Does God exist?

[RookParliament]

I think that if I could be given adequate proof that a single being or group of beings created the universe; created matter and energy, then I would believe in a god or gods. No need for proof that god started the spiral of ever increasing complexity of carbon atoms to make life or anything else. Just the single act of creating the universe. I wouldn't worship the being, but I would coinsider it our God.

Maybe a retard God making random noises on a flute.

 

[Kenneth R.]

What the hell are you talking about? "Sight" is the input of your senses, the only way one receives information. "Faith" is your belief that, regardless of the input of the senses, God is all true and good (and whatever else you believe). It seems like you're obfuscating the issue with rhetoric.



You are contradicting yourself. If you "collectively" understand something, that means that you all understand it the same way. Or did you mean something else? Since language is an inexact "science," there is no one true meaning to any passage.

collective understanding = agreement. and not just agreement, or i would have written that word instead. people can agree and be wrong. i'm talking about seeking the truth, and sharing it, so that the different facets discovered can be pieced together to show the whole.

the faith vs. sight issue is beyond your understanding, it seems. have you never thought to "see" with your mind?

 

[Demiurge]

As far as my understanding of it is concerned, humans are animals. That's akin to saying "what separates dogs from animals..."

What separates humans from other animals?

The answer is ontological.

 

[Iridium]

collective understanding = agreement. and not just agreement, or i would have written that word instead. people can agree and be wrong. i'm talking about seeking the truth, and sharing it, so that the different facets discovered can be pieced together to show the whole.

the faith vs. sight issue is beyond your understanding, it seems. have you never thought to "see" with your mind?

You are suggesting an objective, specific meaning to every section in the Bible. It appears that you've gone beyond yourself, claiming to know that there is a "true" meaning to the Bible. Our very argument here, on this one passage, proves my point: a vague, non-specific, non-technical, mythical text full of allegories and ill-defined terms cannot have a "true" meaning, as one's interpretation is mostly subjective. Here is my literary dissection of this passage: "walk" means "live;" "sight" means "the senses;" and "faith" means one's faith in God to show the way. Thus, the passage becomes "for we live by our faith in God to show us the way, not by the actual input of our senses." Is it critically wrong somewhere, or is it simpler and more concise than your rambling explanation? As far as absolutes go, it's anyone's guess, though one explanation may be more convincing than another.

 

[Disciple of the Watch]

Bible is a great book if not taken seriously.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Iridium, i am indeed saying there was a true meaning, that which was intended as it was written by the authors. that meaning may have multiple facets. we cannot ask them what they meant since they are dead, but we can interpret for ourselves (as we have done) and discuss what we think, to better understand our own views and that of others. you will find that most christians agree in interpretations.

 

[Iridium]

Yes, right, which is precisely why there is no such thing as a "denomination" of the Christian faith, no rift between the Catholics and Protestants and the dozens of movements within protestanism itself. If the Bible was indeed inspired by the word of god, its message would be clear to anyone who set his eyes upon it. Whatever the "true" meaning was (since it was penned by dozens of authors - mostly sunbaked Jews), I know that its authors did not consider me or my objections to their scripture, so as far as I am concerned, it's nothing more than a myth, one which borrows heavily from other mythologies.

Now, explain to me your literary dissection of that Corinthians quote and please tell me why you think your interpretation is superior.

PS: I doubt that, if he exists, God created us with the purpose of "interpret[ing] for ourselves (as we have done) and discuss[ing] what we think, to better understand our own views and that of others." Like, totally, man. After all, are we speaking about the same megalomaniacal, attention-deprived schoolyard bully? I've heard about as many definitions/descriptions of the Christian god as the number of Christians I've argued with.

 

[Kenneth R.]

are you sure you were arguing with faithful, or just those who called themselves Christians?

as for the passage, its quite an unambiguous one...

 

[Inchoate]

are you sure you were arguing with faithful, or just those who called themselves Christians?

as for the passage, its quite an unambiguous one...

This is why people like you are problematic for boards like this:

-you refuse to back up your claims
-you condescend to your audience
-you are seemingly unable to answer direct questions with anything but vagueries or evasions
EDIT: -you also appear to misrepresent your opponents so as to further evade the question posed to you.

if you can't participate in a discussion where answers are required (confer my question to you earlier in this thread, where all you gave me was half-baked bullshit about miracles and some attestation that I don't believe in such a phenomenon, therefore I'll never "get it" - you can't argue in favour of possessing esoterically-derived knowledge of Christian origin without providing something other than "you'll never see things my way" and expect to be taken seriously), than stop cluttering up the discussion with pointless "I agree"s and contextless assertions to justify your solipsism.

