The debate "God is a ridiculous notion invented by humans to make themselves feel better" was started by
May 11, 2015, 8:26 pm.
82 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 110 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
WaspToxin posted 2 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 27 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 61 arguments, omactivate posted 27 arguments, ADrunkenRobot posted 1 argument, Goyboy posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
debunked26 posted 2 arguments, ufufugh posted 1 argument, evamara posted 1 argument, abdulhadi posted 1 argument, tryhard2s posted 5 arguments, Alex posted 96 arguments, Hitmenjr posted 5 arguments, windu2420 posted 2 arguments, Lane posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
sighnomore99, Benzdick, Sosocratese, username_gracie, DarkAngelAnarchist, shinywhale, mdavis1309, transfanboy, skyfrancois_97, kyopsis23, danielle, soullesschicken, Zero0, fgarcia505, Triz, WaspToxin, Yuki_Amayane, historybuff, sloanstar1000, jbailee, Digi10ve, awzain, Robert16, pajrc1234, shawncola, Eechyobooty, leprechaundances, fuckthehatersss, Gman119, DeadMore, omactivate, ADrunkenRobot, SweetAngel, juliette_os, Goyboy, AndRea, invincible_01, Bodaciouslady16, Nethersquid, mafiajo, zoeclare7, wmgreen00 and 40 visitors agree.
toughgamerjerry, wmd, lung1988, project_mayhem, AnkGanu, Gurkavitch, debunked26, Pamelamccubbins, ufufugh, DavidStuff777, evamara, Dbass24, prisonmanic, Weakley, InfiniBro, The_lamp, Bxat9, sabrina, abdulhadi, tryhard2s, Hitmenjr, Alex, AstroSpace, bigB, MoonlightX, steven_kh, Skeetc15, ailasorecarg, shawnster, stevenchen, elson, WilliamLewis, KicknRush, Alp4president, Deebraxx02, srishti_pinkleaves, Lane, TheChosenProphecy, Lahiru, roshni, Nury, windu2420, andrewkorman and 67 visitors disagree.
Does age make anything more or less true?
I would completely agree with your Bigfoot example, what makes the Christian concept of God different is that it is much older, which, to me, makes it harder to find evidence for or against it. But both are an unknown thing, something that science has NOT been able to conclude.
When you say "we needed the notion of god to feel safe and to have a mechanism to form social groups." ok I can kind of understand that, but elaborate on what you meant by it being a mechanism to form social groups. Define social groups(include ancient and modern examples), tell me if they are necessary for society, tell me why, then explain how a concept of God would have helped move this along.
By necessary, I mean we needed the notion of god to feel safe and to have a mechanism to form social groups.
we have no evidence for or against the existence of Bigfoot except for weird things people said. So maybe Bigfoot exists and we can't rule Bigfoot out.
And of course it still stands that it is ridiculous to call anybody else's beliefs "ridiculous notions" unless they are morally wrong.
@omactivate "The purpose for god is not what is being criticized." if you are saying that the purpose for God is not a part of this question, reread the whole thing and realize that it can, in fact, be broken down into two parts.
"As for events like the parting of the red sea or visions, we have no evidence of their existence." Do we have hard evidence that they absolutely did not happen, or that nothing that could have been interpreted incorrectly by the science-lacking people who supposedly experienced them? Read my other argument. I specifically said that we do not know that these things happened, but can you just rule out that there might have been something that was interpreted that way? You cannot. Nobody can. But you're welcome to keep trying.
"The reasons for god are unproven, no longer necessary, and scientifically impossible." So you are saying that God's existence is not proven, acknowledge also that God's existence is not actually proven against. You are saying that God is "no longer necessary", which I found very interesting and would like more clarification on. I'm interpreting that as saying that God used to be necessary, which means that back then he must not have been a "ridiculous notion". If that is what you're saying, then what changed that he is not necessary anymore?
"scientifically impossible" I have already answered what I think about that statement. Back then, flying was impossible. Now we have thousands of airplanes in the air every day. Scientists are constantly discovering new things that challenge previous theories and rules. Scientific impossibility cannot be determined until you know absolutely every thing about science that there is to know. And you don't. Nobody does. So, a better way to say "scientifically impossible" is "unable to be scientifically determined" which does not mean that it could never have happened.
@pajrc1234 "It was that humans made up God to make themselves 1) feel better about death and 2) explain things that they didn't know at the time of the event." I am confused at what your point is here... when we don't know things, it is natural to try to reach a conclusion and have an explanation for something that has happened. People do it every single day. That is not a "ridiculous notion", that is called a guess at what could have caused something, a hypothesis of sorts. That's what God is: a hypothesis that has yet to actually be proven, or unproven.
sorry I didn't respond earlier, buy historybuff is right. God could have used the bone to make her humam, then made new chromosomes.
while I don't believe almost anything the Bible say, saying that eve was male is meaningless. if she was personally crafted by God then he could change her chromosomes. please stop saying that is some kind of viable proof.
Also the fact that it was genetically impossible for her to give birth to children (due to the fact that Eve (or you could argue Steve now (Adam & Steve, not Adam and Eve! xD)) was made up of Adam's rib, so Steve inherited the Y chromosome and was male) can mean that this never happened in the first place.
That's actually what the entire statement was about. It was that humans made up God to make themselves 1) feel better about death and 2) explain things that they didn't know at the time of the event.
The purpose for god is not what is being criticized. That is the existence of god. As for events like the parting of the red sea or visions, we have no evidence of their existence. The reasons for god are unproven, no longer necessary, and scientifically impossible. Sounds to me like a ridiculous notion.
What an accusatory debate we have here... So most people who agree with the statement seem to be very resolute with the "God is a ridiculous notion" part, but what exactly is this notion comforting us from?
I personally disagree with harsh statements like this one, that "God is a ridiculous notion". God is what people believe, and nobody really has the right to criticize what others believe unless that belief is morally incorrect. That criticism is precisely the reason their is so much upheaval in society on the grounds of religion.
