require massive blind faith.
Is it blind faith when you know and can trace back how something can come about naturally? No, it is not.


Even the well-known astrophysicist Stephen Hawking concluded:

"The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop and so on."
Again, using this premise to conclude that god exists is not logical in any way shape or form. Oh also, where was he quoted in saying this? The third hit on google for this quote leads directly back to this post and the rest are just people quoting this quote.

[Detharos]

Just as concluding that god doesn't exist doesn't have much backing either. Someone stated earlier in the thread that God has been scientifically disproven, however God has most certainly not been scientifically disproven. Had God been disproven this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. Just as many things backing the existence of a God is taken as circumstantial evidence, while nothing concrete is provided besides theory, atheism itself and the belief that God doesn't exist has the exact same flaws or worth attributed to them. You can harp about it, but God cannot be anymore disproven than he can be proven to exist. If you feel otherwise, then please do present evidence as such.

Also, I've interpreted as God terming to the creator of our universe, and generally use "everything" as everything within the limit of that universe. Anything beyond is pretty much unknown. I've never to my knowledge stated that the first cause for our universe, if you take that to be god, doesn't have causes for its existence either. But I guess that if I go into that, the issue of "infinite regression" is simply gonna be raised, and the things will get even more confusing, so I'll avoid that for the time being.

I'm sorry, however "everything has simply always existed and the universe is all that exists" , the infinite possibility/ repetition of universe theories or whatever you call them of still fail miserably to provide any backing for there not being a God.

[Detharos]

Edit: Also scratch that, more searching is required as to the nature of the Stephen Hawkings quote. I'll look more tomorrow, but if I don't find any reference to it in any form, I'll simply remove it. However that quote is also mentioned in One Heartbeat Away: Your Journey Into Eternity.

To be fair, even if God's existence was proven or God literally came right smack up to our faces to prove it, there'd be still some who wouldn't accept it. At the same time, if God were completely disproven, there'd still be some people who disagree and continue to believe in a God while all evidence and all of science would point otherwise.

Also, if its possible, Sir Nope, could you reply to the post I have that immediately follows the one you replied to, and also maybe provide your complete opinion with all scientific backings on why you feel God doesn't exist unless you have done so previously in the thread, if so a link directly to it would be nice, since I highly doubt the small bits of information and theory you've presented to counter my belief that god has a scientific backing is everything you have in mind on the topic. At any rate, its been an interesting discussing/disagreeing/debating with you, I'll have to check up on this later since I'm really quite sleepy now.

[Phaxi]

Just as concluding that god doesn't exist doesn't have much backing either.

You were quick to surrender :rolleyes:. Anyways, why do you believe in God then? More specifically a Christian God.

You can harp about it, but God cannot be anymore disproven than he can be proven to exist. If you feel otherwise, then please do present evidence as such.


Love how you say this after all your "proof" gets thrown out the window. *Points to next post*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_ignorantiam -> You might be interested in this, seeing as how you jumped right to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist -> Me, if only because science tires my brain.

[Ozaffer]

@Detharos
God has not and can not be proven false but all current organized religions have been (hold Buddhism or others I am not aware of), unless you change their "meaning" or "interpretation" (bending the infallible) then all current religions are not only disprove by science but our new morals that have evolved over the last few generations with the "enlightenment" and "social rights movements".

You also ask "why is it so hard to morally follow Christianity", you go further into a threat of hell if you don't which I find despicable.. but anyway why is it so hard to follow your own moral code of what you know to be right and wrong? What will help society, my brother, my children, myself, my world (well thats what you should do), what will cause pain or struggle for any of these (thats what you shouldn't do)?

I see it as two different mind sets there's the social behavior mind set that works towards the goal of helping the human race, then theres the instinct which followed to a T would make you something of a lone wolf only doing whats necessary to survive. Neither is really "bad" accept in the eyes of social thinkers lone wolves are a threat to their way of life which as expected has grown to be the stronger life style. You say morals don't exist outside of humans, study some other social behaving animals, and I think you will be surprised with your results because while their intelligence doesn't take morality to the point we are at today morals certainly exist in animals.

[BFDD]

Religious buddhism is just as bad as the rest with magic and gods. However, philosophical buddhism has some good advice: Moderation, being nice to people and you shouldn't kill people. A lot of the same things that Plato and Jesus said. Buddha was also really insistent that you think for yourself and don't just accept everything he suggested.

[sasori of the red sands]

Religious buddhism is just as bad as the rest with magic and gods. However, philosophical buddhism has some good advice: Moderation, being nice to people and you shouldn't kill people. A lot of the same things that Plato and Jesus said. Buddha was also really insistent that you think for yourself and don't just accept everything he suggested.
buddism is gives the worst advice
no self achievement and not allowed to want something
in my opinion not very good advice

[wreiad]

I personally believe in higher intelligence in the sense that there are forms of life that we can't yet fully comprehend (Spirits). I don't believe in "God" in the religious (Mostly christian) sense. Humans can say with some validity that there's a hell, as demons (Or pissed off ghosts) enter our world through "hotspots". There is also some truth to angels since the pissed off ghosts are wrestled off by something afterall. My dad theorized that angels and demons are actually the same. Angels are just stronger demons. We won't know for sure until we.. Know for sure what happens after death. Is it like turning off a computer or do you retain memories and such? No idea.

[Timewave Zero]

Just thought I'd add my two cents;

9. The two primary constituents of the earth's atmosphere are nitrogen [78%] and oxygen [20%]. This delicate and critical ratio is essential to all life forms.

This logic is flawed. Yes that its essential to life on this planet, but if you pay a shred of attention to science-fiction. (Note, this is fiction based on science. Not the other way around.) Then you should at the least be able to accept that other life on other worlds in this VAST universe would be able to evolve under different gas combination and concentrations at different parts per mol and pressures.

78% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen (even though its not those exact numbers, for the sake of simplicity-we shall accept them) are defined to this planet. They do not define the rest of the Orion arm of the Milky-Way Galaxy nor do they define the Milky-way entirely nor the Andromeda Galaxy. Nor the local group, then the group cluster, then the Magellan clouds. Followed by the local super clusters, followed by the hyper-clusters and so forth.

We are but one planet amongst anywhere from 1.00 x 10^infinite possible combinations for live to have evolved upon from.

Stating Earth's combination as universal makes everything else you've said uptil bullsh*t.

[nope]

Also to throw this out there, even assuming one didn't believe in God and had sufficient evidence not to, why is it so hard to try to make an honest effort to avoid committing sin, or put in more human terms, straying from our moral framework. What's so painful about it?
I don't adhere to your morals I adhere to my own.

I'm going to break down this paragraph into little pieces because there is a lot to address in such a little space.

Even if you don't believe there's a possible punishment after death, why attempt to falsely justify things such as praising murderers,

Who does this?

giving in to greed and sloth/laziness, misinterpreting love as simply sex, turning women into sex idols, pretending murder is justified in any form, and the whole shabang?

Being christian does not stop you from giving into greed, sexual "lust", and whatever the whole shebang is, and again, who does this.

Even assuming God didn't exist and there was nothing after death, trying to be a better person doesn't exactly hurt someone in that case or detract from their would-be fate.

I agree, but I knew this before. You don't need to assume god exists to be a good person.


However should it turn out something like God does really exist, then to be caught unrepentant with nothing but a dirty sheet of sins you've committed would really suck. Is it really worth the risk of thinking, imagining and falling into delusions that you can be immoral yet have no form of punishment for it?

Oh I got the punchline. "Your just an atheist because you want to sin." no, that is incorrect, and pascals wager is not a compelling argument.


Remembering a quote, I believe from one C.S. Lewis which I think is appropriate here:

"Christianity, if false is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

Also, to my knowledge morals have yet to be explained scientifically. As far as I know, we're the only creature that has them. Where does one suppose they came from?

The morals we have are a product of many things which can be split up into two large main factors. The internal and the external. External factors would be things such as your environment, what are the conditions you live in, the people teaching you, the people you are surrounded with all your life. The internal deals with your biological imperative. However it is hard to tell were one ends and the other begins. Even if we did not know where morals came from, the conclusion we could draw from that is nothing, not that X gave us morals and not anything.


Edit: Frankly, I've heard many self proclaimed atheists claim that in a lifestyle of trying to avoid sin [also putting this out there, there is no such thing as being sinless; its not like one's expected in a faith to never sin at all, one is simply required to have a repentant heart] and be moral, and going to church and the whole mess that they pulled out, someone like myself isn't free. However that's incorrect, such a lifestyle provides a greater freedom than exists in one without. Freedom from being tied down to sin and immorality.

A lifestyle you have may not be the lifestyle that others would enjoy. Even if you get a sense of freedom from doing whatever it is you do that does not mean that freedom is associated with what you do. It simply means that you associate what you do with freedom. As I said earlier, I follow my own moral compass, so I am perfectly "free" as it is.


