Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[tommykins]

I like how those two lines are right next to each other.
I find it fitting.

Took me a while.

























Then I lol'd.

 

[moll.]

My humour is deep.

 

[Jack Burton]

This thread is for discussions about whether God exists.

I created a similar thread a long with the same title but I eventually deleted it because it became a monster. I am reluctant to recreate this thread, however such discussions about God are encroaching on a number of different topics and should be contained.

I strongly suggest that anyone taking part in this thread read the Fallacies section of the argument guide.

does god exists well... iam here bitches and its all in the reflexes

 

[Litmate]

Hey everyone,

there are thousands of excellent questions and i'd like to answer all of them but i simply cant, so rather than getting involved in heaps of messy arguments I'd just like to address one recurring issue i see all the time.

ive got a question about christianity/monotheistic gods. Ive never really understood this, im sure christians must have some sort of answer for it since it seems like such an obvious problem.

Firstly, God is omniscient. He knows everything, he is outside of time. he knows the past and the future.

Secondly, I have free choice to accept god or not. My future is not pre-determined, I can make my own decisions.

But how can I have a free choice if god already knows what Im going to do? God knows the future, he surely must know what I am going to do and if he does then I wouldnt have free choice. If he doesnt know what Im going to do, then he isnt much of a god.

An excellent point, Gerhard. So let me explain:

Say I have a tennis ball and am on earth- say on a tennis court, fore simplicity's sake. If i hold the ball at head height and ask what will happen when i let go, what do you think will happen? I think the ball will fall to the ground. Why? Because i know that there is gravity on earth and that it causes objects to fall to the ground- i know this both from experience and have seen it proved mathematically. So i "know" what is going to happen when I let go: the ball will fall to the ground.

Question: I know what will happen. Does this mean I am causing the ball to fall to the ground?

Answer: No. Gravity causes the ball to fall to the ground. I simply know this will happen because i understand how gravity works. I understand the factors acting on the ball, therefore i know what it will do.

I believe this is how God knows what will happen in the future, but is not forcing/controlling our decisions. If God is indeed all-knowing, as the bible claims, he understands us and our personalities/motives/beliefs/hopes/fears even better than we do, so he knows what our decisions will be because he understands how we think and what motivates/influences us. He is not controlling our decision, but he understands it. You can see this at work even in your own lives. Look at your family, best friends, your partner... the people you know best in the world. You often know what they will say, how they will react to certain things, whether they will be excited by something... simply because you know them and their personality... even without understanding all their emotions and not knowing all the thoughts that go through their head. Now if you knew everything about someone, and every thought that went through their head, surely you would know exactly what they would do in any given situation?

e.g. Say you love chocolate ice-cream but detest strawberry ice=cream, and I know this. If someone asks which flavour you would like, i know you will ask for chocolate- based on only an elementary knowledge of your ice-cream preferences! I did not force you to choose chocolate, but since i understand a bit about you, i knew you would choose chocolate.

Now apply this to a global scale. If you knew every person in the world so intimately that you completely understood them, and knew every thought that went through their head, wouldnt you know what decision every human will ever make in every situation? You are not forcing anyone to do anything, but you understand. Now, if you also knew everything there is to know, you would be able to understand all natural phenomenon etc. through cause and effect. You would know where the wind was about to blow cos you have felt every vibration of air ever to occur. So if someone did know all there is to know and was able to understand it without their head exploding, they would, like a mathematical problem, be able to see every event ever to happen in the future simply by accounting for every single factor in the universe at that particular time and determining the net result. You are not forcing, but observing... and logically determining what will happen next.

This "someone" is God. By seeing everything happening in the world simultaneously, he can understand what will happen next, and after that etc...
We might not be able to handle such knowledge, but God can.

Hopefully this has been helpful! If you are still reading, thankyou for your attention! May Christ be with you.

God bless!
Simon

 

[55HS]

An excellent point, Gerhard. So let me explain:

Say I have a tennis ball and am on earth- say on a tennis court, fore simplicity's sake. If i hold the ball at head height and ask what will happen when i let go, what do you think will happen? I think the ball will fall to the ground. Why? Because i know that there is gravity on earth and that it causes objects to fall to the ground- i know this both from experience and have seen it proved mathematically. So i "know" what is going to happen when I let go: the ball will fall to the ground.

Question: I know what will happen. Does this mean I am causing the ball to fall to the ground?

If you created the laws which govern what happens when you let go of the ball, then yes you did.

 

[j.russell]

i'm just looking at this and sighing.
i'm going to state the obvious...
any internet conversation about religion is useless, basically.
the people who bother to enter these conversations have already vehemently made-up their minds.
i'm a christian and well, i guess people could be converted in any context..
but arent these conversations just annoying for all involved? i'm pretty sure they never reach conclusions, so it just seems like religious and strongly non-religious people butting heads for the sake of it.
pushy atheists: why be forceful? chill out
christians: maybe try a more effective form of evangelism?

 

[55HS]

i'm just looking at this and sighing.
i'm going to state the obvious...
any internet conversation about religion is useless, basically.
the people who bother to enter these conversations have already vehemently made-up their minds.
i'm a christian and well, i guess people could be converted in any context..
but arent these conversations just annoying for all involved? i'm pretty sure they never reach conclusions, so it just seems like religious and strongly non-religious people butting heads for the sake of it.
pushy atheists: why be forceful? chill out
christians: maybe try a more effective form of evangelism?

Yeah cool so you got an argument or you just wanna bitch about us? 'More effective' form of evangelism? I think that's a pretty stark difference, cause you see... for me it's not about winning anyone over.

