Does God exist?

[crimsonfloyd]

actually you are incorrect in your assessment of such "flaws". if one is perfect, one can create imperfection.

No ummm... actually that would be an imperfect act, which is impossible for a perfect being. Can the perfect Quarterback throw a bad pass? Can the perfect guitarest play a wrong note?

if God created perfect beings, he would have created peers. instead humanity is imperfect so that they should turn to his perfect nature for guidance. as his peers, they would chance the possibility to seek to overthrow him, and heed not his advice.

Of course if they were also perfect beings the desire to do so would never arise, cuz they would be in effect, nothing more then exact clones of the originial god. His thoughts would be theirs.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I think it's that easy: The Christian God is proven wrong because the bible is proven wrong. The whole fairy-tale of Genesis can't be true by scientific standards. Don't tell me it's figural. That's only the first step, just speak it out: it's made up = not real! If your answer is: "The bible IS only figurative for the moral and leaves space to scientific research because it's not meant to be scientific.", think twice: You still claim that God is real and NOT only figurative. That's double standard. Either you admit that the Genesis including the Creator is just a fairy-tale or you have to take the whole package: God exists only as the God that made men of clay. A Christian who believes that the stories of the bible are a disguise for for the moral, is one who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

I disagree. there is a difference between your polarizing assumptions that it is either a "fairy tale" or absolutely literal AS WE COMMONLY UNDERSTAND IT.
my position is that it is truth, but a truth that has been misinterpreted by a great many people who see words but no meaning.

It really goes down to: Who is right - the bible or science? If you believe that science is wrong, then you staring at a screen right now must be an illusion. That we have working computers, tv-sets, satellites, planes and everything is prove enough that science is if not true, then at least "good wrong". Anyhow, it's better than the bible.

how idiotic. science and religion are not polar opposites. again you falsely portray this notion. they are seperate but dependent entites. science progresses by systematically assuming what is true by proving what is not. this system is based on faith, and so is religion. one chooses to believe the world is flat by evidence of a flat horizon until proven otherwise by better science. one must also approach religious matters with a scientific mind, understand that no faith can be based on nothing, it must have evidence suggesting truth, though just as in science, "truth" is something i believe we humans will never be able to prove. we merely eliminate possibilities.

and on what grounds are you comparing science with the bible? for literary merit? or purpose? or your own quip insult to those of faith? you have no grounds for that argument.

If someone still believes the bible to be true opposed to science, that person's either stupid or blind (and stupid). I can't think of anything more to say.

finally you say something i can agree with. why then did you write what you did above? you contradict yourself.

My first point remains: you can't disprove the existance of a supernatural being. But why would you want to prove either? Why waste time on it? I see no reason to believe in such a thing. For me I can say that I'm an atheist. But that doesn't say anything about my belief system. If you say that it takes faith in not believing in God or any god, that's flawed. Then it also takes faith not to believe in unicorns and Hobbits and witches and a giant cucumber that created the world. Whatever you make up that's only part of YOUR belief system, not mine. What I don't believe in doesn't desribe what I believe in.

but you are wrong again. it is a matter of faith, no matter how much you may despise the word. as you have said yourself, one cannot at this time prove or disprove the existence of God or any god. then how do you come to decide that such a being does not exist? it is not provable, thus your decision is a matter of faith. your experiences and evidence have shown you that this being does not exist, but cannot prove it. you then assume on faith the conclusion that they are not real.

Concerning Christianity I can only say I find the whole concepts, the commandments, the moral and the rules to be flawed, false, destructive and evil.

You find honor, justice, truth, fidelity, loyalty, love, and peace destructive, false, flawed and evil? i question your rationale.

 

[Kenneth R.]

No ummm... actually that would be an imperfect act, which is impossible for a perfect being. Can the perfect Quarterback throw a bad pass? Can the perfect guitarest play a wrong note?

skilled musicians and sports players sometimes error on purpose so that they may achieve some greater goal. suppose as i have stated God creates imperfection so that we may seek his guidance.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I DIDN'T POST IT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR STATEMENT!!! Your statements are rarely worth responding to. I posted it in response to the title of the thread.

How high, exactly, is the horse that you ride, Christian boy?

1. you should have clarified that. hence, write something other than just a link. since you posted your link immediately following my post, i assumed it was a "response"

2. i claim no elitism. i am a human as you are. please keep the insults to yourself, they have no place in this discussion.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

skilled musicians and sports players sometimes error on purpose so that they may achieve some greater goal.