Someone who is still stuck in such a world is, while they may not accept it themselves, anything but free. They are a slave to their own sin, and as a result often unable to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie.
I can distinguish what I think to be right from what I think to be wrong and I try to avoid contradictions. You are getting pretty preachy here. Just because some one does not adhere to your own moral values doe not make them immoral. It may make them immoral in your eyes but what does that mean, if anything.


Second Edit: Also don't misunderstand, I myself am far from being anywhere near "a perfect Christian" or "a perfect follower of God". If I was, I highly doubt I'd be on such a forum. Someone like myself is simply grateful that even a wretch like myself can be saved.
you shouldn't think of yourself as a wretch. You don't need to be saved.


Just as concluding that god doesn't exist doesn't have much backing either. Someone stated earlier in the thread that God has been scientifically disproven, however God has most certainly not been scientifically disproven.

Your right. In fact, it is universally impossible to prove a negative.


Had God been disproven this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. Just as many things backing the existence of a God is taken as circumstantial evidence, while nothing concrete is provided besides theory, atheism itself and the belief that God doesn't exist has the exact same flaws or worth attributed to them. You can harp about it, but God cannot be anymore disproven than he can be proven to exist. If you feel otherwise, then please do present evidence as such.

Well, I never tried to disprove god. I'm simply criticizing your proof. Also, the burden of proof is on you, the believer, to provide evidence for your claim. This is especially so when you suggest that you have actual scientific evidence.



I'm sorry, however "everything has simply always existed and the universe is all that exists" , the infinite possibility/ repetition of universe theories or whatever you call them of still fail miserably to provide any backing for there not being a God.

They don't attempt to and they certainly can not come close to backing atheism. But then, I never said they did. I am asking why there can not be infinite regress? The paragraph in that book you presented a law that relied on the idea that infinite regress is not plausible so I am asking why is that so?



To be fair, even if God's existence was proven or God literally came right smack up to our faces to prove it, there'd be still some who wouldn't accept it. At the same time, if God were completely disproven, there'd still be some people who disagree and continue to believe in a God while all evidence and all of science would point otherwise.
That is true.


Also, if its possible, Sir Nope, could you reply to the post I have that immediately follows the one you replied to, and also maybe provide your complete opinion with all scientific backings on why you feel God doesn't exist unless you have done so previously in the thread, if so a link directly to it would be nice, since I highly doubt the small bits of information and theory you've presented to counter my belief that god has a scientific backing is everything you have in mind on the topic. At any rate, its been an interesting discussing/disagreeing/debating with you, I'll have to check up on this later since I'm really quite sleepy now.

It's only my belief that god does not exist, in that way I'm an atheist. But I do not need to justify my disbelief because there is not enough compelling evidence to suggest a god exists. You stated before that god can not be proven or disproven, there are many other things that can be neither proven or disproven. If I should acknowledge god then why should I not acknowledge fairies, leprechauns, hobbits? If I should recognize a specific god then why shouldn't I recognize all gods?

[Megabuster]

pascals wager is not a compelling argument.


Thank you...It's such a stupid argument. You can supplement anything in place of God for that argument. The only time the wager has any value is if, somehow, you're 50/50 on the issue.

[BFDD]

buddism is gives the worst advice
no self achievement and not allowed to want something
in my opinion not very good advice

Why isn't there self achievement?

You are allowed want, buddha does not dictate what you are or are not allowed to do. If you don't think he is correct then don't follow his advice. However, he does believe that wanting is bad. Wanting leads to suffering when you want what you can't have. If you want you will never feel fulfilled because there is always more to want. Wanting is like trying to fill a leaky bucket. You will be constantly trying to fulfill your desires but you will never be able to do it. Its better to be happy with what you have than to be constantly looking for happiness else where.

This is not to say you should never go out and buy things or do something fun. But you should act in moderation. If you can't afford that new video game don't worry about it and just find something else to do, if you can afford it then go out and get it. Just be careful not to attach happiness to material things or desires.

[Timewave Zero]

For what its worth; carnal lust is much more enjoyable than being under a god that demands that I refrain myself from sin.

**** that. That means no experience of puberty, no experience of sexual attraction. No porn, no masturbation and then no sex.

Hahano. I think I will enjoy reveling in sin while you falter indefinitely under a false pretense.

[sasori of the red sands]

Why isn't there self achievement?

You are allowed want, buddha does not dictate what you are or are not allowed to do. If you don't think he is correct then don't follow his advice. However, he does believe that wanting is bad. Wanting leads to suffering when you want what you can't have. If you want you will never feel fulfilled because there is always more to want. Wanting is like trying to fill a leaky bucket. You will be constantly trying to fulfill your desires but you will never be able to do it. Its better to be happy with what you have than to be constantly looking for happiness else where.

This is not to say you should never go out and buy things or do something fun. But you should act in moderation. If you can't afford that new video game don't worry about it and just find something else to do, if you can afford it then go out and get it. Just be careful not to attach happiness to material things or desires.
well if you dont want anything u cant really achieve anything cause if you want for example a new car but you couldnt afford it, you would generally earn money to pay for it and thus achieving something

and btw buddism teaching state that desiring anything pleasurable is wrong so no fun just a boring life of meditation

[Ozaffer]

well if you dont want anything u cant really achieve anything cause if you want for example a new car but you couldnt afford it, you would generally earn money to pay for it and thus achieving something

and btw buddism teaching state that desiring anything pleasurable is wrong so no fun just a boring life of meditation

boring life of meditation that's finding true bliss ^^, I think that life style could be nice if your in a good environment where you can manage to get food. Try living that life in Alaska XD. Really I think Buddha meant it in a nonliterary sense like someone stated before.

[e7rules]

For what its worth; carnal lust is much more enjoyable than being under a god that demands that I refrain myself from sin.

**** that. That means no experience of puberty, no experience of sexual attraction. No porn, no masturbation and then no sex.

Hahano. I think I will enjoy reveling in sin while you falter indefinitely under a false pretense.

this is not true. god wants no sex outside of marriage. not no sex at all. if you REALLY want sex, then you should have it wiht someone you truely love. not just some girl you managed to charm in a bar. 9also, this reduces the risk of unwanted children, and abortions)

[nope]

this is not true. god wants no sex outside of marriage. not no sex at all. if you REALLY want sex, then you should have it wiht someone you truely love. not just some girl you managed to charm in a bar. 9also, this reduces the risk of unwanted children, and abortions)

Protection works, too. Telling people to stay abstinent until they are married is pretty unrealistic advice and can really backfire in unexpected ways. Have sex whenever you can folks, not as if I need to tell anyone here.

[Siren-Hill]

Protection works, too. Telling people to stay abstinent until they are married is pretty unrealistic advice and can really backfire in unexpected ways. Have sex whenever you can folks, not as if I need to tell anyone here.I agree. Sometimes you have to test the good first. Nowadays, there is free trial for everything. Sex is an important part of marriage. If the two of you are not comparable in that department, it may lead to different problems.

[MoonSideMKDS]

I think anyone that has thought about such a pointless topic enough to post more than 4 times in this thread needs to rethink their life, and develop more healthy thought cycles.

I'm a firm believer that Cosmic Duality is BS, so there goes my stance on this subject.

I believe that absolutely everything is Random and that the things we choose to define all fall and fail within the realm of idea/notion.

Nothing happens because it was meant to, this universe is random, it has no beginning, nor was it always here. We can't understand this because our minds are so fixated on binomials. *This or that are the only answers* BS.

I've actually devoted time and effort into thinking about this, it's clear that there is no answer because the question itself is just a huge misunderstanding to begin with.


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

Here goes something I wrote shortly after watching the prestige for the first time, it really got me thinking about God, I believe this to some extent but I think you should all give it a read.

Colors in red are me explaining exactly where I'm getting at.

The Act of GOD

God isn’t a magician, he is a Wizard, he does what magicians pretend to do. HERE IS HIS GREATEST ACT. <This means nothing, ignore it.>

Part 1: The presentation.

God presents nothing, the ordinary. <I mean nothing in the very literal sense of the word. Absolute nothingness, this relies on the idea that the universe and existence are seperate things from "nothingness" and nothingness donates a period prior to "somethingness" if you catch my drift.>

Part 2: The Pledge

God takes the ordinary, (Nothing), and turns it into the extraordinary. (The absence of nothing) <The idea behind this relies on Cosmic Duality. There can't be nothing without something. So by default, nothing immediantly becomes absent. In this sense I define absence as a completely seperate thing from both something and nothing.>

….but the audience wouldn’t clap yet…

Part 3: because you have to break something back.<This part is simple. Absence requires the function of nothing and since nothing can't really be there in the first place something takes it's place, and there we have the birth of the universe.>

I hope you enjoyed the little read. I really would like input from senior debaters. No, I'm not trying to be a smartass and troll or whatever. I took this very serious when I first wrote it so try not to make a mockery of me.

2-3 months after this I wrote "Absence as a form of movement".

[nope]

I think anyone that has thought about such a pointless topic enough to post more than 4 times in this thread needs to rethink their life, and develop more healthy thought cycles.

