Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[barros667]

While I'm preparing my anti-thesis to moonlights anithesis, i thought I'd respond to what's going on here already.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the person is idiotic. Ignorant is more what i'm thinking.

Is it fair to say that because I've never been to China and experienced being there that China does not exist? It certainly doesnt exist for me. But if i were to meet some Chinese people or even people who had been to China, could i still ignore the fact that China might just be there?

In the same way, your argument that God does not exist for you seems a bit silly. Would God cease to exist because you have never seen him or experienced his presence before? What if God were to send someone to you, like an angel... or even just someone who he has revealed himself to and can testify to his presence? Could you still ignore the the fact that God might just be real?


Say I went to China one day, and then i was put on trial for rebelling against the authority of the country. Would my defence hold up if i were to say "I shouldnt be blamed for rebelling against the Chinese authority because i didn't believe that China even existed let alone had any power!" I sincerely doubt it. And what if the Judge were to say "How can you not have know China existed?! You have seen Chinese people before! You have met people who have BEEN to China. China will exist whether you like it or not!" What excuse can I have?

Likewise... What if one day you were to stand before God in judgement because you are guilty of rebelling against him? Could you argue that you shouldnt be held accountable because you didn't know God existed and that you were rebelling against him? And what if he were to reply "How can you not know that I exist?! Have I not sent people to you who come from me, who know me and have experienced my presence, to warn you that I do exist. How can you claim that I did not make myself known to you?!" What excuse will there be?


So i guess what i will try to argue in the future is that it is not up to me to prove to you wether or not God exists. Because if God exists, which i am convinced that he does, he will not cease to exist just because you do not believe that he exists. But I stand before you as a child of God, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, to say God has revealed himself to me and I have felt his presence and I am absolutely convinced of his existance. Whether you believe that or not does not change a thing.

My only hope is that through the words that I say and through the life that I live you may see me and say "There is a man who has been changed by the presence of God!" And through this I pray that God may reveal his existance to you.

LOL WILMO YOU GOT PWNT ABSOLUTLY HAMMERED,

that has to be the must stupidest, most retarded, close minded analogy ive ever read in my life, i honestly shit my pants laughing reading that.. how can you compare china a country that people are from.. WHERE THE OLYMPICS ARE CURRENTLY BEING HELD, to this so called "God" which no one has seen, no one has been to, no one has had olympics in.. SO YOU JUST GOT FUgEN PWNT UP THE A55H0LE hahahaha

and i agree 100% to what spell check "if you had never heard of a country and someone tried to tell you it existed, you probably wouldn't believe it unless they could prove it to you somehow".. that just owned you right there, your argument wilmo was so crap i cant believe i wasted my time writting tihs, i just wanted to say how pwnt you got.. bye

 

[barros667]

lol i agree

 

[barros667]

We know China exists because our country is being swamped by Asians.

couldnt agree with you more, its the asian invasion.

 

[barros667]

the eye of the tiger?

 

[Lentern]

The reason that that's a poor analogy is because on a beach there are none of the materials for the creation of a watch. Should there be other little bits of watch lying around on the beach and the raw materials, and varying degrees of watch formation, then we wouldn't find it so incredible would we?

We are not a silver watch found on the beach because we can look around us and see the progression from simple to complex with reference to evolution and other scientific discoveries.

Yes but you can trace humans back to apes and apes back the big bang and all the like and I'm not saying it's wrong. But with the laws of science as they stand today being what they are surely there is at some point a higher power not contrained by these laws to form the original creation? There has to be some higher power because there has to be something that came first and whatever that something was would need to have been above the laws of science to exist without a predecessor.

 

[impervious182]

Yes.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes but you can trace humans back to apes and apes back the big bang and all the like and I'm not saying it's wrong. But with the laws of science as they stand today being what they are surely there is at some point a higher power not contrained by these laws to form the original creation? There has to be some higher power because there has to be something that came first and whatever that something was would need to have been above the laws of science to exist without a predecessor.

The big bang is the thing which came first in our universe, before that there was no time and you can't talk about things which exist without time as coming from anything.

 

[Captin gay]

Yes but you can trace humans back to apes and apes back the big bang and all the like and I'm not saying it's wrong. But with the laws of science as they stand today being what they are surely there is at some point a higher power not contrained by these laws to form the original creation? There has to be some higher power because there has to be something that came first and whatever that something was would need to have been above the laws of science to exist without a predecessor.

woteva. what are the chances of a some PERSONAL GOD, some bearded diety in the sky, creating, then looking after some bipedal FREAK LIKE YOU in some UTTERLY RANDOM GALAXY, ONE OF MILLIONS IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

The Truth of Truths is probably something so obscure, so brilliant that even if we attempt to comprehend our brains will explode!

Ascribing everything to a GOD is a COP OUT of THE HIGHEST DEGREE

 

[impervious182]

woteva. what are the chances of a some PERSONAL GOD, some bearded diety in the sky, creating, then looking after some bipedal FREAK LIKE YOU in some UTTERLY RANDOM GALAXY, ONE OF MILLIONS IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

The Truth of Truths is probably something so obscure, so brilliant that even if we attempt to comprehend our brains will explode!

Ascribing everything to a GOD is a COP OUT of THE HIGHEST DEGREE

Umm... yeah... the thing is, that those are representations of God. I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Zeus anyway.

The big bang is the thing which came first in our universe, before that there was no time and you can't talk about things which exist without time as coming from anything.

