Do you believe in "GOD" ,and the "Great" beyond ?
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Then we're not even talking about religion, we're just talking about your own little personal belief in an omnipotent creator. So I wouldn't call that "God".It's about religion alright, but not only about monotheistic, abrahamic religions. Religion is not only the major ones, everything from Christianity to Scientology to those small, shamanic cults in Siberia are religion.
Also, I never claimed that I believe in any omnipotent creator. In fact, I don't. I just pointed out how ignorant you were for claiming that God doesn't exist when you have absolutely no proof of it. Personally I want to believe that there is a God somewhere, but with no proof of it I can't. I refer to my and Rbz's discussion about agnosticism a few pages back in the thread.
I was kind of too lazy to bother checking your ramblings anymore. I had some real life stuff to do. And if we really want to know what religion(s) we're talking about, we'd have to clarify with the topic owner, but for now, I'm going to believe we were talking about the "God" of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I'd probably say all religions are just as stupid as well, but I don't want to argue anymore than I have to. So for the nonexistence of "God", the proof is in logic.
0
Kashurashin wrote...
why wouldnt there be a GOD? can anyone convince me? no one can.
This issue CANNOT be intellectualised. To debate on that is nonsense.
Why wouldnt there be a Giant Spaghetti Monster? can anyone convince me?
no one can.
0
Ironytaken wrote...
Kashurashin wrote...
why wouldnt there be a GOD? can anyone convince me? no one can.
This issue CANNOT be intellectualised. To debate on that is nonsense.
Why wouldnt there be a Giant Spaghetti Monster? can anyone convince me?
no one can.
Ramen.
P.S. thanks for the rep Hazah =).
0
NeoStriker wrote...
So for the nonexistence of "God", the proof is in logic.I still don't see the logic in "No proof of neither existence or nonexistence = nonexistence." We still can't know something as long as we have no proof of it, I'm not saying that God exists, I'm just saying that you shouldn't disregard the possibility.
0
Hypnovier wrote...
First I would like to say that I believe in something, what that God or Goddess is I don't know. Also in the case of the after life I would like to believe that the energy that is our consciousness goes out and gives itself over to the living things of the world.
This part is what is going to piss people off. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone other than me, but what about Einstein's law of conservation of mass. No matter or energy may be created or destroyed, but if matter and energy can't be created how did everything come into being. You may state the big bang theory as the opposition to that, but that would involve something all ready existing, and being compressed to the point of explosion. I believe that the matter needed for the big bang had to be created by that same God or Goddess.
In that same breath it means that the laws of science where made and than the mater created and pushed in the right direction. This all works in my mind because I believe that someone had to think up all the laws of science for us to find them and for everything to work. You need the software to go along with the hardware.
A little shove along creation here and there and you get earth and humans.
I hope I didn't piss to many of you off or that you think I'm crazy. This is just my personal opinion, and there is no scientific proof just my ramblings.
This part is what is going to piss people off. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone other than me, but what about Einstein's law of conservation of mass. No matter or energy may be created or destroyed, but if matter and energy can't be created how did everything come into being. You may state the big bang theory as the opposition to that, but that would involve something all ready existing, and being compressed to the point of explosion. I believe that the matter needed for the big bang had to be created by that same God or Goddess.
In that same breath it means that the laws of science where made and than the mater created and pushed in the right direction. This all works in my mind because I believe that someone had to think up all the laws of science for us to find them and for everything to work. You need the software to go along with the hardware.
A little shove along creation here and there and you get earth and humans.
I hope I didn't piss to many of you off or that you think I'm crazy. This is just my personal opinion, and there is no scientific proof just my ramblings.
But you know, the theory that everytihng has "just been here" for all time (meaning an infinitely long past) is just as reasonable as a "guy who thought this all up."
That's the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.
Edit: Also related to most posts here.
0
StaticChange wrote...
Kashurashin wrote...
Lol, classic answers to classic questions my friend.
I mean, doesnt everyone give a shit abt this?
Rbz is right, but for the sake of debate I will humor you. The argument that god must exist because otherwise life has no purpose already concedes a very self centric view colored with wishful thinking that does not mesh with the concept of faith, of which every religion save atheism borrows extensively.
To admit that you believe god exists because you cannot live with the alternative is to admit you have no true faith in your religion, and on some level, that you don't really even believe at all.
Not that I am truly admonishing you, because faith itself is very senseless. To say that faith can move mountains is a fallacy. It is not faith that does this, it is people. People without faith 'move mountains' daily, but it is not perceived as remarkable, because people see the reason behind it. When you consider this, you will see that this ability of people seems different when driven by faith only because the motives of those who did it are harder to relate to. This makes the event itself more remarkable, even if it is dwarfed in comparison to the scale of the metaphorical mountains moved by everyone else. Take the example of 9/11, which was undeniably remarkable, but truly amazing, or extraordinary? I don't think so, how and can you look at all the cities of the world, and all the skyscrapers standing there, build by people, and call the fall of only two a point in favor of faith?
And to your classic answers to classic questions, to argue religion is to argue classic arguments. No argument we present here will not have been already presented in the past. But as Rbz stated, the burden of proof has always been on religion, not science, even though it has always been required otherwise by society. All of these classic arguments have been of the perspective that that which has proof and is sustainable must disprove that which does not and is not, which is of course impossible. The biggest change to the classic arguments in our time is the shift of this burden of proof. More people want to know why they should believe in god now, not why they should believe in science: because they can see why they should believe in science.