I'm a firm believer that Cosmic Duality is BS, so there goes my stance on this subject.

I believe that absolutely everything is Random and that the things we choose to define all fall and fail within the realm of idea/notion.

Nothing happens because it was meant to, this universe is random, it has no beginning, nor was it always here. We can't understand this because our minds are so fixated on binomials. *This or that are the only answers* BS.

I've actually devoted time and effort into thinking about this, it's clear that there is no answer because the question itself is just a huge misunderstanding to begin with.


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

Here goes something I wrote shortly after watching the prestige for the first time, it really got me thinking about God, I believe this to some extent but I think you should all give it a read.

Colors in red are me explaining exactly where I'm getting at.

The Act of GOD

God isn’t a magician, he is a Wizard, he does what magicians pretend to do. HERE IS HIS GREATEST ACT. <This means nothing, ignore it.>

Part 1: The presentation.

God presents nothing, the ordinary. <I mean nothing in the very literal sense of the word. Absolute nothingness, this relies on the idea that the universe and existence are seperate things from "nothingness" and nothingness donates a period prior to "somethingness" if you catch my drift.>

Part 2: The Pledge

God takes the ordinary, (Nothing), and turns it into the extraordinary. (The absence of nothing) <The idea behind this relies on Cosmic Duality. There can't be nothing without something. So by default, nothing immediantly becomes absent. In this sense I define absence as a completely seperate thing from both something and nothing.>

….but the audience wouldn’t clap yet…

Part 3: because you have to break something back.<This part is simple. Absence requires the function of nothing and since nothing can't really be there in the first place something takes it's place, and there we have the birth of the universe.>

I hope you enjoyed the little read. I really would like input from senior debaters. No, I'm not trying to be a smartass and troll or whatever. I took this very serious when I first wrote it so try not to make a mockery of me.

2-3 months after this I wrote "Absence as a form of movement".

If there is a god then there can't really be nothing. Since a god is something there would never be nothing. Something can not come from nothing because if there is nothing, then there is just nothing. Therefore god must have been something and there could have never been nothing. Logically, god or not, there could never be a point where there is only nothing.

[MoonSideMKDS]

If there is a god then there can't really be nothing. Since a god is something there would never be nothing. Something can not come from nothing because if there is nothing, then there is just nothing. Therefore god must have been something and there could have never been nothing. Logically, god or not, there could never be a point where there is only nothing.The point is, something can't come from nothing, but it can come from what I called "absence".

[nope]

The point is, something can't come from nothing, but it can come from what I called "absence".

What do you define absence as, specifically? Because the absence of nothing is something and the absence of nothing is something. There is no middle ground.

[MoonSideMKDS]

Say you believe the universe DID have a start,

we can trace this beginning back if we define time in units, for the sake of argument let me use the Planck unit.

at the very first Planck unit it is impossible to know whether or not "Becoming" is in the direction of nothing or something, because that would require a second unit to pass, and passing itself requires at the very least, 2 units. So you cannot define pass on the very first unit.

thus absence, yes. It is the "middle ground".

I'm very tired I'll re-write this post tomorrow because it's not very clear.

Edit - I do not use the word absence normally, in this context I refer to the word absence as used in my 12-page essay "Existence is always starting"

Edit - Fixed an error. my brain is way off. -_-

[nope]

Say you believe the universe DID have a start,

we can trace this beginning back if we define time in units, for the sake of argument let me use the Planck unit.

at the very first Planck unit it is impossible to know whether or not "Becoming" is in the direction of nothing or something, because that would require a second unit to pass, and passing itself requires at the very least, 2 units. So you cannot define pass on the very first unit.

thus absence, yes. It is the "middle ground".

I'm very tired I'll re-write this post tomorrow because it's not very clear.

Edit - I do not use the word absence normally, in this context I refer to the word absence as used in my 12-page essay "Existence is always starting"

Edit - Fixed an error. my brain is way off. -_-

If I believe the universe had a start then I should be inclined to believe there was something instigating the beginning. There would be something and not nothing. Something can not begin from nothing. When you come back please explain how middle ground can exist between a true dichotomy of "something/nothing".

[CasaHouse]

If I believe the universe had a start then I should be inclined to believe there was something instigating the beginning. There would be something and not nothing. Something can not begin from nothing. When you come back please explain how middle ground can exist between a true dichotomy of "something/nothing".

But by this logic, something would have to have instigated whatever force started the universe, and something would have to have instigated that as well... and so on... and so on... It becomes an infinite chain of instigating forces. If you believe that all things have a creator, then something must have created each creator too.

I think the Universe is eternal. It has always existed, and will always exist. To say that it hasn't would be to say that at some point all of physical existence didn't physically exist, which is a contradiction.

[MoonSideMKDS]

But by this logic, something would have to have instigated whatever force started the universe, and something would have to have instigated that as well... and so on... and so on... It becomes an infinite chain of instigating forces. If you believe that all things have a creator, then something must have created each creator too.

I think the Universe is eternal. It has always existed, and will always exist. To say that it hasn't would be to say that at some point all of physical existence didn't physically exist, which is a contradiction.I'm having a bout of insomnia, i'm going to red text this tommrow but if you are awake give a go at it, Though I warn you, this is written in a way that makes it much easier for me to read, I disregard alot of things, so don't take anything to literally, just try to understand the little things.

The present is the result of relativity,

Time does not become what it is untill something that isn't time has passed. Time is motion, In

this I attempt to break the "Infinite Creator that created that created etc."

I believe there was something I have come to call "the god clock", which can be defined as "the

absence of absence" no it has nothing to do with religious gods, but I believe it resulted in our

universe. It also has to do with the 3 times, past future and present, and how with the god clock,

create two circular motions which are both infinite. No, Past, present and future time do not refer

to what is commonly known as the "flip book motion of time" but rather the intricate relationship

between 3 entities, and how they work together to do something very important.
Time is not a single thing. It is composed of 3 self-reliant entities. These are past-time, present-

time,future-time.
The horozontal position of past and future time in relation to one another results in present-time;

past-time and present-time are not "before" or "after" time, that is a misconception, they are

instantainous, it is present-time that is special. Here is an example to demonstrait this speculation,

it attempts to explain the origin of time in the scenarios of "infinite universe" and "big bang".

Where A is the past instance, and B future is the present instance, Z is the present instance, and I

is the "God Clock"

The conflict of 2 and 3.




"How did the Universe come to be?"

My speculation, I'll title it the creation of initial value, a speculation in the making.



-The Third first Conflict-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<rp

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Non-Existant]
I[Must exists if AZB do not exists.]

-The Default Instance, the first anamoly-

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Absent, because an instance occured, but the Lack of past/future made it impossible to

undergo an instance in which it would become, becoming absent by default]
B[Non-Existant]
I[Becoming Absent because existance is not possible without time. This results in teh first

anamoly. the result of the GC "becoming" has implied a prognostic character, which is

absolutely distinct, the present time being "absent" is requiring the past]

-The becoming of the God Clock-

A[Absent, stimulated by an improper refrence point]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Becoming as a result of the god clock being in a state that requires a future instance, becoming

implies a past refrence]
I[Absent because there is no future refrence, this absence implies it once was, which in turn

implies a past instance, also implying the existance of a stand-alone absence]

-The Absence Instance, the second anamoly-

A[Becoming as a result of the future time strongly implying a past instance]
Z[Becoming, as a result of The defualt instance and becoming of the future, creating a double

circular argument which in turn, created this empty instance]
B[Became absent as a result of the absence of it's first required instance, and the non-existance

of it's second required instance. Creating a double circular argument]
I[Has become the absence of absence]
? - Something is born as a result of the future times inablity to enter an instance of "becoming" as

a result of the instance "became" because it is the subject of "Becoming" thus created the second

anomoly by default. The god clocks current state, "the absence of absence" is absolutely distinct

from everything and nothing, it is the result of a "clash between numbers" as the essence of what

we call numbers is real because there have been "4 states" total." which requires the Grand

Empty State to Exists]
[The 3rd]

-The Miracle Instance-

A[Absent as a result of no future instance to refrence too]
Z[Became the present because the past could only become the present, because the future had to

be replaced by the god clock, replacement and placement are created as the result of the past

becoming and the future being replaced by the god clock]
B[Being replaced by God Clock]
I[In an unstable state]
[Grand Empty State]
[The 3rd]
I[In an unstable state]

-The "3rd" and the Double Circular Anamoly-

A[Has become Past Time, The miracle instance resulted in an instance whereas "Present Time"

"became", it had to fill in for an absent past.]
Z[Present-Time is causing]
B[Is the God Clock]
I[Empty Set]
<>[The Double Circular Anamoly, the function of it is simple, create a first instance of anything

because time now exists, and the god clock dosn't, resulted in the becoming of something paraell

to creation, which can only possibly hint what can only be described as an infinite opposite to

creation, and A realization of a true existance. the miracle instance resulted in the becoming of

existance, the awareness of the objective existance. All of this.