I do not think that God is a "ridiculous notion" though. I think God is what early peoples were able to come up with when they witnessed certain events, which means that, rather than being a "ridiculous notion", it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. When the early people, who lacked real science, saw the Red Sea part for Moses, or had visions telling them what to do, or talked to Jesus after he had died... what else would they attribute that to? We still face the same issue today: a lot of biblical events, while some can perhaps be disproved by modern science, remain unexplained to us. Is God a completely unreasonable idea, a "ridiculous notion"?
As for the second part of the statement, I think that most skeptics probably would agree with it. It is not a ridiculous notion to think that the purpose of religion, which basically gives us moral guidelines to help us reach a specific state after death, is to make people feel better about something, like death. But does that mean that everything recorded in the bible can just be scrapped? It did have a "great flood" story, and that's common in many religions, people across the land, the telling of an abnormal flood. I think that most of the stories told in the bible are at least based on something that actually happened. Many of these events are miraculous, not something that the average man could do, or can do today. So of course they are attributed to a higher power, such as God. This is what I think the purpose of God is: to explain things that were inexplicable in the time that they actually happened.
Alex, please respond. It's not a debate without a person who can't win the argument like you.
religious people got together and discussed Jesus' teachings that have no proof. Scientists got together and discussed solid evidence that they had with them and could easily tell as real with DNA tests and tests on the content of fossils. Jesus's teachings had no evidence in front of them that could be verified as real and truthful.
Yes, but scientifically, "she" was always male.
Also Dave for your question a needed specification is what gender Alex is, because that's a name that can go both ways.
Alex, if someone took part of you and used it to grow a new person, what gender would that new person be?
you are saying religious people all got together to make up the bible. you and I are saying the same thing, yet you say my argument is crazy, so therefore yours is too.
evolution, by no means disproves religion, or at least the Catholic faith.
I'm pretty sure eve was female. she is called "the MOTHER of all living" she gave birth to children. I don't see how she was male.
Now you're just making stuff up. You don't have to deny it, just stop making up stuff!
Also, I have something for you.
God created Eve from Adam's rib.
If he created her from a rib, the genotype would be 44 XY.
Adam's partner was male.
P.S. - We don't know then (if that was true), how females happened.
P.P.S. - Religion didn't see that coming.
so you are saying that scientists all across the planet, from every country are faking fossil records to disprove religion? that's insane.
clear and we'll documented once the scientist change them, and combine bones, take fossils that occurred at way different time periods.
no. pointing to fossils of the different stages of evolution which are clear and well documented is undeniable proof. the only way to deny it is ignorance of facts.
I know, but pointing to a extinct fossil and saying "evolution" is not undeniable proof.
their descendants slowly evolved into a different species. that is how evolution works.
They had no decedents, because they went extinct, if you have descendants you can't be extinct
Yes, they are extinct species whose descendants because modern species.
so the fossils can't be those of extinct species.
You keep saying it's not undeniable, yet you are being hypocritical. God has never had any evidence, and probably will never have any undeniable evidence.
Evolution is fact. The scientists agreed on the evidence, and it's undeniable. There's the fossils, you know about that. The other evidence is the differences in people today. Natural selection will help those who can think (the logical people), fight (those all sports guys), and change. There's even a "God gene" that makes it somewhat hard to accept the non existence of God. That's actually from evolution. So by still fighting with weak arguments so you don't lose, you would actually prove evolution correct.
No, we are offering proof. You can go to any museum and see fossils of creatures that predate man and are not mentioned in the Bible. We give a detailed explanation of what proof exists and why it supports evolution so that you can independently verify it. You are saying evidence exists, but you can't see it. Just trust the church that the evidence is real and is irrefutable.
you say it is unreasonable to expect you to believe that, yet you expect me to believe evolution. very similar.
So how do you expect us to take the church's word that a miracle occurred without any real proof?
the number of scientists today that believe in evolution is enough for me. however the evidence they believe is not undeniable. therfore I don't believe evolution.
Pick a number of scientists.
give us a percent
enough to make it a law, or at least a very strong theory, now it is a medium size theory
According to many scientists we do. How many would u need to present to you saying that we have undeniable proof to convince you?
I said of they agreed to UNDENIABLE proof. they agree, but don't have undeniable proof.
well neither is evolution. I'm explaining that both sides disagree with the other because of lack of evidence.
Reread what you said. You in no way said that the evidence needed to be 100%. You said "if there were a lot of scientists agreeing." As you have just admitted that there are many scientists who agree, will you now confirm your newfound belief in evolution, or were you lying about what it would take to make you believe in order to lend credibility to your claim of sufficient evidence for the miracles you described?
Stop making this about evolution. Your evidence for god isn't anywhere near 100%
I said if they had 100% evidence and everyone agrees. I know most scientists agree, but the evidence they agree on is not conclusive enough to move evolution beyond just a theory. if it is made a law, or like a super likely theory then I would believe it. the evidence now is not even close to 100%. there are many explanations for fossils.
Alex, you have just said that you will now believe in evolution. The scientific community agrees almost unanimously that there is evidence that conclusively shows that the theory of evolution is correct. Since you have just said that if a group of scientists said it you would believe in it, you are either now going to believe in evolution, or you were lying.
The problem is that all the church has to prove their account is their records of testimony by their people, and we can't even see that. We can't go to a museum and see the evidence, we have to trust that the people who stand to gain the most are being honest. Worse than that, we have to trust that those who originally recorded it were being honest because even if the current administration is unfailing honest, the original testimony could be falsified. The church has convicted people of being witches on very little evidence and has manufactured miracles to suit their designs. Why should we trust the records of those using them to maintain their power?
I'm confused at to what you are saying. are you saying the church bribed people or forced people into belief?
except the only records of it come from people who have a vested interest in people believing it. if that group of scientists were all being paid a million dollars by the first guy then they're testimony is tainted. the church claiming this happened is the same thing. they gain alot of power and wealth from people believing these stories.
if there were a lot of scientists agreeing. not one guy claiming he has evidence. if the one guy showed it to other scientists and these people agreed, then I would believe evolution.
