Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

thats a pretty vague example was he on medication? what heart condition? who told you the story? is it possible he was just lucky?

I know its vague I just didnt want to write any details I wasnt 100% sure of , i dont remember the whole conversation.
(The mans wife told me.)
I would assume he was on medication. However , i think if the doctor had thought it was due to the medication his response to the change would be different...i dont know though. I wasnt there.
Not being a doctor , I do not know if it is possible he was just lucky.
Maybe next time i see her ( the mans wife) I will ask her more about it all.

 

[*TRUE*]

is this the reason why you believe god heals?

No.

So you were brought up in a pentecostal church? What kind? As in , was it Hills style or ccc style?

 

[*TRUE*]

one in beresfield near newcastle, i still go sometimes cause i have friends there.

Awesome. Pastors Shane and Rachel Cook?

 

[*TRUE*]

lol nah gary something

Owwww. I thought i might have known you....
okay
Is that weird , going when u dont believe in any of it?

 

[*TRUE*]

not really, ive had a few moments though when people singled me out especially guest pastors trying to convert me or talk to me about god. it did get pretty frustrating at one stage hearing "evolution" brought up in a sermon, and when they talk about areas of science like carbon dating (*slaps forehead*). other than that its stand-able + free donuts and ping pong at youth was pretty sick.

Well , you and I dont see eye to eye on all , but ill give you this , when some preachers talk about creationism , they often shoot themselves in the foot
The free donuts are awesome. As is dinner after. Do they ever play Nooma DVDs , i think u can get them from u tube? We watched one on Friday night. I think they are the best.

 

[*TRUE*]

nah dont think so. i shall watch some when i get uncapped tomorrow.

okay. ( some are better than others)
Hey i gotta go , have a great day

 

[Gerald10]

I was reading a bit of Bertrand Russel's stuff and came across his view on the existence of God which I quite liked.

Essentially he said that talking to the average man on the street he'd describe himself as athiest but if he were lecturing philosophy to students he'd describe himself as agnostic.

This is the position that a) God probably doesn't exist but b) I can't prove that he doesn't. So philosophically agnostic but in a practical sense athiest.

This explanation is probably the best way to describe my own personal view.

 

[KFunk]

This is the position that a) God probably doesn't exist but b) I can't prove that he doesn't. So philosophically agnostic but in a practical sense athiest.

This explanation is probably the best way to describe my own personal view.

Aye, this is where I sit.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I was reading a bit of Bertrand Russel's stuff and came across his view on the existence of God which I quite liked.

Essentially he said that talking to the average man on the street he'd describe himself as athiest but if he were lecturing philosophy to students he'd describe himself as agnostic.

This is the position that a) God probably doesn't exist but b) I can't prove that he doesn't. So philosophically agnostic but in a practical sense athiest.

This explanation is probably the best way to describe my own personal view.

Yes but there are disagreements with his assessments; mainly involving that it's too "logical" and doesn't take into account the fact that most people whom he'd call agnostics 1. really don't believe in god, 2. really dismiss the corresponding beliefs, and 3. don't really care.

In reality, I think there are very few groups of thought which Russell would call "purely atheist": Namely the natural scientists who believe that their observations prove god doesn't exist (although the fact that they can't use their proof almost wipes them off the map, imo), and the human scientists who can observe (and proove) that the Abrahamic religions are actually near the end of a long chain of primitive superstitions.

Since I can effectively prove that modern belief in an Abrahamic god is not divine, I'm effectively atheist by most popular definitions, and Russell's.

 

[Gerald10]

In my study of religion course you have a thing called weak and strong athiesm.

Weak atheism is not believing in God simply because you haven't really thought about it eg a small child would be a weak atheist but so would a lot of other people - they just have gone on intuition and said he probably doesn't exist. Strong atheism is claiming the knowledge that God doesn't exist - this is to me the real atheist and as you say would be a very rare person.

Russel's idea is just the best way to describe my personal belief.

 

[BradCube]

As long as the individual who rejects objective morality indexes their concept of 'better' no problem arises. In other words, as long as by 'moral theory X is better than Y' they mean ['I]relative to my personal value system, moral theory X may be judged superior to Y' [/I] there is no issue.

Surely this is a fairly simple solution?

Without a doubt this is a simple solution but I have to admit that I don't think most people hold this view at all - at least not practically in real life. If this were the solution that we propose, I don't see how anyone could ever passionatley argue that there belief system is "better" than another, when "better" is based on their own definition. Surely it amounts to meaningless ranting? If so, then why bother at all?

(1) Need god make sense? (facetious, I realise, but not wholly unreasonable)

(2) As you point out, you have not been exposed to many apologetics of other faiths. While the reasonableness of the Christian god may work in favour of accepting that god, it does not, in the absence of knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of other faiths, explain why you reject (/do not accept) other deities or theological systems.

(3) And what of the apocrypha which have been conveniently cast aside? Surely you could take other holy texts and go about the task of hedge clipping until a reasonable degree of coherence similarly emerges.