 

[Mischaaa]

woah everyones going way too in depth with this

god doesnt exist in my opinion

 

[cannibal.horse]

LOL @ 17 year old Atheists interpreting Genesis from a literal perspective.

 

[Kwayera]

LOL @ 17 year old Atheists interpreting Genesis from a literal perspective.

LOL @ you assuming we interpret it literally because we wish to, and not because believers interpret it as such and in order to have a "productive" discussion, one must interpret it on that level (even if only to mock)

 

[55HS]

LOL @ 17 year old Atheists interpreting Genesis from a literal perspective.

How do you interpret it? Do you see it as a work of man which probably has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality?

 

[cannibal.horse]

LOL @ you assuming we interpret it literally because we wish to, and not because believers interpret it as such and in order to have a "productive" discussion, one must interpret it on that level (even if only to mock)

LOL @ you for assuming all Christians interpret biblical texts from a literal perspective whilst liturgy centred varients have long placed greater emphasis on church tradition and universal interpretation of Christ's message (note: homily).

Whilst the bible is the normative text for Christian life its literal interpretation is not the only way that divine revelation occurs.

Why don't you use church (primarily Catholic) doctrine such as Peace With God the Creator and Creation (Pope John Paul II - 1989) to debate Christian viewpoints? because I can assure you church doctrine is read literally.

 

[j.russell]

Yeah cool so you got an argument or you just wanna bitch about us? 'More effective' form of evangelism? I think that's a pretty stark difference, cause you see... for me it's not about winning anyone over.

I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.
Besides, you illustrate my point well, "not about winning anyone over" , well then, what is it about? It just seems to me like argumentative people arguing for argument's sake. Or trying to exercise their knowledge? ego? (or religious people trying to convert). And no, I don't have an argument, sorry to interrupt.

 

[Kwayera]

LOL @ you for assuming all Christians interpret biblical texts from a literal perspective whilst liturgy centred varients have long placed greater emphasis on church tradition and universal interpretation of Christ's message (note: homily).

I.. don't assume all Christians interpret the Bible literally? I was talking about the ones that do and given the amount of creationists around (speaking of Genesis in particular here), there's a lot.

Whilst the bible is the normative text for Christian life its literal interpretation is not the only way that divine revelation occurs.

Why don't you use church (primarily Catholic) doctrine such as Peace With God the Creator and Creation (Pope John Paul II - 1989) to debate Christian viewpoints? because I can assure you church doctrine is read literally.

By definition, I'd think that the Bible is the primary source for divine revelation for a significant proportion of Christians (as separate from Catholicism).

 

[55HS]

I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.
Besides, you illustrate my point well, "not about winning anyone over" , well then, what is it about? It just seems to me like argumentative people arguing for argument's sake. Or trying to exercise their knowledge? ego? (or religious people trying to convert). And no, I don't have an argument, sorry to interrupt.

Seeking knowledge/truth through putting your thoughts up against those of others. In part it's probably a bit of an ego trip, but I really don't see how you can say this is any more 'pointless' than any other philosophical argument which has been had; amongst esteemed professors and theologians, amongst teenagers and working class people.

It's sort of like what art is about, it's to find meaning, explore concepts, challenge ideas and have your own challenged. It is a very human, ultimately 'pointless' excercise.

 

[cannibal.horse]

I.. don't assume all Christians interpret the Bible literally? I was talking about the ones that do and given the amount of creationists around (speaking of Genesis in particular here), there's a lot.

Yes there sure is...

Considering 1 billion Catholics don't.

Nor do Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.

Nor do High Church Anglican.

Nor do many protestant varients...

Debateing a strawman Christianity are we?

 

[cannibal.horse]

By definition, I'd think that the Bible is the primary source for divine revelation for a significant proportion of Christians (as separate from Catholicism).

Divine revelation does not necessarily occur through literal translation

 

[nikolas]

I wasn't bitching about you, i guess what i said was just an accumulated expression of frustration at the nature of religious internet discussions.
Besides, you illustrate my point well, "not about winning anyone over" , well then, what is it about? It just seems to me like argumentative people arguing for argument's sake. Or trying to exercise their knowledge? ego? (or religious people trying to convert). And no, I don't have an argument, sorry to interrupt.

You didn't see the irony that your post was useless itself?

Seriously the Generic "lets all just get along" bullsh^t posts are annoying, don't post if you wont be a productive member of a debate, if you feel that it's a pointless debate, in that case there is even less reason to post.

 

[Kwayera]

Yes there sure is...

Considering 1 billion Catholics don't.

Nor do Orthodox and Eastern Catholics.

Nor do High Church Anglican.

Nor do many protestant varients...

Debateing a strawman Christianity are we?

Just because the "Church" in question is not creationist, that - most emphatically - does not mean that their congregations follow that particular (often rather quietly admitted) allowance.

I mean, really. 40% of surveyed respondents to a 1999 Gallup poll in the US (to use an extreme Western example; I'm certain it's greater in the less educated corners of the world) essentially stated that creationism > evolution. In the 2007 census, 78.4% of respondents classified themselves as Christian, and 24% of that affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[cannibal.horse]

Wait so you seek truth from a vessel rather than the divine text of the lord? Eeeeeiiinteresting?

Where's the bible on the immaculate conception? And popes?

And indulgences?

And child rape?

I suppose you could say from many 'vessels' - see Job 38: 1-41 outlining God's presence in natural phenomina (Bernards)

The bible is where it is on immaculate conception, along with church doctrine in Vatican II and various older doctines I hardly spend hours reading.

You'd be aware that the current Papacy is linked historically and can be traced back to Peter, 'the rock' of the church.

The ability to grant indulgences was largely overturned post reformation, that was a rather dark day in our church's history I'll agree.

Child rape? see the Sermon on the Mount.