Let's try this from the other side. If a scientist said they had undeniable proof that evolution was true but you couldn't see it, just hear them tell you about it, would that convince you? You are asking us to believe that proof exists without ever seeing it.
What do you mean? YOU are the one who is believing without evidence! Everyone has explained it to you! If you are saying that you need evidence to support the claim, you obviously do not really believe in God!
right, sounds stupid to not believe evodence. that is what you are doing, not believing evidence.
To make fake fossils you have to have DNA of the animal you are faking. You can only get that DNA if the animal existed. Therefore the fossils are not fake
Do you have unbiased documentation that it happened, or just records kept by people who have a vested interest in it? There have been many cases of the church being creative with the truth and with history for their own purposes. They quickly moved to Saint Mother Teresa, but her miracle of a lock of hair curing cancer is disputed by the family of the patient and the doctor who had been treating her. Fossils exist, to deny that is to ignore physical evidence. Do you have any real evidence that likewise supports your story?
where did you get the idea it was a child? I said girl not little kid. this girl was in her early teens.
well then I don't believe in evolution because all of those fossils that prove it are made up- that is how you sound saying "that didn't happen" is not a good argument
you aren't understanding us. we are saying it never happened. it is probably a story that got made up later. and really, if you told a child something in words they didn't understand they wouldn't remember what you said. the child wouldn't be able to repeat it because they wouldn't have understood in the first place.
OK so we should trust every writing that came from Rome by an unknown person about an idea that was going around a lot at the time
not even close to the same. the words "immaculate conception" are not words one, who has no idea what they mean would have a delusion about AT THE SAME TIME people in Rome were discussing it.
what are the chances of that? very very very very VERY VERY low.
I don't think you understand how little possibility your arguments have of being correct.
Maybe someone who had never seen a unicorn had a dream that a unicorn spoke to them. Would that prove the existence of unicorns? of course not
it was not a dream, and back then they did not have much to talk about. (no fantasy football) they did talk about things they saw that they didn't understand.
If you had a dream where someone spoke gibberish words to you, would you go around telling everyone?
but did this really happen, or did it happen in these circumstances
I explained to you why she had no idea what the immaculate conception was.
your right. that probably isn't a delusion. it probably isn't true at all. it was probably made up decades later in an attempt to validate someone's ideas.
what, so God decided to put it in a little girl in a small villages head. So unproductive. Of course maybe the girl just had a dream or a hollucination
let's take the immaculate conception vision.
a girl who was uneducated in the faith and no idea that the church was debating the immaculate conception, or even what immaculate conception ment (nobody in her small village did) says she had a vision of someone saying "I am the immaculate conception" the chance if that being a delusion is super low.
how is a vision impossible to be a delusion? all delusional people think they're having a vision. that's why they are delusional.
the greeks were stories that grew out of control. our doctrines have not changed.
People have had visions, that have no other explanation, impossible even to be delusions.
yet you have failed to find evidence of god that we could not disprove.
Also, the Greeks believed they had evidence just as much as you
someone brought up a good question the other day, and I couldn't find what debate it is on so I will answer it here. the question was something like "If God is omnipotent then why didn't he create a system where some kind of free will exists, but not evil"
the answer is God lets evil be possible for the same reason he let it be possible with the angles; a trial. just as the angles were subjected to some kind of trial to get to heaven, we are subjected to a trail here on earth. passing the trial, avoiding sin and doing good, believing and God will get us to heaven. failing the trial is hell.
hope that answers the question, it was a good question.
we have evidence of God. the Greeks did not. they had stories. we have proof. the greeks, when they said they saw things were mere stories that escalated way out of control. the church doctrines have always remained the same.
sorry I could not respond, had an exam to prepare for.
no. he would have to have actually paid attention to what we say to know he's lost.
I think Alex is purposefully not responding because he knows he's lost.
So even the fool can work it out, why can't you?
for example, in Ancient Greece religion was just like you are explaining it. A given. Now we think that faith is unrealistic. Chances are that in another era our God will be thought of as unrealistic. It's just like any other religion. God is unrealistic and will be thought of as another mythological story
one would be foolish to blindly believe in unsubstantiated mythology. your creator is no better proved than any other religion and is substantially undermined by science. in short, you would be foolish to put your faith in religion.
one would be foolish to not believe in the existence of a Creator
An uncaused cause has no prior events.
A conscious mind is a result of prior events.
A conscious mind cannot be an uncaused cause.
God is a conscious being. (according to scripture)
A conscious being has a conscious mind and therefore cannot be an uncaused cause.
God is not the uncaused cause.
Also, please demonstrate your faith before you do anything.
And where can we examine that?
There is not only historical evidence, but there is scientifically evidence as well
actually, the Big Bang is a lot more supported than your God. It's using physical reactions, ratios and equations to support it.
God, on the other hand, has NOTHING supporting it. It was not examined carefully at all, so shut up about God.
I'm not saying the Big Bang was the only way that we came to existence. I'm not even saying it happened at all. I'm saying it's the best we've gotten, simply because nothing has made sure that it can't be done, there are some sources that include proof. Until we find contradicting evidence, we can agree that the Big Bang happened, and there's no punishment for thinking that.
So yeah, shut up about God.
David Cross quote
the Catholic bible is the orginal, only has been translated. Protestant bibles, like the king James bible were changed.
I agree 100% with the first quote, so shut up about the big bang.
I explain a lot of stuff in the "God is definitely not real humans made up got
God" debate. Also, the Bible is, once again, not verified in any sense.
"Not knowing the answer to a question is not an excuse for making up a fairytale to explain it."
"Back when the Bible was written, then edited, then rewritten, then re-edited, then translated from dead languages, then re-translated, then edited, then rewritten, then given to the kings for them to take their favorite parts, then rewritten, then rewritten, then translated again, then given to the pope for him to approve, then rewritten, then edited again, then re-re-re-re-rewritten again... all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years AFTER they happened... to people who didn't know how to write... so..."
- David Cross
haha. your making the call on what is fiction or fact?