(4) You seem to beg the question here since you argue for the possibility of the supernatural by assuming the existence of supernatural events. I say 'assuming' because, to take one example, the notion that demons are, in fact, being excised is very controversial. To simply assume that demons exist, and can possess individuals, and can be cast out through the appropriate rituals is to bypass the critical arguments (about the very existence of the supernatural) and thus, I contend, to beg the question. I do not deny that events may well have taken place with an appearance that is consistent with the exorcism of evil entities, but to quickly jump to the conclusion that an exorcism has actually taken place is, in my mind, poor intellectual practice.

1) No, God needn't make sense at all - but if I am ever to have a grasp of what God is (in order to discuss His existence) it would probably be fruitful to be able to make a little sense of Him.

2) That's correct, but I don't see why it is a problem. I was asked why I hold my current beliefs in Christianity as opposed to other religions. I responded by explaining that from my current exposure, Christianity make the most sense in my mind and this could be subject to change providing the right conditions are met. The fact that I'm not disproving every world religion here does not matter, because I am only giving an account of why I hold my beliefs with my current knowledge. I don't think we really have a point of contention here

3) I'm not going to argue this, it's something I didn't even think of when I wrote the original post! Having said that, it's something I would love to learn more about before commenting on (as I really have little knowledge on the topic currently). Can you recommend any books or reading material Kfunk?

4)Ok, I'm begging the question but you seem to have skirted around what I was actually asking here. I was not really asking, "how does demonic possession occur?" I was asking, "what is really happening when I witnessed what I believe to be demonic possession?"

 

[BradCube]

what was morally right 2000 years ago, is not morally right today. there are different countries and cultures throughout the world with almost completely different moral views. its known that morals are influenced by culture and context. not to mention we're biological organisms, we've evolved, we've been shaped to think a certain way, we can even see similar "moral systems" existing in animals. its a part of biology and science, and needs to be studied from such a perspective before claims are made on the existence of objective morality.

This is making the assumption though that our belief in certain moral actions are accurate in their morality - hence why objective morality could not be true, if we are always accurate in our moral beliefs. The problem then is that objective morality is, by it's nature, not defined by humans. To give a simple example we could say that the Holocaust was wrong even if Germany won the war, and convinced the whole world that it was in fact right. With this in mind, it does not matter that people's beliefs in morality can change over time since objective morality is independent of peoples moral beliefs.

is it possible the ankle wasnt broken in the first place? or had time to fully heal before being healed instantly? was it acknowledged by doctors as being miraculous? i was raised in the pentecostal branch, and have seen many people get prayed for, speak in tongues, cast out demons, do crazy shit, but nothing i can conclusively say supported the existence of god. all i saw was people who believe in god get caught up in the environment and the moment.
you also have to look at why the church believes god actually influences these things, which usually comes down to a literal interpretation of the bible (which doesnt seem to go too nicely with science) hence my right to be skeptical.

Not really, as the guy was on crutches for the whole of the day and wasn't able to walk on his own two feet without help. Thinking back upon it, I don't think it was broken though as he didn't have a cast (which would be normal right?). Either way though, it was swollen and bruised to the point that he needed crutches and couldn't walk. After the prayer he was walking without crutches and running around the next day. So eh, I was baffled to make any other sense of it.

 

[BradCube]

I think I do believe that God can heal....i used to wonder why he doesnt seem to heal everyone. Specifically my close friend....she's been so ill. I used to wonder if i just didnt have enouh faith, i pray for her all the time. She wonders if God doesnt love her enough.

I suppose it comes back to the whole suffering argument then?

 

[BradCube]

I'm a superstitious pot smoking fuck who sees hallucinations and attribute them to devine influence for lack of a better reason. I must be enlightened.

FIX'D

Thankyou for painfully reminding me why I am often hesitant to be frank and honest with people on bos.

 

[BradCube]

one in beresfield near newcastle, i still go sometimes cause i have friends there.

You're a lot closer to home than what I expected! I thought you were down in Sydney somewhere

 

[BradCube]

I was reading a bit of Bertrand Russel's stuff and came across his view on the existence of God which I quite liked.

Essentially he said that talking to the average man on the street he'd describe himself as athiest but if he were lecturing philosophy to students he'd describe himself as agnostic.

This is the position that a) God probably doesn't exist but b) I can't prove that he doesn't. So philosophically agnostic but in a practical sense athiest.

This explanation is probably the best way to describe my own personal view.

Seems, that I am on the other side of the fence, regarding my philosophical position as agnostic and everyday life as Christian.

 

[Ennaybur]

Interesting. Why choose Christianity then? Pascal's Wager?

it's such a very, very bad reason for believing.

 

[Iron]

Pascal was a morbid sunnavagun. Had jaggered rusty steel bits fixed to his office chair; whenever he was enjoying something, like a conversation, he'd press back until his flesh was pierced and he was unhappy again.
He sacrificed some considerable scientific talent (maths?) to please God.
He was one of the reasons why Nietzsche was so hard on Christianity.

 

[*TRUE*]

Pascal was a morbid sunnavagun. Had jaggered rusty steel bits fixed to his office chair; whenever he was enjoying something, like a conversation, he'd press back until his flesh was pierced and he was unhappy again.
He sacrificed some considerable scientific talent (maths?) to please God.
He was one of the reasons why Nietzsche was so hard on Christianity.

Are you serious? Ugh. Cause God wants us miserable.

 

[brainwashed39]

i think we should have a "Does God Exist" poll on bos...

it wouldn't solve anything... but neither does this and it would be interesting