[Grand Empty State]

-The First Instance-

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Existant]
I[Non-Existant]
-The 3rd-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<Just a readers refrence point to help better understand the concept


-The conflict within the Double Circular Anamoly and the creation of the 2nd-

A[Fully functioning Past-Time]
Z[Is no more, but is as functional as the past in the first true instance]
B[empty set]
I - there is not even an empty set here
2nd - The first instance is the opposite of the 2nd, but it can't begin to become because the

double circular conflict is causing the objective meaning of words like "Begin" to actually begin.
The Conflict - The conflict is between the the need for a resolve, the problem that is causing the

conflict is a battle between nothings.

[Grand Empty State]

-The First instance cross-conflict-
X[Anything]
I[Non-Existant]

-The Second First Instance-
U A,Z,B[Have always existed]
-The 3rd-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<Just a readers refrence point to help better understand the concept

-The Resolve-

A[the past has underwent the effects of the first and 2nd and 3rd instances forming the apparatus

in which the big bang will happen, it remains because it simply was not challenged, it has become

transparent however.]
Z[Is unstable]
B[Is the past in the 1st true instance, and the future in the first true instance is the past, and vice

versa for the second]

-The Result, the initial value, and the Singularity-

1st - The first instance has been givin the initial value any probable ending in space expansion.
2nd - Has been given the initial value value of everything that occured before the big bang.
3rd - can't be put into words
A[Has become the future in the first instance]
Z[Has been intertwined with both the singularity and the 3rd and as a result, created the sparked

the big bang]
B[Has become the past in the first instance]
Singularity[Hot and dense state]

-The Spark-

What happend during "The Result" created the spark, the spark is both the possible universe and

the impossible origin were only relative, and they were relative to the presents function.

The spark itself was the unification of the finite and infinite universe, one has a time-line, and the

other dosn't, they support each-other in a way that stops them from becoming instable. the big

bang and theorized "big crunch" both happend during the instance of initial value, the motion of

time is created by present time adverse effect on these two universe, the singularity itself was a

premature in a grand way, and it was effected by things that don't pertain everything, nothing, and

vice versa, falling into the purviews of something truly different. The God Clock became an

empty set, and that empty set vanished, the purpose we can assign to the god clock now even

though it had none, is that it let the beggining of everything and nothing happen because it was

inherently the bridge to "the other side" aka "The 3rd"

-The Big Bang-

Self Explanitory.







True time has no "flip book" motion or container

And as I've previously stated, I've written about 40-50 of these little things and have come to the conclusion that the fallowing two statements are false.

1.) The universe has always existed
2.) The universe had a beginning.

But this is off subject, so I won't discuss this here.

[nope]

I'm having a bout of insomnia, i'm going to red text this tommrow but if you are awake give a go at it, Though I warn you, this is written in a way that makes it much easier for me to read, I disregard alot of things, so don't take anything to literally, just try to understand the little things.


The present is the result of relativity,

Time does not become what it is untill something that isn't time has passed. Time is motion, In

this I attempt to break the "Infinite Creator that created that created etc."

I believe there was something I have come to call "the god clock", which can be defined as "the

absence of absence" no it has nothing to do with religious gods, but I believe it resulted in our

universe. It also has to do with the 3 times, past future and present, and how with the god clock,

create two circular motions which are both infinite. No, Past, present and future time do not refer

to what is commonly known as the "flip book motion of time" but rather the intricate relationship

between 3 entities, and how they work together to do something very important.
Time is not a single thing. It is composed of 3 self-reliant entities. These are past-time, present-

time,future-time.
The horozontal position of past and future time in relation to one another results in present-time;

past-time and present-time are not "before" or "after" time, that is a misconception, they are

instantainous, it is present-time that is special. Here is an example to demonstrait this speculation,

it attempts to explain the origin of time in the scenarios of "infinite universe" and "big bang".

Where A is the past instance, and B future is the present instance, Z is the present instance, and I

is the "God Clock"

The conflict of 2 and 3.




"How did the Universe come to be?"

My speculation, I'll title it the creation of initial value, a speculation in the making.



-The Third first Conflict-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<rp

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Non-Existant]
I[Must exists if AZB do not exists.]

-The Default Instance, the first anamoly-

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Absent, because an instance occured, but the Lack of past/future made it impossible to

undergo an instance in which it would become, becoming absent by default]
B[Non-Existant]
I[Becoming Absent because existance is not possible without time. This results in teh first

anamoly. the result of the GC "becoming" has implied a prognostic character, which is

absolutely distinct, the present time being "absent" is requiring the past]

-The becoming of the God Clock-

A[Absent, stimulated by an improper refrence point]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Becoming as a result of the god clock being in a state that requires a future instance, becoming

implies a past refrence]
I[Absent because there is no future refrence, this absence implies it once was, which in turn

implies a past instance, also implying the existance of a stand-alone absence]

-The Absence Instance, the second anamoly-

A[Becoming as a result of the future time strongly implying a past instance]
Z[Becoming, as a result of The defualt instance and becoming of the future, creating a double

circular argument which in turn, created this empty instance]
B[Became absent as a result of the absence of it's first required instance, and the non-existance

of it's second required instance. Creating a double circular argument]
I[Has become the absence of absence]
? - Something is born as a result of the future times inablity to enter an instance of "becoming" as

a result of the instance "became" because it is the subject of "Becoming" thus created the second

anomoly by default. The god clocks current state, "the absence of absence" is absolutely distinct

from everything and nothing, it is the result of a "clash between numbers" as the essence of what

we call numbers is real because there have been "4 states" total." which requires the Grand

Empty State to Exists]
[The 3rd]

-The Miracle Instance-

A[Absent as a result of no future instance to refrence too]
Z[Became the present because the past could only become the present, because the future had to

be replaced by the god clock, replacement and placement are created as the result of the past

becoming and the future being replaced by the god clock]
B[Being replaced by God Clock]
I[In an unstable state]
[Grand Empty State]
[The 3rd]
I[In an unstable state]

-The "3rd" and the Double Circular Anamoly-

A[Has become Past Time, The miracle instance resulted in an instance whereas "Present Time"

"became", it had to fill in for an absent past.]
Z[Present-Time is causing]
B[Is the God Clock]
I[Empty Set]
<>[The Double Circular Anamoly, the function of it is simple, create a first instance of anything

because time now exists, and the god clock dosn't, resulted in the becoming of something paraell

to creation, which can only possibly hint what can only be described as an infinite opposite to

creation, and A realization of a true existance. the miracle instance resulted in the becoming of

existance, the awareness of the objective existance. All of this.

[Grand Empty State]

-The First Instance-

A[Non-Existant]
Z[Non-Existant]
B[Existant]
I[Non-Existant]
-The 3rd-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<Just a readers refrence point to help better understand the concept


-The conflict within the Double Circular Anamoly and the creation of the 2nd-

A[Fully functioning Past-Time]
Z[Is no more, but is as functional as the past in the first true instance]
B[empty set]
I - there is not even an empty set here
2nd - The first instance is the opposite of the 2nd, but it can't begin to become because the

double circular conflict is causing the objective meaning of words like "Begin" to actually begin.
The Conflict - The conflict is between the the need for a resolve, the problem that is causing the

conflict is a battle between nothings.

[Grand Empty State]

-The First instance cross-conflict-
X[Anything]
I[Non-Existant]

-The Second First Instance-
U A,Z,B[Have always existed]
-The 3rd-
-Pre Big Bang- <<<<Just a readers refrence point to help better understand the concept

-The Resolve-

A[the past has underwent the effects of the first and 2nd and 3rd instances forming the apparatus

in which the big bang will happen, it remains because it simply was not challenged, it has become

transparent however.]
Z[Is unstable]
B[Is the past in the 1st true instance, and the future in the first true instance is the past, and vice

versa for the second]

-The Result, the initial value, and the Singularity-

1st - The first instance has been givin the initial value any probable ending in space expansion.
2nd - Has been given the initial value value of everything that occured before the big bang.
3rd - can't be put into words
A[Has become the future in the first instance]
Z[Has been intertwined with both the singularity and the 3rd and as a result, created the sparked

the big bang]
B[Has become the past in the first instance]
Singularity[Hot and dense state]

-The Spark-

What happend during "The Result" created the spark, the spark is both the possible universe and

the impossible origin were only relative, and they were relative to the presents function.

The spark itself was the unification of the finite and infinite universe, one has a time-line, and the

other dosn't, they support each-other in a way that stops them from becoming instable. the big

bang and theorized "big crunch" both happend during the instance of initial value, the motion of

time is created by present time adverse effect on these two universe, the singularity itself was a

premature in a grand way, and it was effected by things that don't pertain everything, nothing, and

vice versa, falling into the purviews of something truly different. The God Clock became an

empty set, and that empty set vanished, the purpose we can assign to the god clock now even

though it had none, is that it let the beggining of everything and nothing happen because it was

inherently the bridge to "the other side" aka "The 3rd"

-The Big Bang-

Self Explanitory.