All of your support comes from nutjob fictional books.
religion teaches what they think of the truths, there are many different "truths" believed. if everything was well, of course we would love God, God tests us by giving us hardships, he ultimately rewards us in heaven. the book of job explains this better. especially the beginning of it.
you're indirectly supporting those to keep killing
And if religion was created to teach the truth, should there not be one religion? If it was really the truth, then those who believe it is true would score better on tests, never get something wrong, always got what they wanted, etc.
I'm not killing anyone.
the first part of you statement is true for Greek and Roman mythology.
religion is not ment to control people, more to educate people about what the truth is and what to do to obtain heaven.
And what do you have to back that up, Alex? Saying a statement over and over again won't make it true until you can prove it is. God is not known, you have never really seen him, it's just your imagination tampered by a book from over 2000 years ago that was written by those who wanted to fill in the gaps of the unknowns, along with the fear of death, then multiplied by using it to control people. Because they didn't want to think about dying, they made it up just to make themselves feel a bit better then used it to get others scared of death so they start praying. It controls people by bringing the person into the religion and not accepting any other way, which can cause intolerance. It also shows support to both sides and the competition for more followers, which is actually what is causing the ISIS deal.
You're just killing people in a fight to see who's got the better imaginary friend.
well that settles that, God is known... how do we know? Alex said God is known.
God is known :)
Also, we can't answer every single question that ever existed. That's called philosophy. It at least allows us to think about it.
Yet we cannot always answer God, because you can't explain an unknown with an unknown. Don't say god is known, he is not. There is no evidence or reasoning that makes his existence an absolute.
I'm not going to argue against any of that because it is just the worst set of arguments.
"it did not happen by chance, it is far too complex."
Chemical reactions cause the different body parts to function. It's really annoying how you just claim everything we think happened to be "by chance," because reactions over millions of years is what caused us. We are just a bunch of cells reacting, and when we die, they stop reacting. We don't have any "souls"
I bet that is what caused the facepalm to be invented because it's full of delusion.
I. what causes the light to move? what caused even the light to exist. the big bang was moving, what caused it to blow, or start moving.
II. God is eternal, always was, is, and always will be.
III. the universe cannot depend on itself, it depends on God. if God stopped caring, the universe would return to nothingness.
IV. when someone rates something on a scale of 1-10 they know what 10 is. for goodness, they know 10 is God.
V. look at an animal, such as the giraffe. it did not happen by chance, it is far too complex.
Here is what I found.
Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)
I: Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared. That is the force that directly allows us to move. Since Matter can turn into a lot of energy (c^2), the force can be thermal, electrical, kinetic, etc, which is how we move.
II: What is the cause of God?
III: Actually, The Universe is dependent upon the matter in it, which is the actual universe itself. It also states that all existent things depend upon other things, so God would not exist if there was nothing before him. That is a flaw in the logic.
IV: There doesn't need to be an absolutely good being. It's really just human minds rating how much something makes them happy. It's mostly just perspective.
V: They don't imply it at all. They simply take the place of one. Evolution is genes mixing. A bio-genesis is chemical reactions making the first couple thousand bacteria. Cosmological evolution is how stars have debris from the excess energy on the star, which can form planets that form a gravitational force (electromagnetic repulsion/attraction) and have the some of the debris finish their half-lives by decaying into oxygen, nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide (along with other atoms in the air, that take up less that .03%).
Look at Aristotle's 5 proofs of God. he was one of the smartest Greeks ever, but you are smarter
And aliens could have some proof. The proof of the Big Bang is verifiable. You have yet to give the proof of God. I see that after over hundreds of arguments you have not shown any proof from a verifiable source that has proof that it could not happen without God.
what proof or logic is there for god?
I could also google "proof of aliens" something will come up claiming to have proof. does that mean there is proof of aliens? God has a lot of logic and some proof.
when I talk about creation, I do not take the bible literally, I believe creation took a long time, first plants then animals then humans as science says. Genisus does not disprove or prove evolution, it only proves creation. the reason I don't like the theory of evolution is because I don't see it logical. but we all know God can do whatever he wants and could have caused evolution.
God = proof+logic ( Proof and logic of its own)
Big Bang = proof+logic of its own
God's logic (how it works, how it can take effect) = 0
God's proof = 0
Big Bang proof= There actually has been a discovery of a twist of light that has lead back to the Big Bang. It's easy to just look up "proof of the Big Bang" on Google and take the first thing that pops up.
Big Bang Logic= I am not going to explain it again.
What proof is there of God creating the world?
Also, so that I have a frame for responding, when you talk about creations do you mean a literal interpretation of the Bible or a figurative one? Basically do you believe in young earth creationism?
and with WAY more proof then the big bang.
well God is explained too.
Also, I'm not saying the Big bang is the only way, I'm saying it's the best one we have at the moment and it's explained.
And if you still say "but how?", I can easily say that you lost, because you don't have your information.
If you don't understand, I will simplify it.
If we go offline, then he did not know what we did. That is free will. If we had free will, he would not know what we would do. If he knew, then I would no matter what do something. That isn't free will.
how? he knows but does not determine. a key point to understand this is, I'm only going to say this one more time GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME. because he he outside of time there is no past present and future with him as we have.
and if we can go offline, then he can't know the future. If he knows that we do, we can't go offline.
Then he's not omnipotent, Omnicompetent nor omniscient.
No, you can't make up an anology like that. the bullet goes where it is pointed it cannot change. if I were to use the gun bullet thing I would say in this case God points us in the direction he wants, knowing what we are to do, and we can move offline if we want.
Ok, if you know the future, then that will happen no matter what. You describe a paradox. If I shoot a bullet and I know where it's going, does it have free will? No. It is only a different situation on the grounds of what each part is (bullet is us, shooter is God).
We have free will. God knows all. breaking the law, running a red light is a sin. God does not aide sin.
If you really believed, you would run straight through traffic without looking. You wouldn't wear a seatbelt. You wouldn't fear anything, because you knew either God would save you or you would go to heaven.
