Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

well what existed before IT.

God created time...

As an infinte being, He has existed forever. Nothing caused God to happen, such a theory would be contradictiory to His omnipotence.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

God created time...

As an infinte being, He has existed forever. Nothing caused God to happen, such a theory would be contradictiory to His omnipotence.

isn't time and space infinite as well? so why not conclude that the universe has always existed, with no beginning and no end.

i mean, really though, is god even needed? what if a person is not a christian and lives a relatively moral life. would that person be banished to hell simply for not believing?

 

[mirakon]

Okay Name-Taken if you believe GOd is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the following argument applies:

Simply put, to create something, one has to be external to it. God created time and space, and is thus external to it. As being a physical reality means being defined by space-time and as God is external space-time, is thus not defined by it and cannot be a physical reality.

Furthermore, suppose a Biblical God exists. Now take the case where I am someone who is a non-believer, two cases arise:

Case 1: I provoke God
Case 2: I don't provoke God

If Case 1, then this means that as I have provoked God, I have influenced, or brought about a change in God, which undermines the definition he is omnipotent.

If Case 2, then this means that God would punish me for being a non-believer, without provocation, which undermines God's omnibenevolence.

So a Biblical God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. However by definition a Biblical God is both. Yet this is a contradiction.

 

[tommykins]

My point was that athiests have more at stake should God exist, than thiests do should He not.

And I think many athiests deep inside are haunted by the prospect of what is in store for them should they find out that upon death their belief in the non-existence of God was false.

Lol and based on that grounds, we should believe in God? Pascal's Wager.

I've brought up this question a few times, but no theist has answered it without some kind of twist to it.

As a hypothetical -

If God existed and explained in the Bible that non-believers will go to Heaven, and you as a believer will go to Hell, will you still believe(i.e. Just like now but reverse)? Additionally, would you also spread this 'truth' that is stated in the bible, despite it being detrimental to those who believe?

 

[Titburger]

My point was that athiests have more at stake should God exist, than thiests do should He not.

And I think many athiests deep inside are haunted by the prospect of what is in store for them should they find out that upon death their belief in the non-existence of God was false.

Pascal's wager, seriously?

I'll let Christopher Hitchens field this question


YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: Pascal's wager = religious hucksterism

 

[Scorch]

My point was that athiests have more at stake should God exist, than thiests do should He not.

And I think many athiests deep inside are haunted by the prospect of what is in store for them should they find out that upon death their belief in the non-existence of God was false.

Pascal's wager, seriously?

I'll let Christopher Hitchens field this question


YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: Pascal's wager = religious hucksterism

Or even Douglas Adams ...

"People will then often say, ‘But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?’ This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)"

 

[Titburger]

Or even Douglas Adams ...

"People will then often say, ‘But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?’ This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway.)"

But agnostiscism acknowledges the lack of concrete evidence for claims to either theism or atheism. It's not neccesarily wishing there is or isn't a god, but rather recognising faith as a ridiculous way to live

 

[trickx]

But agnostiscism acknowledges the lack of concrete evidence for claims to either theism or atheism. It's not neccesarily wishing there is or isn't a god, but rather recognising faith as a ridiculous way to live

Atheism is a response position to theism. An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god. That means even deists and agnostics are still atheists, that is, they don't believe in an intervening god, thereby making them atheists by definition.

 

[Scorch]

I hold that we are all atheists, I just believe in one less God than Christians. When they understand why they disregard all the others, they will understand why I disregard theirs.

 

[Name_Taken]

I hold that we are all atheists, I just believe in one less God than Christians. When they understand why they disregard all the others, they will understand why I disregard theirs.

Do explain, then, becuase while I agree there is no evidence supporting the existence of the various idols created by people throughout the ages, there is indeed strong evidence for God, and certinely none against His existence.

 

[tommykins]

Do explain, then, becuase while I agree there is no evidence supporting the existence of the various idols created by people throughout the ages, there is indeed strong evidence for God, and certinely none against His existence.

I direct you to -

Lol and based on that grounds, we should believe in God? Pascal's Wager.

I've brought up this question a few times, but no theist has answered it without some kind of twist to it.

As a hypothetical -

If God existed and explained in the Bible that non-believers will go to Heaven, and you as a believer will go to Hell, will you still believe(i.e. Just like now but reverse)? Additionally, would you also spread this 'truth' that is stated in the bible, despite it being detrimental to those who believe?

 

[moll.]

Do explain, then, becuase while I agree there is no evidence supporting the existence of the various idols created by people throughout the ages, there is indeed strong evidence for God, and certinely none against His existence.