True time has no "flip book" motion or container

You should write things in a way that is easier for the opposite party to understand, you mention that this is written in a context that is only simple for you to get.


And as I've previously stated, I've written about 40-50 of these little things and have come to the conclusion that the fallowing two statements are false.

1.) The universe has always existed
2.) The universe had a beginning.

But this is off subject, so I won't discuss this here.

This is is a conclusion that directly contradicts itself. You can not conclude that the universe has both not begun and not always existed at the same time. If the universe has not always existed then it must have begun and if it has not begun the it must have always existed. Now, I assume you are referring to the universe as meaning all matter contained within? If you are referring to the universe as that which exists after the singularity then you are correct in you first conclusion however still immediately contradict yourself in your second conclusion when you state the universe had no beginning.

Explain yourself in a way that is comprehensible to people besides yourself. Perhaps there is a decent premise and we simply can not notice.

[CasaHouse]

And as I've previously stated, I've written about 40-50 of these little things and have come to the conclusion that the fallowing two statements are false.

1.) The universe has always existed
2.) The universe had a beginning.

But this is off subject, so I won't discuss this here.

I was seriously reading your post until this bit. They cannot both be false. It is literally impossible. Your first conclusion is false if and only if the second is true, and the second is false if and only if the first is true.

Do enlighten me as to how you can have a biconditional relationship whose truth values can somehow change between sentences without rendering the entire argument completely worthless?

As to the rest of your post, you assume that the past, present, and future are entities. They aren't. If they were, we could observe them without observing an event. If I had the right tools, I could literally see the present. Not an event occurring at the current time, but the present itself, independent of any kind of event. Time doesn't exist outside our perception of it.

Time is like distance, or color. Time is a system our minds use to make sense of the chaos around us. I can't go out and find blue. I can find a blue object, but I can't go out and just find some blue lying around. Just like I can't go out and find one meter, or one minute. We can see colors on objects, and we can see distance or time between two points. If they were actual entities, we could see them on their own, but we can't. We can only see them in relation to actual entities or events.

[e7rules]

I, personally, think this whole debate is just ridiculous. Is compromise a foreing language to you ppl? cant we all just accept each others veiw points, and try and do somehting construtive? Science will NEVER acknowledge god, and most religion will never accept science. so why must we blather on about this when we could be doign something more comstructive? (i personally believe in science and religion, but that is for another time and place.)

[Manhunter098]

Casa, please don't get into the time is a construct of man thing...time flows at different rates relative to velocity. We have proven that. Time could not flow at different rates at different velocities if it is simply a construct of our minds to make sense of the universe.

Also, in reference to those two statements that were said to be false, this is impossible to prove scientifically either way. They are neither true, nor false, because they cannot be known to us.

[Timewave Zero]

Casa, please don't get into the time is a construct of man thing...time flows at different rates relative to velocity. We have proven that. Time could not flow at different rates at different velocities if it is simply a construct of our minds to make sense of the universe.

Also, in reference to those two statements that were said to be false, this is impossible to prove scientifically either way. They are neither true, nor false, because they cannot be known to us.

WRONG

Velocity flows at different rates in relation to time.

Jesus christ, you know not one drop of what you're talking about!

[Manhunter098]

Well then what about time dilation (which is what I was getting at with my point) that is relative to velocity. I dont necessarily try to always use the most scientific speech, so please stop getting on my *** about it in such a nonconstructive way.

[Timewave Zero]

Well then what about time dilation (which is what I was getting at with my point) that is relative to velocity. I dont necessarily try to always use the most scientific speech, so please stop getting on my *** about it in such a nonconstructive way.

Ok first of all, its not a question of scientific speech. Its a question of relation, and you got it wrong. Because laws of physics don't work in the manner by which you worded the relation.

Ever.

Also I cannot answer your time dilation question without writing a massive tl;dr philosophical post on what time, space and this-universe is in order to address it properly.

Also when you bring up the point of time dilation are you asking in relation to a relativistic universe or are you asking this outside the known relativistic universe; i.e-FTL?

[Manhunter098]

I'm using it to point out that time isn't just something humans came up with, nothing beyond that. I basically tried to succinctly and simply describe it in relation to velocity in my initial post, but Ill admit I didn't really word it as best I could have.

[Phaxi]

I, personally, think this whole debate is just ridiculous. Is compromise a foreing language to you ppl? cant we all just accept each others veiw points, and try and do somehting construtive?


So is homosexuality wrong and the result of demonic influence? Can you accept an answer of yes and no? Can there be reasonable compromise? Should there be compromise?


Science will NEVER acknowledge god, and most religion will never accept science.


This is a terrible generalization and misunderstanding of the word science.


so why must we blather on about this when we could be doign something more comstructive? (i personally believe in science and religion, but that is for another time and place.)

You've mentioned this twice now, I'd like to hear some examples/your definition of the word constructive.

[Milareppa]

Science will NEVER acknowledge god, and most religion will never accept science.

This is incorrect. I know very few atheist scientists. Most were not part of organised religion (in other words, they didn't regularly - or in some cases, ever - visit church/synagogues/mosques/etc.), but they did believe in something.

Most of the scientists I trained under weren't necessarily Christain (Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc.), although plenty were. Obviously, I dealt with atheists and agnostics as well, but to claim science and religion cannot acknowledge each other simply isn't true. In my experience, most scientists - and most religious people - actually get on very well together.

It's the extremists on both sides of the fence that are the problem. But then, extremistis of any ilk are usually a problem.

[MoonSideMKDS]

This is is a conclusion that directly contradicts itself. You can not conclude that the universe has both not begun and not always existed at the same time. If the universe has not always existed then it must have begun and if it has not begun the it must have always existed. Now, I assume you are referring to the universe as meaning all matter contained within? If you are referring to the universe as that which exists after the singularity then you are correct in you first conclusion however still immediately contradict yourself in your second conclusion when you state the universe had no beginning.

Explain yourself in a way that is comprehensible to people besides yourself. Perhaps there is a decent premise and we simply can not notice.Yesterday I was devoted to this topic, but today I'm not. So I'm not going to give you a full answer because I don't feel like writing a trillion page essay. Besides, this is the part where I have to have others put things into proper perspective for me because I'm so poor at getting people to understand me...

Anyways...

Lets break it down.

The question is: The origin of the universe is?

The two only probable answers are...

1.) The universe has always existed.
2.) The universe had a start.

My conclusion I came too When devoting time into this subject was that both must be false because the original question is a misunderstanding of something that dosn't have a direct answer. To call it "something/nothing" directly contradicts itself naturally, and is a form of stability.

I've had a 14 hour long discussions of this with a friend of mines, Robert Szabo and he helped put my argument into great perspective, and by the time we were done we coined my idea "The 3rd".

The 3rd is an entirely alien way of looking at subjects such as these.

I doubt you are at all interested in my ideas, very few are. So I'll just stop here. Besides, this is a topic about god. Not the "Origin of the Universe."

When Robert logs onto AIM I will ask him if he can make an account here as he can put this in much better perspective than I can, unlike me he understands science to a VERY high degree.

Edit - DAMN YOU C.EXE! >.<

Edit 2 - Don't call me crazy, these things will make much more sense once I have my friend put it into proper perspective. I promise.

[nope]

Yesterday I was devoted to this topic, but today I'm not. So I'm not going to give you a full answer because I don't feel like writing a trillion page essay. Besides, this is the part where I have to have others put things into proper perspective for me because I'm so poor at getting people to understand me...

Anyways...

Lets break it down.

The question is: The origin of the universe is?

The two only probable answers are...

1.) The universe has always existed.
2.) The universe had a start.

My conclusion I came too When devoting time into this subject was that both must be false because the original question is a misunderstanding of something that dosn't have a direct answer. To call it "something/nothing" directly contradicts itself naturally, and is a form of stability.

I've had a 14 hour long discussions of this with a friend of mines, Robert Szabo and he helped put my argument into great perspective, and by the time we were done we coined my idea "The 3rd".

The 3rd is an entirely alien way of looking at subjects such as these.

I doubt you are at all interested in my ideas, very few are. So I'll just stop here. Besides, this is a topic about god. Not the "Origin of the Universe."

When Robert logs onto AIM I will ask him if he can make an account here as he can put this in much better perspective than I can, unlike me he understands science to a VERY high degree.

Edit - DAMN YOU C.EXE! >.<

Edit 2 - Don't call me crazy, these things will make much more sense once I have my friend put it into proper perspective. I promise.

Devoting time to something can often be a good thing but on the downside it becomes hard to let that idea go when a flaw appears. You need to correct your contradiction or explain it. No matter what your premise is, your conclusion is incorrect. You need to get that straightened out before anything else happens. You appear reluctant to extrapolate on your idea, whatever it is. At the very minimum you need to tell us what it is you are talking about.