Also, if you stop at a red light, you aren't counting on your God to stop the car running into you. That shows uncertainty.
I already answered, look down.
Anyway, he can know the future, regardless of controlling it, right?
Well, answer this: Do you have free will? This is deeply related to the last question.
my question was Does it matter what you do to that person?
No God knowing the future dies not determine it.
my question is very important to this debate, please answer it.
except that we have explained that the way you say God created the world makes free will impossible. you either failing to understand it or just ignoring it doesn't change that.
For your question, not really. I'd still be nice to them, because it's just better to not die being a mean person just because I don't like someone.
Can God determine the future?
I'm not going to explain free will and why God doesn't control us again and again. you should know by now. you say you learn easily yet don't remember things too well.
I don't think so......
that is some serious false logic. all atheists stop at lights so everyone who stops at a light is an athiest. or you are forgetting about FREE WILL.
I have my own question now
You and someone you dislike are stranded on a desert island with a functioning radio. One day you hear that there has been a terrible earthquake that has sent a massive tsunami hurtling directly for your island and you both have only one hour to live. Does it make any DIFFERENCE whether you spend your last hour alive comforting and making amends with your hated companion or smashing his head in with fallen, unripe coconuts?
he even says he's not bringing peace. Saying he's the Prince of Peace is a blatant lie.
Also, if you take the one with the evidence, you are an atheist. You are relying on evidence rather than hearsay. Religion is based off of the hearsay.
If you've ever stopped at a stoplight, you are an atheist, because you're not counting on your god to not drive the freaking car into your car door. If you've ever used a pill instead of relying on God to cure you, or if you've ever used a doctor to help out your medical problems, then you, yes you, are an atheist.
Was it in God's plan?
Yes: Prayer was redundant.
Prayer is worthless
No: Prayer if futile
Prayer is worthless.
to show division is sometimes nessary to bring peace in christ. the verse is mostly saying to have faith, and if that turns you away from family, then division occors. and you should still stay true to jesus.
if he is the Prince of Peace, why was that verse ever there?
Example of division that verse is talking about: St. Monica and her family, especially her son St. Augustine
Jesus is called the Prince of Peace. he wants peace. he says love your enimies and turn the other cheek.
I guess If I knew nothing I would go to the one with the signature. unfortunately for you we know about God, so that argument is worthless.
for your other question my answer is yes.
your last question is a bit confusing. God's plan wants me to pray, I, In prayer, ask God what his plan for me is.
your passage about division. God and Jesus want peace, but only peace in Christ. Jesus would rather have 1 holy sister against an unholy sister, then two unholy sisters with peace between them. I hope that helps.
this app should really let you do pictures.
That should show as an image, but if it doesn't, I'll just type it.
Matthew 10: 34-35, Jesus unambiguously states that he has not come to bring peace. CHECKMATE
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
If you didn't know either of these people, and that is a reliable signature, which would you say? Make your answer completely base off this situation.
Also, I have a few other question, feel free to answer them after this one.
Have you ever stopped at a red light?
Have you ever taken a pill?
Have you ever used a doctor?
Then tell me if one of your prayers was included in God's Plan or not (do this one last, I care about the others more).
if a catholic priest rapes, that is not even close to the Catholic faith. God does not want war, he wants peace.
If someone could be arrested and die under house arrest for heresy, saying that it isn't a matter of faith means that the church was wrong. To hide from that is to ignore history.
If it was never any different, why do so many religious groups fight against teaching evolution in school? Why does creationism still exist saying that everything was created as we see it today?
I know you believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. Unfortunately for your arguments, that does not in any way confer legitimacy to it for the purpose of debate. Every religion believes it is inspired by God or gods, so why do you feel your holy text is right and all other wrong?
I can't say at this moment. the kid who said he studied could have been a star student, and I would believe them. the parent signature may be a fake or an old signature, from another day. I can't answer that question unless I know the people, and am actually the teacher. honest answer, I'm not backing out, I just can't say.
another point of mine gets across
God, and any religion for that matter is unlogical, unrealistic and unproven. Religion wss just a means of teaching morals, which got out of hand. Now religion is an excuse to justify harsh acts such as rape and murder. For example, catholic priests raping young boys, or Muslim extremists killing for Allah.
If there is no evidence, God can't be there.
Now please, just answer it!
also God is much more then evidence
God=y evidence =x
c is the mysteries of God we cannot explain, take away evidence God is still there.
1) Doing the work, getting prepared for higher grades (like knowing how to study)
2) Just answer the question!
the faith to do with evolution is God is behind it, that never was different.
the sun and the earth "heresy" was that the bible said nothing on the matter.
remember I believe the bible is inspired. God told the writers to write down the chief important faiths. we know easter is around passover time, so there is the month.
why would you give studying grades seperate? does it matter as long as you know the material?
I meant at the very moment that they both say they studied. And besides, what if both pass? You don't always need to study to pass (if you are like me, especially), and the grade is on actually doing the studying, the test grade would be separate.
I am not claiming I know more than God. I am not even claiming I know more than you. I am simply pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments and flaws in your logic. You believe that the Bible is a transcription of Jesus words. But if that level of accuracy was recorded, why did no one think to write down the dates? If people could remember the wording of a parable Jesus spoke once, or what words he used to recruit Peter to become a fisher of men, why could they not remember what day he was born or died. Even just knowing the month would be better than what we have now.
Finally, I hope you realize what a cop out it is to hide behind the "matter of faith" argument. The date if Jesus death is not a matter of faith, but the day of the week is. Why the distinction? The church has redefined what is and is not a matter of faith many times. Originally the sun revolving around the earth was a matter of faith and to go against that was heresy, until it wasn't. Evolution was heresy, until now evolution is acceptable but before that God created everything. Whenever there is a problem with an argument, the problematic part is not a matter of faith and therefore doesn't matter.
the one who doesn't fail the test.
God = Evidence, because God is just as much as the evidence is.
If x = y, x-y=0
God - evidence not equal to 0. why do you get to create the equation?
"blessed are those who believe without seeing."
