The debate "Is god for real" was started by
August 26, 2016, 10:58 am.
By the way, Gaurangi is disagreeing with this statement.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Gaurangi posted 1 argument, charlieholmes posted 2 arguments, wdz posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Gaurangi posted 4 arguments, Apollo posted 1 argument, Blue_ray posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Alex, charlieholmes, blakelovesjesus, dalton7532, Najam1, puleng, thereal, princess100, Deepak09, MrLuke and 29 visitors agree.
TheProudWeirdo, Blue_ray, Gaurangi, Apollo, north, scrumnug, Nemiroff, MW13, DrBanner, makson and 14 visitors disagree.
a personal relationship is when I talk to God one on one. there is no church or group or anything in-between. just me and him. I get to have such a relationship because Jesus died on the cross for me and u. so it can't be impure, it can't be changed by man because my God is unchanging and pure.
and you gained that "personal relationship", whatever that means, in the form of someone teaching you the views the church murdered people to enforce.
which is why I have a personal relationship with Jesus and God instead of a man.
I'm not putting this only on Christians. all religions are guilty of the same thing. they carve their beliefs in stone and will literally kill to prevent anyone from trying to change them. Christians have tortured, burned, downed, or just plain persecuted countless people to try to force them to believe what they are told. that is the foundation of organized religions.
but if u look we have changed. we all are beings who are on this run called life and yes sometimes we trip and sometimes we refuse to go forward but no matter what we change to the circumstance and keep running. really u can't put this on Christian s alone we all have made our fair share of mistakes. but as Christians we believe that our God is a forgiving one and has forgave us for those mistakes.
the law is a group of rules that, as a society, we have agreed to.
the Christian Church spent centuries violently repressing any difference of even the most minor differences of opinion. these were not rules that everyone agreed to. this was a group of priests deciding what the "law" would be and attacking anyone who dared to question those "laws".
do you see the difference? our laws change and evolve as needs change or better ideas come up. Christianity burned people for trying to change things.
Christians are told through Jesus not to force their religion on anyone and to love all. now not everyone does this but not everyone obeys the law either does that mean we should give that up?
well since the history of Christianity is all about the patriarchs and Pope's forcing their beliefs on people, clearly no one should be Christian. using your logic.
I agree. that's kind of what I meant but better said. thank u
an interesting alternative is that the same God sends a different message to different people depending on the guidance they need. a good teacher/therapist/counselor does not repeat the same message to everyone, but judges their situation and adapts the message to the needed priorities.
people hear what they want and see what they want all u as a person can do is look for urself and choose what u believe. not what someone tells u to believe.
Sorry for the delayed response.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam all claim to have the true message from the same God. If we take God as the source, there are conflicting messages. Even simply within Christianity there is conflict. Even within catholicism there is arguments over God's will. Wouldn't an omnipotent being have been able to be clear enough to not be misinterpreted?
Regarding the differences between religions, they wouldn't be classed as contradictions as they are of course declaring different beliefs on some matters. Just like with anything where points differ between different groups or parties, there are not classed as contradictions, they are genuine differences. Contradictions mostly apply to subject matters from the same source
Re:4:79 - Arabic term "min nafsika" meaning 'from yourself', refers to the cause I.e. because of yourself, your disobedience, going against Gods commands, that calamities befall you, as it says in al-shoora 42:30 "And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much"
Re: 4:78 - the verse outlines how prophet Muhammed has been ordained by God to declare to those who think difficultly comes to them from Muhammed, that in fact difficultly for themselves has come from God. This is not contradictory for Islam as God has stated that worldly life is not for mere play, it is primarily a test for the next life. Here, general evil is not discussed.
in Islam, humans are not believed to have complete free will; humans have limited will. But, we do have free choice. Humans have the will to decide, and then act, on the choices we make. The choices we have are dependant upon the reality we are in, which is a construct of Gods will. So, God has planned the reality we will be placed in, the choices we will have, but we have the free choice to make our decisions based on the options we have. Hence, unlike in Christianity, every person is accountable for only what they did and did not do; there is no inheritance of sin from anyone
Re: 6:12 - it clearly states in the verse (I'm paraphrasing) that those who deceive themselves when they understand the message they have received will not believe. Makes complete sense; if you intentionally deny something, you obviously won't believe in it. There is no discussion of blame here. In Islam, until the message has reached you, and you understand it clearly without confusion from other influences, and you understand it to be true but yet choose to deny, then blame will be on yourself. But God has not concealed the person from truth, the person has themselves.
Re: 10:100 - it is interesting because the verse previously states that "Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet] compel people to believe?" this is clearly rhetorical, as no human can compel another to believe in God. God has not willed that every will believe in God; every person has choice to believe. Yet, only until a person will accept for themselves the signs and warnings around them will then God allow them to believe. God is not deciding whether humans believe or not, Humans are. Humans choose the door, God opens with the keys (may b a bad analogy)
Aside from text specific contradictions, it is worth noting that the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the same God. All three started from the same basis and roots and all three worship the God of Abraham. They just differ in what they believe God wants. This in itself seems a contradiction as Jesus said "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it".
I know less about the Quran, so I am more reliant on the Internet for information, possibly leading to inaccuracies. If I am mistaken on something, please correct me.
Islam believes both that people have free will, and that God determines everything. 6:12 blames people for not believing, while 10:100 claims no one can except by the will of God. 4:78 says good and evil both come from God, but 4:79 say only good comes from God.