When you accept that the classical arguments exist only from this perspective, you see that when that perspective is reversed they no longer apply. It is religion that needs new arguments, questions, and answers, not science.
Wow wtf?
was anyone expecting this kinda answer? LOL.
What the fuck is your problem man?
I dont even see your point!
Where is your God damn answer to the question??
0
Kashurashinas wrote...
Wow wtf?
was anyone expecting this kinda answer? LOL.
What the fuck is your problem man?
I dont even see your point!
Where is your God damn answer to the question??
I didn't answer your question of 'doesn't everybody care about this' because it was obviously rhetorical. My post was more aimed at the post you made before that, and other things not said by you on the previous page (such as the 9/11 comment made by someone else).
Reread your earlier post and I think my response, especially the first bit, will make more sense to you:
Kashurashin wrote...
why wouldnt there be a GOD? can anyone convince me? no one can.
This issue CANNOT be intellectualised. To debate on that is nonsense.
Also, I didn't mean to pick on you specifically, as I said parts of my post were a more general response to several things said on the previous page, but i do think the entire post is relevant to your claim that the topic cannot be intellectualized. I would appologize for the confusion, but given the level of consideration you have displayed so far, I think it would be lost on you. Suffice to say that my points aren't that hard to find, but i understand it can be easy to miss things when you don't want to find them.
If you would really like me to though, I can break it down for you.
0
Actually, StaticChange, could you break it down for me. I've been reading your posts and am just a little lost. I do respect your opinion, and agree with the fact that this has all been done before by people much smarter than any of us. Not to insult you, and if I'm getting the point at all.
0
I believe anything is possible. if that's not an acceptable answer then you won't get one from me XD
0
You can call me an Atheist.
My vision of religion is that it is similar to a child having an invisible friend.
My vision of religion is that it is similar to a child having an invisible friend.
0
Hypnovier wrote...
Actually, StaticChange, could you break it down for me. I've been reading your posts and am just a little lost. I do respect your opinion, and agree with the fact that this has all been done before by people much smarter than any of us. Not to insult you, and if I'm getting the point at all.Well, the first part of my post is pretty much a direct response to the question of "why wouldn't there be a god?", as that question is verbatim the argument that god must exist just because. Which as Rbz pointed out, is pretty ignorant. I related the problem with that argument to faith however, which is what led me to the partial tangent of the 9/11 stuff (only a tangent with respect to kashurashin's post though, I don't think you could argue it isn't on topic in this thread).
I thought the last part of my post was very clear (about classical arguments) which was directed at the defense of "classic answers to classic questions" that kashurashin used. If you are going to make that argument, why come to a religious debate at all? Never the less, I think my argument demonstrates that there is a solid argument against that defense as well.
Oh, and the post I made following that where I only posted "ramen", you would have to read up more on the flying spaghetti monster to understand the reference probably. But do what you will, we aren't really debating anything anymore, just nitpicking. Lets get back to the former shall we?
0
Kashurashin wrote...
why wouldnt there be a GOD? can anyone convince me? no one can.
This issue CANNOT be intellectualised. To debate on that is nonsense.
"No reason for god not to exist"?
What a freaking cop-out.
I could make anything and everything seem plausible with that logic. This is a child's argument, wanting only to be considered right, no matter the situation or facts.
Also, claiming that an issue can't be thought about, it just has to be believed, is pure dictatorship.
Why the hell should the burden of proof be on those who don't believe? You're the one claiming it exists, then go ahead and show us proof already.
In every single profession around the world, or even normal situation, when a person claims something, that person must prove it for others to believe him/her.
Because you do need to show proof. This is like a child who thinks there's a monster under it's bed, but the monster goes away when their parents come to check. Time and time again it is proven the monster is not there. The conclusion is that the child is making it up. Which doesn't mean that the child is less afraid. The child truly believes the monster to be real, while it isn't. Same thing with this "God" and his believers.
"God" is supposed to be at all places, all the time. Yet when you can't see him, that's "lack of faith", or some other cop-out.
Hey guys, there's an invisible car parked in my street, and you can walk through it. Prove me wrong.
You can't! Existence of invisible walk-through car proven :)
0
Whether or not God exists, this debate will rage eternal.
Something tells me that if God does exist he is something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBj46WHp1k
Something tells me that if God does exist he is something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBj46WHp1k
0
fenkata1 wrote...
I believe there is something out there. Though I also think God is an alien :?I agree!
GOKU IS GOD!!!
All hail to GOD GOKU!
0
Zorbius wrote...
Kashurashin wrote...
why wouldnt there be a GOD? can anyone convince me? no one can.
This issue CANNOT be intellectualised. To debate on that is nonsense.
"No reason for god not to exist"?
What a freaking cop-out.
I could make anything and everything seem plausible with that logic. This is a child's argument, wanting only to be considered right, no matter the situation or facts.
Also, claiming that an issue can't be thought about, it just has to be believed, is pure dictatorship.
BLABLABLA
Hey guys, there's an invisible car parked in my street, and you can walk through it. Prove me wrong.
You can't! Existence of invisible walk-through car proven :)
Whatever those nerds are tryin to say,
I for me, just wanted to say, by what i said above,
That no one would EVER be able to prove the existence of GOD by logical thoughts.
And i just tried to underline this impossibility of intellectualisation,
& blabla the usual you know.
Yes, for those who didnt get it, my first argument was a fucking Joke!
I mean, ...Come on.
... yeah, if theres a God, it d be Goku for sureee.