And if this was already not clear, I don't care if I'm blessed, I care if it's true. It's not. And I'm doing things on my own. That doesn't mean that I'm following your god, it means that I'm independent. Religion was made in spite of the things they didn't know at the time, like how the animals came, or what our purpose in life is. We don't need that anymore. As the human race gets smarter and more developed, the atheist population is expanding, especially compared to your statistics.
Imagine you are a teacher. You assign studying over the weekend. After the weekend is over, two boys come up and tell you that they both did the studying. However, only one of them actually studied. One has a parent signature (which was the same as the parent teacher conference form, so you know it was the parent doing it), and the other does not give a parent signature. Which one do you give credit for studying?
And a refresh made it reappear
umm, no. you clearly have no idea why the bible was written and who it was written to, and as to what purpose it was written to, you are mistaken.
first off, there was such a small group of atheists at that time, 99% of people already feared, or knew of the afterlife. the gospels were written to proclaim the "good news" of Christ to both gentiles and jesus.
my goodness if I have to say this again I'm done arguing with you "blessed are those who believe without seeing." jesus wants us to be blessed snd do things on our own. why can't you remember things?
Also, the "God- Evidence = 0" thing means that all the evidence is what makes God real.
My argument seems to have disappeared.
Anyway, Black Cat = God
God - Evidence = 0
Evidence = 0
Black Cat = 0
There, I just used the translation property to explain this.
No, the cat is NOT making noise at all. Jesus may have existed, but the only thing we have to support his "prophecy" is the Bible, though it was written to control other people by making them fear the afterlife. Also, if Jesus appeared to others to show that he was alive, why can't he show himself to us today?
An all knowing deity knows I need evidence to accept his existence.
An all powerful deity is able to prove it so there is no other possible explanation at all ever.
An all loving deity would want to.
the cat is making noise, you choose not to hear it because you don't want it to be there. God has revealed himself fully to us through jesus.
The black cat in the analogy (for the religion part, not the others) IS God. The black cat hasn't ever made the noise telling us it is, and that part is in every situation. In philosophy, you might never find the answer, but that does not mean God was the explanation. The answer will always be there in philosophy, regardless of the human race finding it. Religion is saying "I found it!" on the subject of an absent black cat.
I really don't care about the date, I just want to know how long the religion states that he was dead for before his resurrection.
Theology is us in a dark room looking for a cat, using God to tell us it us there. he uses sighns like the cat making noise to reveal it to us.
the date of Christmas and Easter is not a matter of faith. Jesus rising on a sunday, however is. I think you and atheists see evidence ignore it, and when I tell it to you, you say it is false, and therefore it must be false, because Dave knows more then God.
this analogy may help:
Philosophy is looking in a dark room to find a black cat (like looking for answers, though not always finding them)
Metaphysics is looking in a dark room to find a black cat that isn't there
Theology is looking in a dark room to find a black cat that isn't there and saying "I found it!"
Science is looking for a black cat in a dark room using a flashlight.
you've explained it better than I have ever
By definition, any belief that contradicts the church is heretical, so saying the church didn't adopt heretical teachings is redundant. How does the fact that the faithful had to get together and decide by committee which pagan holiday they were going to try to replace shows that it was not purely a faith based decision. You suggest that there is as much evidence of the miracles as of DaVinci, but this is patently untrue. I don't think people at the time were delusional together, I think religious leaders rewrote any part of history that was inconvenient.
Putting that aside, how many days was Jesus dead before he was supposedly resurrected?
How is a belief against evidence. a belief is something you think to be true. some beliefs may be against evidence.
Belief: without and against evidence
Delusion: Something said to be true without evidence.
I'm saying that you think they were all crazy people who had delusions together, it just does not make sence. remember how life was then, people did not have phones to type "Jesus died today" they did agree he died on Friday and rose on sunday. the actual date, like that of Christmas is not important. the councils the church had were educated people debating the heresies that cane up. the church never once adopted a heroics teachings.
Also, maybe Thomas really existed. Jesus could have even existed. What didn't happen is the "miracles" that were performed. Leonardo da Vinci is more likely to have existed and his works recorded because it makes sense. He wasn't going around healing the sick with the touch of his hand or making the universe, he was a natural being.
I see zero testable arguments that point to the conclusion that God actually exists. Where is the proof?
I'm confused by your tactic Alex. You describe an absurd meeting where people sit down to decide what they are going to claim is the truth and then spread. What you are describing is the church having meetings to decide which version of the Bible they are going to use, and we have records of that. The Council of Nicaea was the first example, but there have been many others. We have records of the people excommunicated and banished because they disagreed with the popular vote, and records of what they believed differently. One of the things they had to decide was when to have Easter. When your saviour died and was resurrected seems like the kind of thing you write down and mark on a calendar since it is one of, if not the most important event in Christianity, but there was debate about when it happened. How can we be confident that the Bible records Jesus' words exactly if it didn't record what day he died?
Are you denying that the church has had these meetings or saying that you honestly believe someone who we do have records of resulted from a similar conspiracy?
Those pictures, I could say, are painted by people with delusions. these people then got their pictures went into a meeting, came up with a crazy name da Vinci.
except we have the pictures. and lots of corroborated evidence for di Vinci. Jesus is alot of fables and myth. there's no way to tell fact from fiction.
They are just as true as the ones about some Italian dude named Da Vinci painted a picture. and everyone believes those.
it doesn't matter whether Thomas or Da Vinci existed, what matters is if the claims about some dude named Jesus that existed in the bronze age are true. there is no valid evidence for any of it.
I can you just do not believe any of the gospels
can you prove Leonardo da Vinci existed?
Can you prove Thomas's existence
to make an example out of him. Thomas was an apostle, he was blessed enough.
then why didnt he want Thomas to be blessed
Jesus does not appear because he wants us to be blessed, as he said.
or Thomas is fake, Jesus doesn't exist.
If Jesus did that for Thomas why not for us? Either because he hates us but if he did he would kill us or annoy us Or he was just a really nice old minister who died and was worshipped by crazy people
why do all the quotation marks turn into question marks?