The belief that time did not exist before the Big Bang is also a faith... it cannot be proven... The fact is that science does not contradict that there is a God.

 

[Lentern]

The big bang is the thing which came first in our universe, before that there was no time and you can't talk about things which exist without time as coming from anything.

The big bang can't have been caused by nothing, not going by the scientific laws of the day, I'm not saying it was caused by Vishnu or Yaheh or Allah or Buddha or L Ron Hubbard, but some higher power must have existed for it to take place. What caused the big bang? Not saying you must accept my religion, but you surely must accept there was a higher power in play?

 

[1947]

We know China exists because our country is being swamped by Asians.

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[1947]

couldnt agree with you more, its the asian invasion.

what a highly intellectual post

 

[Enteebee]

The big bang can't have been caused by nothing

Going by... "the scientific laws/theories of the day" the big bang most definitely could not have been 'caused', there was essentially 'no time' before the big bang. If you can explain to me how something can be caused without time then I'll accept that to ask "What caused the big bang?" is a meaningful question.

 

[Lentern]

Going by... "the scientific laws/theories of the day" the big bang most definitely could not have been 'caused', there was essentially 'no time' before the big bang. If you can explain to me how something can be caused without time then I'll accept that to ask "What caused the big bang?" is a meaningful question.

That's no more a logical and cogent line of thought than the Lord created the world in six days and made eve out of adams rib. But let's try paraphrasing and see if we get anywhere, why did the big bang occur? In accepting something as speculative as the big bang you are practically conceding the existence of a higher power, it's no more scientific than religion.

 

[Enteebee]

But let's try paraphrasing and see if we get anywhere, why did the big bang occur?

I seriously think you're missing my point... Asking for the cause of time, asking 'why' the big bang occurred (the big bang marking the beginning of time) is a meaningless question like "What's north of the north pole?" You cannot have cause (thus time, cause requires time) before time, you cannot have further north than north.

edit: My entire point is that the assumption of your question (that the big bang needed a cause) is wrong, so I can't answer it, I just just tell you that you're wrong.

 

[Lentern]

I seriously think you're missing my point... Asking for the cause of time, asking 'why' the big bang occurred (the big bang marking the beginning of time) is a meaningless question like "What's north of the north pole?" You cannot have cause (thus time, cause requires time) before time, you cannot have further north than north.

edit: My entire point is that the assumption of your question (that the big bang needed a cause) is wrong, so I can't answer it, I just just tell you that you're wrong.

Oh dear, the lack of logic and intellect in such a claim is nauseating to come from the crowd whom like to oh so smugly pronounce them as intellectually superior to those whom believe in deity.

Nothing caused, it just happened, there was no catalyst only consequences and yet it is claimed to be the arguement of the scientific. It's not science, it's not sensible it is completely speculative and devoid of logic.

You can believe that it all started with a bang and that there was nothing before it and that everything came after it and so forth, far be it from me to tell you thats impossible, I believe a man rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but to pass that off as science, for this empire of scientists to claim they are the critical thinkers, they are the intellectuals, they are the ones that won't be swept up into a paranoia of folly speculation is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Believe in the big bang, it is your perogative, it is not however to try and pass the big bang off as science, and christianity, Islam and Hindusim off as religion, what you are arguing is religion, nothing more.

 

[Enteebee]

Oh dear, the lack of logic and intellect in such a claim is nauseating to come from the crowd whom like to oh so smugly pronounce them as intellectually superior to those whom believe in deity.

Nothing caused, it just happened, there was no catalyst only consequences and yet it is claimed to be the arguement of the scientific. It's not science, it's not sensible it is completely speculative and devoid of logic.

You can believe that it all started with a bang and that there was nothing before it and that everything came after it and so forth, far be it from me to tell you thats impossible, I believe a man rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but to pass that off as science, for this empire of scientists to claim they are the critical thinkers, they are the intellectuals, they are the ones that won't be swept up into a paranoia of folly speculation is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Believe in the big bang, it is your perogative, it is not however to try and pass the big bang off as science, and christianity, Islam and Hindusim off as religion, what you are arguing is religion, nothing more.

Are you going to actually present an argument against what I said or is that little irrelevant spiel all you have to say on the matter?

 

[Lentern]

Are you going to actually present an argument against what I said or is that little irrelevant spiel all you have to say on the matter?

Present an arguement against what? It has no cause, it has no elements, it has no scientific basis whatsoever it is just a speculative answer to that which is unanswerable with sound logic. Of course I can't present an arguement against you because doing so would involve testing the credibility of your evidence of which there is none.

 

[Enteebee]

Present an arguement against what? It has no cause, it has no elements, it has no scientific basis whatsoever it is just a speculative answer to that which is unanswerable with sound logic. Of course I can't present an arguement against you because doing so would involve testing the credibility of your evidence of which there is none.

Do you accept that our universe/time has a finite past?
Do you accept that at one point time equaled 0?
Do you accept that without time you cannot have cause?

How can you then not accept that time cannot have a cause? Time at one point was 0, nothing had happened before it, in this state nothing can have a cause and to speak of cause is illogical.

 

[Slidey]

Present an arguement against what? It has no cause, it has no elements, it has no scientific basis whatsoever it is just a speculative answer to that which is unanswerable with sound logic. Of course I can't present an arguement against you because doing so would involve testing the credibility of your evidence of which there is none.

Damn straight.

You were talking about God, right?