Thats because every musican and athelete has been imperfect, and the great ones have realized that they can minipulate their weaknesses to outsmart their opponents or sonic spectrum of work. This does not make them perfect, but rather great at using their imperfections to their advantage. There is an obvious difference.

suppose as i have stated God creates imperfection so that we may seek his guidance

I would say god is rather insecure and co-dependent. I would say god isn't much different then an abusive husband who tries to make their wife dependent on them for every descision. To create something to have it obey you... he who does that deserves no respect, but rather to be spat in the face of.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

1. you should have clarified that. hence, write something other than just a link. since you posted your link immediately following my post, i assumed it was a "response"

If he was replying directly to you he would have quoted one of your posts.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Thats because every musican and athelete has been imperfect, and the great ones have realized that they can minipulate their weaknesses to outsmart their opponents or sonic spectrum of work. This does not make them perfect, but rather great at using their imperfections to their advantage. There is an obvious difference.

I would say god is rather insecure and co-dependent. I would say god isn't much different then an abusive husband who tries to make their wife dependent on them for every descision. To create something to have it obey you... he who does that deserves no respect, but rather to be spat in the face of.

1. are you suggesting a perfect being is incapable of creating imperfection? then how are they perfect? a perfect being would be capable of all things, perfect knowledge, perfect skill.

2.
that is your opinion and i disagree with it. you may do as you wish. may have done the same before you back unto roman times. also, you misunderstand, the purpose of creation is not obedience, but obedience is an important factor to that purpose.

 

[Kenneth R.]

If he was replying directly to you he would have quoted one of your posts.

not everyone does.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

1. are you suggesting a perfect being is incapable of creating imperfection? then how are they perfect? a perfect being would be capable of all things, perfect knowledge, perfect skill.

Yup I agree a perfect being must be capable of doing and thinking all things. But a perfect being must also not be able to think, create or do anything that is imperfect- as this would be undeniably an imperfect action. Therefore the only way for a perfect being to logically exist would be if there were no imperfection. As long as we can concieve inperfection there can be no perfect god.

2.
that is your opinion and i disagree with it.

Indeed.

you may do as you wish. may have done the same before you back unto roman times. also, you misunderstand, the purpose of creation is not obedience, but obedience is an important factor to that purpose.

Well I can also say that you have simply misunderstood and the purpose of creation WAS indeed obedience. So unless you can somehow first prove that god exists and then prove what he was thinking when he created humans, stating that I am misunderstood is completely unfounded.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Yup I agree a perfect being must be capable of doing and thinking all things. But a perfect being must also not be able to think, create or do anything that is imperfect- as this would be undeniably an imperfect action. Therefore the only way for a perfect being to logically exist would be if there were no imperfection. As long as we can concieve inperfection there can be no perfect god.

Well I can also say that you have simply misunderstood and the purpose of creation WAS indeed obedience. So unless you can somehow first prove that god exists and then prove what he was thinking when he created humans, stating that I am misunderstood is completely unfounded.

1. if the being is perfect, their thoughts and actions are also perfect. your argument relies on the basis that creating imperfection renders the creator imperfect. i disagree.

2. keep in mind you are discussing christianity with a christian. i feel qualified to tell someone when i think they have misunderstood what it represents.

 

[Silver Incubus]

god is an alien that created mankind a long time ago. The watchers from genesis are what we call UFOs.

 

[bornlivedie]

@ Silent Song

I disagree. there is a difference between your polarizing assumptions that it is either a "fairy tale" or absolutely literal AS WE COMMONLY UNDERSTAND IT.
my position is that it is truth, but a truth that has been misinterpreted by a great many people who see words but no meaning.

Let me get this straight, the bible gives us statements like this: Men are made of clay. You say this is the truth, but it's misinterpreted!?!? I can't follow you there. My point is, it's obvious that the stories of the bible are made up. They didn't know any better and used these descriptions to express their views = fairy-tale/ myth or whatever you call it. And I still think it's naive to pick up a character (God) from a tale and pretend it's real while admitting the rest is made up. Now YOU even think it's all real. Then tell me how is it to understand that men are made of clay?
Do you find it extremely exaggerated "polarizing" to ask you wether or not Harry Potter is real? I do not.

how idiotic. science and religion are not polar opposites. again you falsely portray this notion. they are seperate but dependent entites. science progresses by systematically assuming what is true by proving what is not. this system is based on faith, and so is religion. one chooses to believe the world is flat by evidence of a flat horizon until proven otherwise by better science. one must also approach religious matters with a scientific mind, understand that no faith can be based on nothing, it must have evidence suggesting truth, though just as in science, "truth" is something i believe we humans will never be able to prove. we merely eliminate possibilities.

and on what grounds are you comparing science with the bible? for literary merit? or purpose? or your own quip insult to those of faith? you have no grounds for that argument.