So the other disciples were saying to him, ?We have seen the Lord!? But Thomas said to them, ?Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.? - sound like anyone you know?
Jesus then appears to him and lets him touch him, Thomas, seeing God believes. Jesus responds ?Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.?
Thomas was lucky Jesus was easy on him. clearly you don't want to blessed.
And you still need proof for everything that you've explained. It's stupid how you try to explain how it works if you're never going to prove that it exists in the first place. It may work, but you have not verified that it exists yet. Unless you actually know how to get God to show his face or do something supernatural that the world can see, we've won the argument.
he can make a system without evil, so why can't he? If he's really all loving, he wouldn't make evil.
unless you don't want the truth and want to waist your time with religion
unless you want the truth, and to get into heaven.
that's why religion is no longer necessary
right, and we will always have these groups, even if religion is forgotten.
no, not in a certain way. We all have groups:political, religious, even the fan base of a sports team
like animals. are we not individuals now?
If we did not know god, morals, or souls we would be individuals
if we did not know God, morals, or have souls we would be animals.
no, without the thought of god we wouldn't be in our groups that tend to be sorted by religion and have to fend for ourselves and go extinct
yes your right without God there would be nothing we would return to nothingness. and be extinct.
selected out. It's an evolutionary term basically meaning going extinct
There you go again changing the subject once I've explained yet another of your false arguments.
What do you mean we won't get singled out?
God is a way to bring us into groups so that we aren't selected out
he can make a system without evil.
God is also just. he tortures bad people because they are bad, and deserve it. he puts good people through tests.
And I will repeat the argument:
God tortures people. Torturing is bad. What's God's punishment for being an immoral deity?
And if choice is the cause of evil, God isn't omnipotent because he can't make a system that allows us to have a choice and not have evil.
Oh, and God does exist. I'll admit it.
... in you head!
look at my post in the extraterrestrial God thing
If God doest punish them what should he do with them?
I justify it by saying God delivers JUSTICE to those who deserve it. God is all good so the justice he gives is morally right.
Alex, once again you avoid the fact that you think its OK for your God to torture people, I'll ask a third time, how do you morally justify that?
Saten is not happy because he is away from God, and only God Can make us happy.
If God took away evil, he would have to take away free will. By taking away free will we would be robots and have no meaning to life, we could not willingly love God, or choose to acept his love.
God would rather have evil and love then nothing, that make sense?
Choice...That is why evil exists...
i was asking alex.. twas in his argument
tryhard... no one said that at all, I don't see why the concept that torture is bad is actually that hard for people to grasp here.
are you just saying that s.t.n is never happy with war and suffering and killings and the likes? because his feelings are dictated by God?
There is no reason evil should exist. instead of torturing people he should do away with evil
God should have created a system without evil. he is omnipotent. if evil exists it is because he wants it to. and the level you say is necessary to go to hell is not what most people would consider evil.
First, Saten is never happy because only God can make people and angles happy.
God tourtures the evil who deserve it.
HistoryBuff I've asked you this question at least 10 times please answer it. "What should God do with the evil instead of sending them to hell?"
hey wait I don't intend to pick on anyone too, I just want to state my opinion. I don't think God made hell for everyone who'd go against Him. if so then why would he make His creations..to classify them? for all I know when you die and fail to be with God, you go into nothingness and still have the consciousness. and that the hell like experience would be from the feeling that knowing that someone who truly loved you would has surrendered on you. I'm not saying it's absolute. just what I know. now, you wouldn't blame s.t.n. if he wants his people burned in hell since I think he wouldn't really care.. it just might be a place he made to make him happy..
so God tortures people, how do you justify that morally?
God is torturing them just not directly
God sending someone to Satan to get torture isn't torturing someone? wow so if I sent you to someone that tortured you for me, that would be OK with you?
this is ridiculous, you can't be this ignorant.
Besides you said we had free will. that free will means that some of those children could have grown into good people. until they were murdered anyway.
You asked for an example of God killing innocents. he killed lots of them. and you trying to twist it into a positive doesn't change the fact that he killed lots and lots of innocent children.
Those young babies were to be raised by bad parents. They would have become bad.
When they drowned they did not go to hell because they did not reach the age of reason. Remember Noah warned others about the flood, everyone knew but no one believed. You could say God saved the babies.
Well off the top of my head, when God floods the earth and only saves Noah. There must have been lots of children in the world. children too young to have sinned. there must have been pregnant women. think of that flood as a worldwide abortion that killed the mothers too. how's that for killing innocents?
Give me an example of God killing inocents or being unjust. You can't
Despite the frequent examples of horrible things that "God" does. killing and torturing and whatnot.
Humans do evil, not God
Your argument is a lame cop out. despite the fact that if a human did these things they would be a psychopath, you insist that God is perfect. Despite the fact that everything he seems to do is a train wreck.
First if God stopped doing things on this world, everything would be nothingness.
If my mom did that I would encourage her not to, pray for her and tell her what is right.
Same if she did other bad stuff. If they were so bad God sent her to hell, then that is real bad for her, but the right just thing to do.
I could not disagree or go against God because everything he does is good.
If God did not exist to make decisions about right and wrong for you. if we were talking about the real world. say your mother did something like getting a divorce and getting remarried. would you let someone pour gasoline on her and burn her? she is breaking the rules. assuming there wasn't a god to punish her it would fall on people to do it. no good son would allow that. no good person would allow that. but for some reason God is not only allowed to do it, but you cheer him on. that is twisted.
If I loved someone close to me, and they let's say killed someone, I would love them a lot less, but still love them and try to get them to confess and convert to avoid hell, it is not my decision whether that person goes to hell or not, it is God's. However if I go to heaven and someone I love goes to hell, I will still be happy because in heaven we all love eachother equally.
Would you allow those you love to be tortured for eternity? if your mother did something bad would you let someone burn her alive for the rest of time? of course not. you aren't a monster. if you love someone you protect them. no one can claim to love someone and then let them be tortured. not unless they are an absolute monster.
