Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[MoonlightSonata]

What a fantastic point. But you know, I think the answer is simple.

Some priest's will preach what the bible actually teaches, and others will modify it for their own benifit. It is that simple.

You mentioned homosexuality and it is a great example. It is mentioned a few times clearly throughout the Bible (in both new and old testament). The fact is, the bible says it wrong. It is that clear, there is no question. But as you know people change things to suit themselves. This does not change, what the bible says though.

You can bet that if God does exist each man and woman (including priests) will be judged.

Nope, you're mistaken. It is not that clear.

Furthermore, if the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong, then that is clear evidence of how silly it is.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

its not a problem because i think theres no evidence for a reason. There is no reason for me to believe that invisible aliens live among us.

Exactly. The same goes for God.

Sometimes people need a God.

That is just wishful thinking. Need does not mean "is true". I might need money. Doesn't mean I have it!

Having no evidence of aliens does make it a challenge to believe in those as well. Same principles.
Do Aliens exist?
However in God i see clear reasons why there would be no evidence, eg meaning of life, test of faith.

Even if you can speculate about why there would be no evidence, there is still no evidence. So you still have no logical or material foundation to believe it.

The truth is out there.

Rock on, Mulder!

God is a mystery and of coarse its difficult for everyone to believe, its a challenge, but this shouldnt stop us from believing.

It should when there is no evidence or grounds for doing so.

I dont want any evidence for God , i never will. That proves lack of faith.

That is quite irrational. Surely you want to have reasons to believe what you do? Otherwise you have absolutely no justification for doing so.

 

[BradCube]

Nope, you're mistaken. It is not that clear.

Furthermore, if the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong, then that is clear evidence of how silly it is.

Ta, thanks for the linkige I'll have a read and get back to you.

I fail to see how it is silly, plz expand.

Also just for reference, this is not the only section in the bible that says homosexuality is wrong.

 

[davin]

In response davin, you pointed out two possibilities. On one hand we have a situation in which the theory of creation cancels itself out. (ie where did creator come from?) and on the other hand we have the possibility that there is an absolute existance.

You say this is the universe, but I fail to understand how it could exclude the possibility of God. Is it not possible for the absolute existance to be God? I mean surely it is an equally plausible argument. To say that God is an "unneccesary complexity" is rediculous. If it is just as plausible then it is just as neccesary to look at that point of view. I fail to see how believing that an absolute existance that is God is more complex than believing a universe can create itself. By doing that you are effectively placing the universe in the position of God.

We end up coming to a point where our own knowledge will do us no good. What do we even know of knowledge? If there is the possibility of God then surley we will not have the same knowledge as he does. How can we even begin to explain absolute existance if we are created beings?

The fact alone that it is so far beyond our comprehension suggests to me that there is a higher existance.

Pascal's Wager is not proof of God's existance but rather a reason to consider him from an unbiased point of view. It is a reason to consider him equally. Do not try and reason out God because you don't want him to exist.

on the first part, i'm not saying that i've given an absolute proof that there can be no god, just that the origin of the universe does not prove god. when i say unneccessary complexity, i just mean that, based only on the formation of the universe, adding god in is unneeded because you still have somethign existing forever. i'm agnostic, personally, i don't know about god, i don't think we can know for sure. there could be other things to try to argue for the presence of god, just that discussing the universe's origins isn't an arguement for it.


and Pascal's wager isn't at all considering from an unbiased point of view, or consider him equally, its just the idea that one may as well believe in God because the penalties for not beliving in God and being wrong are so much higher than believing in God and being wrong. Its like if i flipped a coin, and said if you guessed it was tails and was right, i'd give you $5, but if you guessed heads and was right, i wouldn't give you anything. You'd pick tails without even considering the odds (even though here its 50/50, the analogy doesn't require that) because one has a reward and one doesn't

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ta, thanks for the linkige I'll have a read and get back to you.

I fail to see how it is silly, plz expand.

Also just for reference, this is not the only section in the bible that says homosexuality is wrong.

Because the claim is illogical. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

(I know, but I have addressed other sections - Corinthians for example - before.)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Regarding Pascal's Wager, NTB posted up a summary of some of the flaws of that argument here.

 

[davin]

Because the claim is illogical. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

(I know, but I have addressed other sections - Corinthians for example - before.)

technically speaking, i'm not sure you can use the homosexuality thing as a basis to fault the bible, as that does open up the whole can of worms on if it is wrong or not. its sort of opening a whole second front on the arguement since its less concrete.