 

[Silver Incubus]

isn't that a little harsh?

 

[Iridium]

are you sure you were arguing with faithful, or just those who called themselves Christians?

as for the passage, its quite an unambiguous one...

1. How the hell should I know if people are "faithful" or not? They claim to believe in the teachings of Christ. They claim to follow the Bible the best they could. They claim salvation and penance and all that other crap that Christianity is about. And then they go off on their own theories and justifications of why things happen, how things happen, and that (but not why) a deity is required.

2. How many people do you know who simply "called themselves Christians?" Why would you call yourself a Christian if you were not one? You're on the verge of committing a huge "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

3. Unambiguous? Are you walking by faith? You certainly aren't walking by sight. If two people disagree on it, it's ambiguous by definition. Now, address my charges - they're starting to pile up.

 

[Kenneth R.]

isn't that a little harsh?

a little trollish more likely

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. How the hell should I know if people are "faithful" or not? They claim to believe in the teachings of Christ. They claim to follow the Bible the best they could. They claim salvation and penance and all that other crap that Christianity is about. And then they go off on their own theories and justifications of why things happen, how things happen, and that (but not why) a deity is required.

2. How many people do you know who simply "called themselves Christians?" Why would you call yourself a Christian if you were not one? You're on the verge of committing a huge "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

3. Unambiguous? Are you walking by faith? You certainly aren't walking by sight. If two people disagree on it, it's ambiguous by definition. Now, address my charges - they're starting to pile up.

claims are one thing, actions are another. you will know by their actions, not their words.

why would you call yourself such if you aren't? to mislead, of course. intentionally or not.

you still don't see the point of the paragraph. it means generally what i said it does... your charges are unfounded

 

[Inchoate]

Another dodge, shit-talker.

Why can't you simply address the questions?

Is it easier to hide within constructed pretense then to clear up ambiguities?

Or can you not further expand upon your "points" as you have made them thus far? Making unclear statements without clarifying them upon request is bad form, neighbour.

Instead of tossing out ad homs to the gallery, address the questions posed. This is about ideas, not personalities.

EDIT: by the way, feel free to cleverly point out the ad hom I just used - it's quite irrelevant to any answer you might have for this discussion. You are the one running from this debate by evasion and sidestepping. The burden of proof is on you to come through on the ideas you champion, instead of wittily pointing out the inconsistencies of the people arguing them

 

[dreaming neon darkspot]

I don't need religion in my life. I've never had a higher power that I looked to. I honestly don't see how anyone can claim with absoulute certainty that there is a force that we've never seen and have no proof of but it created the entire world, and furthermore how they can devote trillions of dollars to it over centuries upon centuries and be seen as not only sane people, but good people. God is a fantasty someone had a long time ago and instead of recognizing it as their imaginary friend, convinced everyone else that it was real.

I think faith is a personal matter, but only because I think it's a lie.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Another dodge, shit-talker.

Why can't you simply address the questions?

Is it easier to hide within constructed pretense then to clear up ambiguities?

Or can you not further expand upon your "points" as you have made them thus far? Making unclear statements without clarifying them upon request is bad form, neighbour.

Instead of tossing out ad homs to the gallery, address the questions posed. This is about ideas, not personalities.

EDIT: by the way, feel free to cleverly point out the ad hom I just used - it's quite irrelevant to any answer you might have for this discussion. You are the one running from this debate by evasion and sidestepping. The burden of proof is on you to come through on the ideas you champion, instead of wittily pointing out the inconsistencies of the people arguing them

its clear by this reply that you're just trying to troll an angry insult-laden response from me. sorry to disappoint you. i'll ignore you from now on, unless you say something worth commenting on.

 

[EphelDuath]

Well,God is a fucking NONEXISTANCE..and Satan or all angels you have ever heard about are Nonexistances..If God would exist i wouldy deny him anyway..

 

[Disciple of the Watch]

If God would exist i wouldy deny him anyway..

Then you are a fool.

 

[EphelDuath]

Then you are a fool.

haha,then you wouldnt resist him as a slave?Fuck God Anyway..

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

We understood you as saying that if God existed you would still deny his existance. I don't know what you're going on about now.