I didn't say, and I don't think that religion and science are polar opposites, and BECAUSE I think that they even must go hand in hand I HAVE to deny Christianity. "By systematically assuming what is true by proving what is not", you don't come to the conclusion that men are made of clay, but that men evolved. With bringing in science I don't attack the religious believes but the credibility of the bible. If someone offers you a tale where things happen that contradict science, you can safely assume that it's made up. That goes just as much for the bible as for Harry Potter.

finally you say something i can agree with. why then did you write what you did above? you contradict yourself.

No, I don't.

but you are wrong again. it is a matter of faith, no matter how much you may despise the word. as you have said yourself, one cannot at this time prove or disprove the existence of God or any god. then how do you come to decide that such a being does not exist? it is not provable, thus your decision is a matter of faith. your experiences and evidence have shown you that this being does not exist, but cannot prove it. you then assume on faith the conclusion that they are not real.

I admit you have a point there: of course I believe God to be wrong, but I tried to seperate that from my actual personal faith, that's why I brought in "belief system". I have my faith/ belief system and I like to put in there what I DO believe, not what I DON'T believe in. Otherwise, following you, my giant cucumber will now be forever part of your faith no matter if you believe in it or not. Your God does not correlate with anything of my belief system, so I say it's none of my faith. File that under "personal preferences" if you want.

You find honor, justice, truth, fidelity, loyalty, love, and peace destructive, false, flawed and evil? i question your rationale.

I question your understanding of moral, because it's not a matter of rationale. And if you find it justified to stone gays and people who work on sundays I feel free to call it evil. That's only examples. The bible gives you the right to stone at least every second one of your neighbours. If you call cruel things true and just it doesn't make it any better. What Christianity brought forth is nowhere near what you said, and not despite but because of the bible.


Keep to your god and mind the :hotjump:

 

[bornlivedie]

He actually said that?
that guy is awesome

Not in an interview but it's a line from the extended version of Even Less: "Fuck you and your book too - you can have it back" to correct myself. Did you know the original chorus of the song in the demo version was:
"But Jesus was crucified for doing nothing - And God is worshiped for even less"

 

[G-Master]

I question your understanding of moral, because it's not a matter of rationale. And if you find it justified to stone gays and people who work on sundays I feel free to call it evil. That's only examples. The bible gives you the right to stone at least every second one of your neighbours. If you call cruel things true and just it doesn't make it any better. What Christianity brought forth is nowhere near what you said, and not despite but because of the bible.

The vast majority of the Old Testament was governed by the Mosaic Law. And a tremendous amount of men in those days were blinded, bigoted, and wore their religion on the outside, abiding under laws and (false) teachings.

Hostility was a strong element in their customs, or in a culture that was enthralled by a system of beliefs that indicated how acts gained holiness, and a true relationship with, God, not faith.

It's similar to the teachings on tithing: How a multitude of self-appointed ministers will pollute their lessons on the subject by claiming a man is stealing from, God--even in today's society--and will pay the price if he refuses to give money. They take Malachi 3:8 far out of context, which in the time that it was written, the culture was still ruled by the Mosaic Law.

Now, as a believer, I don't completely disregard what the Old Testament has to say, because there are many examples of benefits for those who choose a path to follow, God. However, I understand the mindset of those who lived in those times, and that in today's society, or should I say: after Christ came along, they could be proven irrelevant and completely out of place.

Read the New Testament, especially the Gospels, for a clear and a more relevant view on this way of life, before judging it based on what was written under a bigoted law.

As far as the topic of the thread goes, I think it is obvious what I believe. Yes, I believe that a superior being created the universe. But, I also believe that this being's existence can neither be proved nor disproved.

 

[Kenneth R.]