[MoonSideMKDS]

Devoting time to something can often be a good thing but on the downside it becomes hard to let that idea go when a flaw appears. You need to correct your contradiction or explain it. No matter what your premise is, your conclusion is incorrect. You need to get that straightened out before anything else happens. You appear reluctant to extrapolate on your idea, whatever it is. At the very minimum you need to tell us what it is you are talking about. I'm talking about how the origin of the universe is a misunderstanding of something else entirely.

[nope]

I'm talking about how the origin of the universe is a misunderstanding of something else entirely.

Good. Now what is it that you are referring to. Give a quick definition or example.

[MoonSideMKDS]

Good. Now what is it that you are referring to. Give a quick definition or example.

I'm referring to an idea called "The 3rd"

I have yet to successfully define the third, though the idea is CRYSTAL CLEAR in my mind I simply can’t find words to clearly convey the idea itself. But you asked for ether an example or definition, examples are something I can provide, here are two.

What the liar paradox is to Gödel’s First incompleteness theorem is what god is to the 3rd

If the words in this sentence represent all that exists, the spaces between them are non-existant. The 3rd would be the spoken version of these words in a different language.

As I've previously stated, I'm waiting for a friend of mines to log on, Hopefully he will put this in words people understand.

I just found an AIM convo, here is an excerpt. I can barely make out what it means but it is DEFO sparking my intuition tons.

The Butcher01010 (3:16:26 AM): nothingness cannot bear the same conception as absence, but both must be concieved with identical conceptions, or time and being could not exists. there for both sentences must stand true, and everything we know, and everything we have ever known, is the result of of two things being percieved as 1. it's not that we can't make sense of this one conception, it's that humans have never percieved the conceptions that resulted in this one. think of it, as the polar opposite of subjectivity, and objectivity is the median between these two. creating the 3rd. interestingly, this theory also reveals that subjectivity "conciousness" exists whether or not there is a life form, we just will never know about it though, because of objectivity.

[CasaHouse]

The fact still remains that the conclusion you presented could only be true if the universe did not exist.

It does.

[MoonSideMKDS]

The fact still remains that the conclusion you presented could only be true if the universe did not exist.

It does.

NO! it must be true because the universe does exists!

[CasaHouse]

NO! it must be true because the universe does exists!

I don't follow your logic. I don't see any.

If the universe exists, that means either it has always existed, or at some point it was made to exist.

How can those both be false? To say that it hasn't always existed means at some point it came into existence.

To say that it never came into existence means that it has always existed.

To say that both are false would make both true as well, since they each disprove one other. If they each disprove one another, that would make both false again, and so on and so forth in an infinite chain of impossibility.

[nope]

If the words in this sentence represent all that exists, the spaces between them are non-existant. The 3rd would be the spoken version of these words in a different language. You are talking about all matter, flipped on it's arse, and made invisible?

[MoonSideMKDS]

I don't follow your logic. I don't see any.

If the universe exists, that means either it has always existed, or at some point it was made to exist.

How can those both be false? To say that it hasn't always existed means at some point it came into existence.

To say that it never came into existence means that it has always existed.

To say that both are false would make both true as well, since they each disprove one other. If they each disprove one another, that would make both false again, and so on and so forth in an infinite chain of impossibility.Because they are a reference to something that doesn't make sense in the first place.

[MoonSideMKDS]

You are talking about all matter, flipped on it's arse, and made invisible?

*Slaps face on desk readily*

I devoted years over years on this idea, yes you are very close to getting the gist of it but because of my faults you don't fully understand.

Read my third example, if that dosn't help I"m waiting for Etch to come online.

[kurosakiuzamaki]

you have to understand that if the universe always existed then the scientist would not be able to calculate the approximate age of the universe but if the universe did come into existence than how did it happen obviously not that big bang bull because then you'd have to ask the question of how that explosion happend and the only thing that is coming to mind is god. but for those that are doubting that think about this : the fact that every human has this inability to understand the fact that there actually is something that never began nor will it end. which also goes for the universe if it actually
did always exist

[Phaxi]

you have to understand that if the universe always existed then the scientist would not be able to calculate the approximate age of the universe but if the universe did come into existence than how did it happen obviously not that big bang bull because then you'd have to ask the question of how that explosion happend and the only thing that is coming to mind is god. but for those that are doubting that think about this : the fact that every human has this inability to understand the fact that there actually is something that never began nor will it end. which also goes for the universe if it actually
did always exist

1) Because we don't know how it happened, it must not have happened = fail.

2) We don't know so "God" must have done it = fail.

3) "the fact that every human has this inability to understand the fact that there actually is something that never began nor will it end." = generalization fail.

[Timewave Zero]

you have to understand that if the universe always existed then the scientist would not be able to calculate the approximate age of the universe but if the universe did come into existence than how did it happen obviously not that big bang bull because then you'd have to ask the question of how that explosion happend and the only thing that is coming to mind is god. but for those that are doubting that think about this : the fact that every human has this inability to understand the fact that there actually is something that never began nor will it end. which also goes for the universe if it actually
did always exist

Not necessarily, there are stars that are older than the universe itself.

[kurosakiuzamaki]

nevermind nevermind i dont feel like arguing with this well if we dint know then god must have done it because if god didnt do it and we didnt do it then what did it.also i never said that if we dont know then god must have don it or it must not have happened and also we do have an inability to understand things that go on forever. you can probably compare the universe to time. we have no idea when it began nor do we know when it will end so all we do is guess and hope that we are right and the "GOD" thing is more probable that ohh something came from nothing or a big ole' explosion happened and all of this stuff just happend to have popped up out of nowhere which is still something coming from nothing. this is going to be my last post in this forum because i really dont seem to belong in here due to the fact that i just dont have the resources to argue with people over stuff that is more complicated than making oxygen out of your arse

[Phaxi]

nevermind nevermind i dont feel like arguing with this well if we dint know then god must have done it because if god didnt do it and we didnt do it then what did it.
I confess, I did it.

also i never said that if we dont know then god must have don it or it must not have happened
"nevermind nevermind i dont feel like arguing with this well if we dint know then god must have done it because if god didnt do it and we didnt do it then what did it."
"but if the universe did come into existence than how did it happen obviously not that big bang bull because then you'd have to ask the question of how that explosion happend and the only thing that is coming to mind is god."

and also we do have an inability to understand things that go on forever. you can probably compare the universe to time. we have no idea when it began nor do we know when it will end so all we do is guess and hope that we are right
What you've done here is basically go back to we don't know so God must have done it, with a little bit of "science = hope/guesses" sprinkled in.

and the "GOD" thing is more probable that ohh something came from nothing or a big ole' explosion happened and all of this stuff just happend to have popped up out of nowhere which is still something coming from nothing.

1) So God can't have created the big bang now?
2) Again, we don't know how it happened, therefore it didn't happen = full of fail.
3) O rly? So God (a more convenient word for anything) is more probable than something that is accepted as scientific fact. Hmmmmmm.
4) God = something, who made God? Or is God exempt from your logic? In which case why isn't the big bang?

this is going to be my last post in this forum because i really dont seem to belong in here due to the fact that i just dont have the resources to argue with people over stuff that is more complicated than making oxygen out of your arse
Logic and reasoning man, only reqs on this forum.

[MoonSideMKDS]

Not necessarily, there are stars that are older than the universe itself.Source?

[kurosakiuzamaki]

damn thing logged me out but anyway
okay let me explain 3 things
1) nothing created god he has always been you are just proving my point that we can not under stand things that have always been and will never end
2) god is not just a convenient word for people that have no way of proving what they are saying. god has proved his existence a number of times like when Jesus was born without a father and when god told Abraham cut up those birds and put the parts far away from each other and them command them to come together
3) there are some things that we can explain with science and somethings that we cant all of this is because either we arent supposed to know or this is not the right time for us to know. reason is not going to solve everything like it may seem and sometimes we have to turn to what we religious people call "god". now even though not every religion agrees on what god is that does not mean that god does not exist. this is the same with science, not all scientist agree with one theory that another scientist came up with the only thing that they can really do is say that the majority is right and that who ever says otherwise is a wrong, which is also said in a number of religions but guess what the religious people actually have a reason to say what they say. they say that because they have proofs that they can bring and support with actual documents
on the other hand the scientist only have some math problem and an idea in their head

[MoonSideMKDS]

Science is not about proving yourself right. It's about building from a foundation, answers to real life phenomena. Scientist don't have the "I am absolutely right attitude." It's about accepting that you don't have the answers and working together as a collective group to achieve a goal.

Thats why things such as theories or scientific laws are not established from one person, but a series of people doing a series of experiments that stand the test of time.

"Science", "Math" and "Ideas" are the reasons we are all most likely going to live past the age of 30, it's the reason you are even able to voice your opinion on this forum, and many other good things.

[Timewave Zero]

Source?

Stars Older than the Universe (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/9052-stars-older-than-universe.html)

and

this: Universe Age according to map.gsfc.nasa.gov (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html)

States that based on solar masses, the amount of hydrogen present in stars and other factors. Stars in certain global clusters appear to be at least if not as old as the universe itself.