It is a just God. He punishes the evil
What is wrong with that?? should He not punish the evil??
So God will torture them for all eternity. that isn't a loving god. it's a spiteful one.
He gave us free will. Some choose evil.
I'm saying if he was a real God he wouldn't have to resort to torture. if he created everything, he could have easily done things in a way where eternal torture wasn't necessary.
So you want God to let everyone in heaven, even if they are God - hating killers?
I think a truly benevolent God wouldn't need or want to torture people. humans crave vengeance and to hurt those who hurt us. the idea that God is not above that means he isn't the God you describe.
Only God can tourture people, he delivers the reward or punishment AFTER death.
On earth we should put the criminals in prison, but not torture or kill them.
If you think putting evil people in hell is wrong, where should God put those people?
So the US government sending prisoners to a foreign country to be tortured isn't a crime either? they aren't doing the torturing.
God does NOT tourture, he sends them to Saten in hell where they are tourtued.
Because God is just and can judge, and enforce punishment to people.
YOU DON'T EVEN THINK HELL EXISTS!
but you JUST said torture was wrong for people to do. I can't understand why you don't get this. I'm asking you WHY it is OK for God to torture?
torturing is punishment
We're NOT talking about punishment, you said God could torture people, how can you justify torturing people?
God is all good.
What is wrong with punishing the bad. Hell is a eternal prison. God is the judge and puts the criminals in prison. Do u think we should not put criminals in prison?
What is wrong with perfect justice?
So its do as I say not as I do? why would God not have abide by his own moral code? he can act like an ****** but if we do it we burn in hell? God sounds like a complete dick to me.
Is God human?...No...why would he have to follow human rules of moral/immoral values?
so you think torture is immoral, but God can torture people? This is cognitive dissonance. That makes NO sense.
God can tourture bad people, people cannot tourture people. God delivers justice.
Would you rather have a God who let's bad people in heaven?
I agree with Alex...We can not know untill we die.
So if the US government ships suspects to a foreign country to be tortured then they haven't done anything wrong. they aren't torturing suspects. they can still say their hands are clean.
You will find out when you die.
there we go, thankfully none of this matters because hell doesn't actually exist as far as we know, but theists will always have some sort of technicality to justify their ludicrous beliefs.
Torture is a mortal thing... Hell is a punshment for chocies...I beleive it is not torture rather a if/then statment...If you choose to not follow Gods will....Then God will have nothing to do with you after death.
You're not answering my question Alex, do you think torture is a moral thing to do to anyone for eternity?
Only God can judge and punish/reward eternally. He is a just God who delivers punishment to the evil. Do u think God should let the evil get the same rewards as the good?
So Alex, you think eternal torture is a moral punishment? would you torture someone? You worship a sadistic tyrant in that case.
fortunaly hell is actually nothing, because there is no evidence that it exists.
Ok. Hell according to Jesus is unquenchable fire. It is SEPARATION from God. God created hell so it is not nothing.
Nothingness would not be enough justice for those who turn against God.
Jesus speaks of eternal fire in hell many times
Also, why do people say"burn in hell"? I thought hell was an absence of god. therefore without fire, or anything else, therefore just nothingness, therefore what atheists presume death to be like. therefore, people who get to hell, don't know that they are in hell.
God created angles and humans to WILLINGLY love him. Without free will we cannot willingly love. Some like Saten chose to go against God, so they got Justice and thrown into hell. If Saten chose to follow God, God in the beginning would have known that.
put it like this sloanstar1000.. have you ever imagine yourself alone in a dark massive place? or have you entered a virtual world? imagine minecraft to be just a blank space. then please imagine what would happen if you would create a friend to be with you, you wouldn't create him to be like a robot to follow you absolutely with every order. you'll most probably know everything that would happen being an omni.something that you've mentioned. so most probably you'd be giving him his free will, so that at least, even when you know what would happen, the response you'll be getting is not from a robot but spontaneous. and you see every possible thing that would happen with every option you create. you might see that after endless years the friend you have made would be, I don't know. the creation of life - would you only choose a few to experience it? now with free will, you don't expect absolute attitude and values. realistically speaking when you put two straight persons in one area and give the other power, the other would be jealous no matter how one tries to be righteous for we are not robots,our choices and feelings were not programmed . . now with every creation there would be at least one who would go against you. you see lots of bad things happening but in the end you see people who, no matter how the enemy intervenes and tries to manipulate, would remain true and have firm virtues. now, would you not risk creating them? rather than creating nothing and achieving nothing? it's just like asking yourself, would you rather not communicate with anyone just because there is a possibility of betrayal..? we are all given equal chances to live and to experience life, we all have the chance to choose. let's just not compromise its value because of our own perceptions and hardships.
Alex, I'm pretty sure you believe that God is omniscient, so if he created Lucifer knowing that he would turn into Satan and that Satan would turn against him, why would he go ahead and create Satan anyway?
This is the problem of evil that theists simply can't answer, there is unnecessary evil in this world that an omniscient/Omnipotent being would have done away with if that being was benevolent, but we still have things like child leukemia.
Saten was the greatest most powerful. smartest angel created. Angels, like humans have free will so they can choose to be bad.
Saten rebelled either because he wanted to be like God or because he did not want to serve humans, or both.
If god was always there, then why did he create Satan? the angel Lucifer fell out of heaven cus he didn't like god. but if god is omnipotent, then he could have stopped that. and also, if god was omnipotent then he would be able to make a rock that nobody could lift. but then he couldn't lift it. therefore he would not be omnipotent and be unable to make said rock.
weeds, meth and the likes are THE "NOT" RIDICULOUS notion discovered and made by humans to make themselves feel better.
Have you ever seen a child just appearing on it own and growing and becoming tall?
Have you ever seen your chores done on their own mysteriously?
Nothing happens on its own.Indeed we were cteated by God.
(Now plz don't ask me about the God how He came into being.Coz he didn't came.He was always there.)
Got is real. Fact
another guy that dont understand that god love us and that He created us, we didnt created Him. My God!
God created us.