@ Silent Song
Let me get this straight, the bible gives us statements like this: Men are made of clay. You say this is the truth, but it's misinterpreted!?!? I can't follow you there. My point is, it's obvious that the stories of the bible are made up. They didn't know any better and used these descriptions to express their views = fairy-tale/ myth or whatever you call it. And I still think it's naive to pick up a character (God) from a tale and pretend it's real while admitting the rest is made up. Now YOU even think it's all real. Then tell me how is it to understand that men are made of clay?
Do you find it extremely exaggerated "polarizing" to ask you wether or not Harry Potter is real? I do not.

perhaps you do not understand.
1. misinterpreted. you take it absolutely literally from the perspective assuming that such things are impossible. if God is omnipotent, he should be capable of creating life from the inanimate.
2. Harry Potter is a clearly fictional character, created by an author who admits such truth. further, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is anything more than such. there are no miracles, no witnesses, and no historical accounts of his existance. you cannot compare them.
3. perhaps it may be "obvious" to you that the bible is "made up" but you cannot hope to prove that. it is a focus of debate, and one chooses a side that makes sense to one's understanding.

I didn't say, and I don't think that religion and science are polar opposites, and BECAUSE I think that they even must go hand in hand I HAVE to deny Christianity. "By systematically assuming what is true by proving what is not", you don't come to the conclusion that men are made of clay, but that men evolved. With bringing in science I don't attack the religious believes but the credibility of the bible. If someone offers you a tale where things happen that contradict science, you can safely assume that it's made up. That goes just as much for the bible as for Harry Potter.

1. again, if God is supernatural, his actions and influnece are also supernatural and beyond petty laws of physics as we humans have come to understand them thus far. keep in mind that science constantly proves itself wrong and adapts as necessary to new ideas of what "is true".
2.again, see above for your pointless comparison to harry potter.
3. the theory of macro evolution has many flaws. you cannot claim that is fact when even still it is called theory.
4. you are entitled to accept or deny whatever you so choose. your personal feelings have no bearing on my point of view.

I question your understanding of moral, because it's not a matter of rationale. And if you find it justified to stone gays and people who work on sundays I feel free to call it evil. That's only examples. The bible gives you the right to stone at least every second one of your neighbours. If you call cruel things true and just it doesn't make it any better. What Christianity brought forth is nowhere near what you said, and not despite but because of the bible.

and what gave you that impression? i never once mentioned such acts. stoning is to wound a fellow being, regardless of their sexual preference or whatever else they have done, it is in my opinion wrong. i do believe people should take time to understand life and experience it rather than working 24/7. this does not mean anyone who works on sunday should be punished, but people should not live for work. the things i mentioned are the core traits admired by christianity and those taught. perhaps you haven't read the bible? all of it... you called them the "concepts, the commandments, the moral and the rules". need i post the "10 commandments" or passages explaining moral right?

Keep to your god

rest assured, i will.

 

[Hypnos]

@Silent Song

you lay your beliefs heavily in each one of your arguments. i can undersatand that. that's what i would do standng in your shoes. now, just try to look beyond your horizon, and let your beliefgs aside for twenty seconds.
from my atheistic poit of view is Harry Potter as divine as your biblical JHVH is. these are just two fictional writings, the HP books and bible. it's just the question if someone is strong enough to throw away his chains or not. i don't need no particular religious leadership, nor do i need any prewitten codex to show me how to get caught in someone's economic superiority

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I agree somewhat, but if something is misinterpreted and misrepresented by nearly everyone for several centuries, when do you say "enough" and just throw it out?

You don't. You resort to radical traditionalism or a rediscovery of the culture's roots.

 

[Kenneth R.]

@Silent Song

you lay your beliefs heavily in each one of your arguments. i can undersatand that. that's what i would do standng in your shoes. now, just try to look beyond your horizon, and let your beliefgs aside for twenty seconds.
from my atheistic poit of view is Harry Potter as divine as your biblical JHVH is. these are just two fictional writings, the HP books and bible. it's just the question if someone is strong enough to throw away his chains or not. i don't need no particular religious leadership, nor do i need any prewitten codex to show me how to get caught in someone's economic superiority

no no... i don't agree. even if i were not christian, there is actual evidence and research concerning the (possible) existance of Jesus and God. further, biblical events have been shown to correlate to historical events (such as the great flood of Noah). furthermore, people around the world attest to God's miracles and influence. you don't have anything of the sort for harry potter. furthermore, the author of harry potter acknowledges his fictional nature, wheras the contributors to the writing of the bible asserted conviction in the reality of their accounts. there simply is no comparison, even without religion.

in today's society, the chains are not held by those who follow what they believe in their hearts, whatever that may be. the chains are upon those who believe only what they are told, and without second thought.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

in today's society, the chains are not held by those who follow what they believe in their hearts, whatever that may be. the chains are upon those who believe only what they are told, and without second thought.

.

As usual.

 

[Kenneth R.]

yeah, it is most unfortunate.