[nope]

damn thing logged me out but anyway
okay let me explain 3 things
1) nothing created god he has always been you are just proving my point that we can not under stand things that have always been and will never end

If you're going to say that then why couldn't all the matter in the universe have simply always existed.

2) god is not just a convenient word for people that have no way of proving what they are saying. god has proved his existence a number of times like when Jesus was born without a father and when god told Abraham cut up those birds and put the parts far away from each other and them command them to come together
So all magicians or illusionists are divine and any unverified instance of something happening is proof?

3) there are some things that we can explain with science and somethings that we cant all of this is because either we arent supposed to know or this is not the right time for us to know. reason is not going to solve everything like it may seem and sometimes we have to turn to what we religious people call "god".

Just because you can't use reason properly does not meant hat reason is ineffective. This is much like all the people who say evolution doesn't happen because they have no idea what they are talking about.


now even though not every religion agrees on what god is that does not mean that god does not exist.

That does say something very specific about each religions interpretations of god. The god outside of any interpretation may be unlike any other god but so is krishnu or any other. If there are thousands of religions then which is correct? If only one can be correct then it is more likely that all are inherently wrong.


this is the same with science, not all scientist agree with one theory that another scientist came up with the only thing that they can really do is say that the majority is right and that who ever says otherwise is a wrong, which is also said in a number of religions but guess what the religious people actually have a reason to say what they say.
Science is not about what you agree with or disagree with. It isn't about what the majority thinks. It doesn't matter what you think. All that matters in science is if you can back it up, if you can then it doesn't matter what anyone else say because science isn't about what the lot of people say it is about what actually is.


they say that because they have proofs that they can bring and support with actual documents
on the other hand the scientist only have some math problem and an idea in their head
All they (religions) have are documents, documents with no scientific value. Enough said.

[kurosakiuzamaki]

If you're going to say that then why couldn't all the matter in the universe have simply always existed.

So all magicians or illusionists are divine and any unverified instance of something happening is proof?


Just because you can't use reason properly does not meant hat reason is ineffective. This is much like all the people who say evolution doesn't happen because they have no idea what they are talking about.



That does say something very specific about each religions interpretations of god. The god outside of any interpretation may be unlike any other god but so is krishnu or any other. If there are thousands of religions then which is correct? If only one can be correct then it is more likely that all are inherently wrong.



Science is not about what you agree with or disagree with. It isn't about what the majority thinks. It doesn't matter what you think. All that matters in science is if you can back it up, if you can then it doesn't matter what anyone else say because science isn't about what the lot of people say it is about what actually is.


All they (religions) have are documents, documents with no scientific value. Enough said.

so all you are saying is that all the point that i have made are crap and that all religion is crap
let me tell you a story about magic (not that crap that those foony magicians today call magic)and how it is said to have been brought to man
now in islam there is a story that says that an angel was told to go to man and teach them magic. so the angel goes and when the angel gets here he tells a group that he is going to teach them how to perform magic but he warns them not to get all proud about it. now the angel teaches the group how to do magic and they get good at it to an extent. but they dont heed the angels warning and they become proud. now the angel went back to god and god asked the angel (even though god already knows the answer) if he told the group not to get proud over this. the angel answers that he did and was commanded to to warn the people. the angel warned them that if they did not swallow their pride then they would incur gods wrath. but by this time the group was so arrogant that they would not listen to the angel so the angel went back and told god about this. and god punished the group for their pride. now another group of beings were listening to all of this and they were called the jinn (or devils). they went to another group of people and they taught them magic and so on and so fourth.
well that is how people like Chris Angel and David Blaine can do all of this magic its' just the jinn assisting them in doing it

[MoonSideMKDS]

@kurosakiuzamaki

Try not to be to offended. I've been here for awhile and I know how blunt Nope can be, try not to let him get to your head. :D My expierence says that there is a little heat going on and it can get quite explosive, just little harsh tones I'm picking up. :D

He really pissed me off at first but you just adapt to him. :D

But in all seriousness, don't just take what he says with a grain of salt, he knows his stuff and has changed my views on many subjects, most notably gay marriage. ;)

[kurosakiuzamaki]

nah....been dealing with people like that for awhile now trust me hes nothing like my aunt who is so stubborn that you could get the same effect if you were talking to a deaf and dumb person (no offense to the mentally disabled)

[MoonSideMKDS]

Ok, just thought I'd check up.

Because I'm the only agnostic in my family, everyone else is religious, and I've seen how emotional they can get when their faith is questioned.

I.E. People throwing chairs at each other. :D

Short Story:

One time Father.??? forget his name, when I was in 3rd grade came to pick me up for indian church, my brother started getting into an arguement with him... don't remember exactly my brother was like "YOU THINK IT"S OK FOR THEM TO KILL BABIES!? O_O"

Nasty fight broke out.

lewl.

[kurosakiuzamaki]

dang what kind of extreme religion are they into?

[MoonSideMKDS]

Jehovah's Witness.

[nope]

so all you are saying is that all the point that i have made are crap and that all religion is crap
let me tell you a story about magic (not that crap that those foony magicians today call magic)and how it is said to have been brought to man
now in islam there is a story that says that an angel was told to go to man and teach them magic. so the angel goes and when the angel gets here he tells a group that he is going to teach them how to perform magic but he warns them not to get all proud about it. now the angel teaches the group how to do magic and they get good at it to an extent. but they dont heed the angels warning and they become proud. now the angel went back to god and god asked the angel (even though god already knows the answer) if he told the group not to get proud over this. the angel answers that he did and was commanded to to warn the people. the angel warned them that if they did not swallow their pride then they would incur gods wrath. but by this time the group was so arrogant that they would not listen to the angel so the angel went back and told god about this. and god punished the group for their pride. now another group of beings were listening to all of this and they were called the jinn (or devils). they went to another group of people and they taught them magic and so on and so fourth.
well that is how people like Chris Angel and David Blaine can do all of this magic its' just the jinn assisting them in doing it

Because magic is real right? Wrong. Why are the most prominent and effective skeptics of actual magic and paranormal the "magicians"? Why is it that the people who understand each trick inside out and the psychology behind a trick are able to pick up on things so easily? It is what they do. Their business is to fool, their aim is to pull the wool over your eyes. The only difference between them and self proclaimed psychics, religious prophets, and other quacks is that they will tell you that they are tricking you, while their tricking you and you still wont get it.

Nobody is assisted by the supernatural in magic. Magic is an illusion. Do you believe that what you see during a magic act is real? if so, then you need to re-asses what you determine to be reality. When you believe to be real what the magician so often tells everyone is fake it is no wonder why you believe to be real what the majority of people don't even think to question.

Nice story by the way. The only thing that was missing was a magical academy where witches and wizards go to learn magic and come of age with some crazy name like Hogwarts or Weebleblatz. If you believe the tale you spun just now perhaps you would also be interested in the Discworld series by terry Pratchett and be extra interested to know that it is all based in fact. Then after that I have a bridge to sell you and a 1000% return on a 200$ investment if you are willing to give me your credit information.

[kurosakiuzamaki]

what you fail to realize is that i already said that the magicians that you see today are nothing but foonys and that i dont really care about any thing that you have to say anymore because you have already proven some of the points that i have previously made in my post so stop trying to argue because all of this is just coming from your over dependence on logic
but ill do something that is my last resort : stop arguing with someone thats talking out of their arse

[RavenAzmaria]

It seems the topic, here, has been stretched bit..o.O

I, for one, believe there is a God. I am a Christian, myself. And I know without any doubt, that there is a God.

Creation. A lot of people think we came from monkeys. I always find this hard to believe. Why? Because if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why are they still here? Shouldn't they have already evolved by now, if that theory was true? These questions stump a lot of scientists.

Here's some more good questions: How could the earth just pop up out of nothing? Can "Nothing" make "Something"? Or, how can it be that the earth is just far enough away from the sun, that it doesn't burn up?

There is so much that science cannot prove about there not being a God.

Like, Wind. No one really knows where it comes from. Only God can explain this, in my eyes.

Sorry, if I got a little off topic, but I had to state my opinion.

[Detharos]

Sorry for the late response.. actually for what its worth, I concede to your arguments/disagreements. I don't have/understand enough scientific evidence to base my belief in a God on such. And even if I did, its pointless to do such anyways. My God desires faithfulness of me, not a belief that is based only on worldly evidence. I'll admit that I'm still young in my faith [and young in general], I really do need to stick my nose in my bible more, although its quite easy to get overwhelmed by worldly worries. At any rate, thanks you folks for helping set me back on the right path.

@Nope

You asked a few times of "who does this" over a few topics. If this works to answer, the community I currently live in is quite afflicted by the plague of "Gangster-ism". I can't say my feelings regarding such people are not personal or unbiased.. to me, they are like a literal embodiment of "wrong". Anyways, I have a lot to say about this whole "gangster" thing, but its an entirely different topic.