Things wrong with this post:
1) There is NO conclusive evidence for your God that can stand up to even basic logic and/or dialectics. Don't be an idiot.
2) Those "various idols" were gods very similar to your own, and yet you deride and mock their existence. Nice.

 

[Scorch]

Do explain, then, becuase while I agree there is no evidence supporting the existence of the various idols created by people throughout the ages, there is indeed strong evidence for God, and certinely none against His existence.

This is just scientifically wrong. There is nothing else to say.

2) Those "various idols" were gods very similar to your own, and yet you deride and mock their existence. Nice.

Oh yes! Let me point out that half of the ideology of virgin birth, last suppers and resurrections were stolen from the Mithras cult of the Near-East and added into the Gospels of Christianity at a later date (several gospels show evidence of being edited to support the virgin birth idea). Also your Old Testament God is a lot similar to the Zoroastrian God, Ahura Mazda, except theirs is actually a shitload nicer than your homicidal maniac.

They're all the same, and there is the same amount of evidence for all of them. Don't be an idiot, as the poster above me said. At least the other Gods aren't jealous, homicidal jackasses like yours is.

 

[Durga]

Decided to check this thread out, and this is the first 'for God' post I see:

Do explain, then, becuase while I agree there is no evidence supporting the existence of the various idols created by people throughout the ages, there is indeed strong evidence for God, and certinely none against His existence.

What a fucking joke. Do you honestly take yourself seriously? Please present us with this evidence.

 

[warezfan]

What a fucking joke. Do you honestly take yourself seriously? Please present us with this evidence.

The evidence is clear. If you ever look around, all the universal laws that we have in science are so perfect, so perfect that only a perfect God could ever create it.

Of course in theology people sometimes make mistakes like interpreting the holy scripture slightly wrong. This is because we are human, we make mistakes. But this is the same with science. Scientist disprove their own theory all the time. So is that to say if we believe science we are imbeciles?

Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist ever lived, was a devout Christian. According to himself, his biggest achievement in life was keeping his celibacy until death. His second biggest achievement was the universal law of gravity.

If you think you are any smarter than Newton, then go ahead, use your great scientific argument to disprove Christianity.

 

[Maro0uHaa]

LOL...that totally depends on what you belive in, people have there own opinions ai? ...

i mean dpeends on what u grew upon ...i belive god exsists ..not just cozz i rew up with it ..but i trully belive it ahha ~why what do u think ?

 

[Titburger]

The evidence is clear. If you ever look around, all the universal laws that we have in science are so perfect, so perfect that only a perfect God could ever create it.

It is foolish to draw this conclusion. You obviously have no idea of the scope of the universe. It makes perfect sense that the only place we know to sustain life (Earth) in the known universe would have conditions allowing this life. But this is by no means proof of the existence of God.

 

[Durga]

The evidence is clear. If you ever look around, all the universal laws that we have in science are so perfect, so perfect that only a perfect God could ever create it.

Of course in theology people sometimes make mistakes like interpreting the holy scripture slightly wrong. This is because we are human, we make mistakes. But this is the same with science. Scientist disprove their own theory all the time. So is that to say if we believe science we are imbeciles?

Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist ever lived, was a devout Christian. According to himself, his biggest achievement in life was keeping his celibacy until death. His second biggest achievement was the universal law of gravity.

If you think you are any smarter than Newton, then go ahead, use your great scientific argument to disprove Christianity.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity is a weak one. Just because you cannot comprehend the fact that some God might not have created this world, or be watching over your shoulder at your every action, it doesn't mean that that's what's happening.

You fail to mention what happens after a scientific theory is disproved - it is changed, in order to meet the empirical standards of reality. This is opposed to the 'method' used by the religious: Take the blind assertions made in your mythology (because that's what it is, mythology), and regard these as axioms of the world. Note the lack of evidence, or questioning of this lack of evidence. And when scientific discoveries come around, try cram-fit reality into the naive axioms that your old mythology has professed, undermining the work of many hard working scientists.

You can point to any number of religious people and tell me that if I don't believe what they believe then I think I am smarter than them. I do not. I am fortunate enough to be born into an era where the argument for God is viewed with great skepticism, and where the false and inept arguments provided are looked down upon. Newton also had some weird rituals he performed, does this mean by not performing them I must hold myself as smarter than him? Do you perform all of Newton's rituals?

And I do not need to use my great scientific arguments to disprove Christianity. You're going to need those same great scientific arguments to prove it. And while you're at it, would you mind attempting to disprove Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism and all the countless other religions that pervade our world?

 

[warezfan]

You non believers really make me laugh with your so called rational arguments. One day when the judgment day comes you will all regret what you have said here on this forum.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You non believers really make me laugh with your so called rational arguments. One day when the judgment day comes you will all regret what you have said here on this forum.

lol rage quit