 

[BradCube]

Pascal's wager isn't at all considering from an unbiased point of view, or consider him equally, its just the idea that one may as well believe in God because the penalties for not beliving in God and being wrong are so much higher than believing in God and being wrong. Its like if i flipped a coin, and said if you guessed it was tails and was right, i'd give you $5, but if you guessed heads and was right, i wouldn't give you anything. You'd pick tails without even considering the odds (even though here its 50/50, the analogy doesn't require that) because one has a reward and one doesn't

That is exactly what I am saying. In that while Pascal's Wager does not prove the existance of God, it certainely gives good reason to look at the $5 side of the coin. (Although I would not say that christianity, is the easy $5 you suggest here). To ignore that $5 side of the coin simply because you think the other side is more shiney would be rediculous.

Does that makes sense (I think the analogy got a bit out of hand)?

 

[erin_tonkin]

the way i see homosexuality is that it is a sin just like every other. like lying cheating and murder. whatever

its not something that if ur a christian you ccant be

but i dont think you can be a practising homosexual. If the argument stands that homosexuals are born that way and cannot help it
God will forgive a murderer of a lyer or a cheater and he will forgive a homosexual.

Its just another thing but it is called to be something way worse than it is

 

[MoonlightSonata]

technically speaking, i'm not sure you can use the homosexuality thing as a basis to fault the bible, as that does open up the whole can of worms on if it is wrong or not. its sort of opening a whole second front on the arguement since its less concrete.

The Bible is full of illogical things, I'm just noting one of them.

There was a previous thread on homosexuality. Irrational arguments that claim it is wrong were firmly quashed there, but if you wish you can always participate in that thread should the desire arise.

 

[davin]

Regarding Pascal's Wager, NTB posted up a summary of some of the flaws of that argument here.

yeah, in reading that, i think that pascal's wager come up at a time in which it was pretty much christianity or not, that does remove much of the issue with multiple religions.

 

[BradCube]

Because the claim is illogical. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

(I know, but I have addressed other sections - Corinthians for example - before.)

Who are you to say homosexuality is wrong or right? Honestly, your putting yourself in a position that only God can judge from.

 

[BradCube]

yeah, in reading that, i think that pascal's wager come up at a time in which it was pretty much christianity or not, that does remove much of the issue with multiple religions.

Well I am only looking from a christian perpective or not. I mean that makes sense doesn't it since the bible teaches that there is only one true God?

 

[davin]

That is exactly what I am saying. In that while Pascal's Wager does not prove the existance of God, it certainely gives good reason to look at the $5 side of the coin. (Although I would not say that christianity, is the easy $5 you suggest here). To ignore that $5 side of the coin simply because you think the other side is more shiney would be rediculous.
Does that makes sense (I think the analogy got a bit out of hand)?

yeah....however, from my personal experience, and i've got friends and people i work with that are very religious, obviously, there's more to religion than heads or tails, and i've never been able to have anything get me to see that i have reason to believe in a god concept, or at least, that if there is a god or gods, they/it/he/she/etc is in any way actually involved with the earth. the closest i could ever come would be deist, but even that would feel like i'd be forcing myself to believe in things that i've never had any reason to beleive in. or well, any evidence or support for, rather.

The Bible is full of illogical things, I'm just noting one of them.

There was a previous thread on homosexuality. Irrational arguments that claim it is wrong were firmly quashed there, but if you wish you can always participate in that thread should the desire arise.

the extension of this debate now into homosexuality as evidenced by the other posts is why i questioned it. personally i've got no problem with it... but it distracts from the issue at hand, and there are less subjective thigns to take issue with the bible over

 

[davin]

Well I am only looking from a christian perpective or not. I mean that makes sense doesn't it since the bible teaches that there is only one true God?

even within the realm of christianity, there's various sects. my point with the time it was devised, though, was that it came from europe at a time when there was really only christianity to choose from, on a global scale, its a much harder pick with more religions

 

[BradCube]

Because the claim is illogical. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

(I know, but I have addressed other sections - Corinthians for example - before.)

Could you give me a link to the other arguments in reference to other verses? That one couldn't even be called an arguement.

 

[BradCube]

even within the realm of christianity, there's various sects. my point with the time it was devised, though, was that it came from europe at a time when there was really only christianity to choose from, on a global scale, its a much harder pick with more religions

I am reffering to christianity as taught in the bible. The fact that there are different sects does not change what the bible says. I think many people have distorted the bible to create their own "super-religion" where they can morally justify almost anything they want.

 

[erin_tonkin]

although god did make man and woman for a purpose

 

[gerhard]

although god did make man and woman for a purpose

because he is vain enough to want legions of people to worship him?

 

[erin_tonkin]

that was so stupid i cant believe you would say that