Also, I never meant to imply, nor do I think I even stated to begin with that its possible to be "sinless" or anything of the matter. At any rate, I know that everyone sins and will continue to sin regardless of their beliefs.

@The question asked to me: Why Christianity?

Well, the reason why is that in everything that I've read of the New Testament, it resounded with my heart, if that's an acceptable way to put it.

[Useless]

@Raven - Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. That question does not stump scientists.

How could God just pop out of nothing? Can "Nothing" make "Something"? Coincidence.

I myself have never wondered where wind came fI myself have never wondered where wind came from, but a quick google search tells me that it's the motion of air molecules. This is dumbed down, of course, but if you google it yourself, you can read past the very first sentence of the very first option.

EDIT: I hate this computer. D: Sorry if you read the somehow-incomplete version. :C

[Manhunter098]

Creation. A lot of people think we came from monkeys. I always find this hard to believe. Why? Because if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why are they still here? Shouldn't they have already evolved by now, if that theory was true? These questions stump a lot of scientists.

I might like to point out, the evolution does not state that humans came from monkeys.

To make it really simple, human evolution means, every human and every chimpanzee, shared an ancestor millions of years ago.

Here is a nice wiki article on common descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent). It should clear up most of the problems you have understanding what the theory of evolution states.

[nope]

@Raven - Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. That question does not stump scientists.


It's become somewhat of a reverse misconception that we don't come from monkeys. To be fair it only came about recently that we have actually evolved from an earlier family known as Anthropoidea have come to be known as monkeys. It's become sort of reflex reaction to say that we in fact don't come from monkeys. However we do (and we technically still are. Try comparing a monkey skeleton to a human skeleton.).

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff296/Redmedium/Tree12.gif

"You're a bloody monkey, mate!"

[Useless]

Neat. D:

Regardless, I'm pretty sure Raven was inferring that, millions of years ago, Chimpanzees were running around, and we came from those Chimps. The very same Chimps you could find today. So I believe my point still stands.

And don't you dare refute this, unless you want to see an uneducated kid cry. >:

[WOTG]

I, for one, believe there is a God. I am a Christian, myself. And I know without any doubt, that there is a God.
Sorry, if I got a little off topic, but I had to state my opinion.
What a contradiction.

Here's some more good questions: How could the earth just pop up out of nothing? Can "Nothing" make "Something"? Or, how can it be that the earth is just far enough away from the sun, that it doesn't burn up?

There is so much that science cannot prove about there not being a God.

Like, Wind. No one really knows where it comes from. Only God can explain this, in my eyes.
Science can not prove that there is no God, and you can't prove that there is.
You don't "know" there is a God, you can only guess that there could be. You can only assume that this God is behind this.

@The question asked to me: Why Christianity?

Well, the reason why is that in everything that I've read of the New Testament, it resounded with my heart, if that's an acceptable way to put it.
Use of emotions to absolutely cover a "rational" way of thought. :(

Do you know what a genetic mutation is?

If you do, it refutes your argument. Take a video of yourself, I want to see you cry.
Wow.

[Detharos]

Use of emotions to absolutely cover a "rational" way of thought. :(



Well, not really emotions per se, its just hard to put into words. Although there is a lot of emotions involved naturally in the business of worship, a love for god and what he does for us type of thing. But I meant more the feeling in your inner-most core of something being true.

[WOTG]

Well, not really emotions per se, its just hard to put into words. Although there is a lot of emotions involved naturally in the business of worship, a love for god and what he does for us type of thing. But I meant more the feeling in your inner-most core of something being true.
I know the feeling. It's a emotional attachment put upon something you personally like. It's how I felt when I was a Christian, or how I felt when I turned to "Alienism"(Lolying put; A strong belief in Extra Terrestrials and their guiding messages). It's hard to not believe in something, but it took Rational thinking to escape concepts that can consume the mind.

[Detharos]

Yeah, its probably the same that fuels everybody's belief to a degree. You either like a concept or dislike it.

Alienism.. that's certainly an interesting one. I certainly thought of the possibilities of those kinds of scenarios a lot in the past. I'd always talk with my best friend of the possibilities of highly advanced extra terrestrials planting religion and such to aid human development and such.

Edit: That said, I see a thread about aliens.. *poof*

[Ozaffer]

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/med_hist3.html
This is a brief summary of my "emotional" attachment to my disbelief.

other then that.. the source of this "god given" information, my belief in science, my disbelief in some christian morals, and my disbelief in the concept of god (besides the contradictory idea in general) seeing the problems in our world (religion being a main cause of alot of them) also play a role.

[Detharos]

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/med_hist3.html
This is a brief summary of my "emotional" attachment to my disbelief.


Gotta admit, I loled.

I can't say I agree with religion causing that many problems. I think the the over-the-top zealotry type mindsets some throw around of "People who don't do such and such must be slaughtered", is just humans falsely using their "belief" as an excuse to shed blood. In many cases, such as with the crusades in the past and the "witch burnings", they are actually going completely contradictory to the belief said humans claim said act is done in.

Also, I don't think religion actually factors in with racism either, as some do. For example, I have friends of varying religions, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists, and although on such terms we can agree to disagree, we can still get along nicely. I think there's a difference between accepting a person, and accepting their ideals. You can except a person but not except their ideals yet have no physical conflict with them.

[Ozaffer]

Yea the church has changed once again. But you can't deny the churches past and their actions in our history. You can't deny that these people fought, killed, murdered, persecuted, condemned, tortured, segregated, controlled, and massacred other human beings "in the name of god". And you can't deny that if there was a god that is the most fuced up thing you could ever imagine he/she would not only allow to happen but somehow guide people down this path. Idk every time I think of organized religion I think of history and it pisses me off that's why it's history is my emotional tie to disbelief.

And while I know it's not the strongest argument against the topic being that religions "interpretations" seem to change all the time, I think it's important information we should always remember. That way if we don't atleast constantly question the teachings we question the preacher and our own actions caused by a beliefs influence. (this doesn't just target Christianity btw only my example because it seems to get forgotten or denied alot.)

Today this kind of thinking still continues in other parts of the world http://lexicorient.com/e.o/jihad.htm it's not like it just stopped and everything's all cool now just because a religion became dominant in one part of the world, and our government separated itself from church, hell it still happens here just normally in a more nonviolent prejudice and judgmental kind of way.

[Detharos]

Well yeah, that most certainly can't be denied. And for what its worth, I used to feel the exact same. Still, I think its more or less human issues that are always holding our race from achieving its true potential. If I could poke my head into some orb or something that would show me how we're doing far into the future, I'd most certainly be tempted. To be honest, here in Canada, I see a lot of developments that I wish the whole world could reflect; yet at the same time there are things that to me appear to be degenerating, at least to a degree. Humans often seem to do things like that, we take a step forward and two steps back, or two steps forward and a step back. Despite this, I still think things like world wide peace, at least in a realistic context [I think there will always be conflicts, but at least having things much more toned down than they are in this age] are achievable, that's one of the reasons I like the idea of a possible "One world government." Things are changing faster and faster as years progress, so who knows. I just hope all the 2012 business ends up like a Y2K repeat, or I really got the short end of the stick. Oops, this is going quite off topic, xD

[PurpleOysterOfDoom]

Well, not really emotions per se, its just hard to put into words. Although there is a lot of emotions involved naturally in the business of worship, a love for god and what he does for us type of thing. But I meant more the feeling in your inner-most core of something being true.

I know that this, what I will write now is extremly cynical and unfair, but as German and a stud for history I have to say that there were Nazis who deeply at heart "knew" that their stupid Ideology "was true". To state it clear, this ist not a comparison of Fascism and Christianity, just a comment on the inadequacy of pure beliefs.
But that`s also a warning of uncritical use of science, back then the Germans (to be exactly many of them) believed that "hyper-race"-shid because of pseudo-scientific allegations. So as an atheist I want no ideology clerical or secular. Laws (in science as in community) should base on logic reason, if a law is recognized as wrong or in need of improvement it has to be changed the best way we are able to do.

[Ozaffer]

I talk about the OWG with a friend in my visitor message section, I tend to think if it's worked at slowly for the right causes under the right ideals it might work. While he seems to think everything is controlled by devil worshipers who are going to be unknowingly forcing it upon us through genocide and horrors bringing a new age of tyranny.

2012 apocalyptic stuff would suck but eh what could we do at this point besides try to live our lives as good as we can until the end. I doubt it's really going to be the end I remember Y2K and other theory's at the time, but anyway this is moving off topic goodnight.

[esis]

You sure are good guys..I believe in islam. I really hate war myself. So do all my brothers and sisters. Islam promote peace. Everyone can live on their own way as long as we respect each other. No force for others to join islam. But when we've been attacked, we defend ourselves. Just like military system in every country. There're also ethics in battlefield. We mustn't harm children, women, old men, animals and plants purposely. Besides, we must treat defeated armies kindly. No torture etc. Good muslim armies do this..