God is depicted in the Bible as both a kind and gentle God who loves all of creation and a jealous, wrathful God who dashes the wicked upon rocks and drowns the world. He is all knowing, but surprised by events like the garden of eden. He spoke to Moses face to face, but can never and has never been seen.
Could you provide examples of contradictions from Christian sources and Islamic sources? The Islamic concept of God is very simple n non-contradictory. In Islamic belief, there is this concept of Fitra, which is the natural innate understanding every human is born with believing in a unique higher power/deity who is nothing like the creation
While we cannot prove God doesn't exist, we can prove that he doesn't exist as described by any of the major religions. All of them contain contradictions.
Doesnt deduction account as proof? We can deduce that God (or energy/source/creator, whatever word or phrase u want to use) must exist. Shall we try?
you can't prove it...I believe it's a matter of self belief...that's why they call it faith
And so now, with everything spoken and done let us conclude by saying, it depends on a person's perception towards life.
Like I said, you cannot, without a doubt, say a belief in god is wrong.
Yes, however then you must agree that disproving god is a ridiculous premise.
Personally, I don't believe the world to be a few thousand years old as currently to the knowledge we have, we know it can't be, and from cosmological knowledge we know it's several billions of years old.
Aside from that, and staying with fundamental topics, do you believe the universe came into existence (E.g. had a beginning)? if so, do you believe it came into being randomly (spontaneously), the universe created itself, or it was created by "something" else? (feel free to offer other possibilities)
And I can understand reasoned faith. What boggles my mind is people arguing that the world is a few thousand years old based on the bible in the face of all evidence. I have faith in Occam's Razor, even though I know it is fallible. I have faith in scientific evidence, even though I know some of it will likely be disproven someday. I have never seen anything that gives me proof of God, but at the same time I have seen things that were so coincidental that it made me wonder if someone or something was playing with probabilities.
It's not about "knowing" whether god exists; there is nothing any person can show to prove they know God exists. For you to know, the evidence would have to be so substantial and clear that everyone would know. But that is why it is called belief. But at the same time, Belief in a god of religion does not imply blind faith. The faith for many comes from the signs and evidences around them and within themselves, along with using simple, unconvoluted logic and reasoning. Even by using the conventions and principles that we use to understand our own physical reality (e.g. scientific principles), people find it far more reasonable to understand that the universe came into being from the will of an necessitated uncaused, intelligent designer/creator/originator, rather than from no intelligent cause/source/energy.
What would help any discussion regarding the existence of a god is to remove any preconceived notions about some human-inspired god, sitting on a magic carpet with a big white beard. Discussions about more fundamental aspects of creation would be more fruitful
arguing abkout god is useless. you cant prove it. exisistence of god varies from person to person. i mean to say it depends on a person's view.
you make good arguments
Can you prove that there is not a microscopic hamster running on a wheel inside your head? No. All you can prove is that there is no evidence one exists. That is the argument people are making of God. No one can prove God doesn't exist, all they can say is that there has been no proof of God's existence.
We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that's wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.
Saying you cant dissprove God makes god no more real than vampires or like historybuff said, unicorns. It gets us nowhere.
If you want to believe this universe was created by an all powerful supernatural being, thats fine. But when people start claiming this being interacts with them and desires our belief and worship to have eternal happiness, I become a skeptic.
If this being is real and really wanted humans to believe it exists, it wouldnt rely on an ancient book or other people as evidence. Its just a bad idea considering the there are numerous other religions with their similar holy book. If there is a creator of the universe, it has yet to reveal itself.
So truth is nobody knows if a god exist. Anybody claiming to know is lying. We are responsible for our own failures and accomplishments.
You cannot disprove God, and saying that there is a supreme being is not contrary to any evidence. And you seek to say no god exists: where is the proper evidence to say there is no god? Can you logically conclude that any semblance of a supreme being is impossible?
Is there evidence against god?
no. it takes faith to believe in something with no evidence. not believing something with no evidence doesn't require faith, it requires logic.
It takes the same faith to say there is no god.
that's like asking us to prove unicorns don't exist. or leprechauns. or mermaids. you cannot definitively disprove mythological characters.
And can you, without ANY doubt reject the idea of a supreme being?
Really? Do you think 'fun' accounts for all the suffering? What kind of God allows people who worship and adore him to be murdered, raped, tortured and come to countless other hideous ends?
This does not preclude the existence of any God, of course. He may be a vicious, sadistic God. Or, like the Greeks and Romans before us, he may be a pantheon of narcissistic Gods who have no interest in looking out for us.
But a God who was benevolent and loving, as we are told the Christian God is, would never create the world we live in. Believing in him requires either shuttering yourself off from the carnage all around you; or crafting frankly ridiculous excuses (God works in mysterious ways?).
Most things which we accept, we accept on the basis of proof. That proof is not always rock solid but there is a standard to which we hold most of our beliefs.
God, however, many people accept with no proof at all. Belief in God is a product of upbringing, societal and cultural convention, a desire for comfort and intellectual laziness.
As for the study proofs you mentioned, there is no surity of the force being God .
It can?t be repeated under test conditions and there are other possible explanations for what may have happened.
and addressing the "no proof" argument, in March 2016 a new discovery was made in relation to the Big Bang, that being that scientists where able to trace gravity waves, which affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics. In particular they showed that the ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe were proof that the Steady State Theory was wrong and there was, in fact, a "beginning" of the universe. So, in order for there to be a beginning, there must be a beginner. As it takes a person to knock down the domino's, it also takes some sort of cosmic being to wield things into existence.
so first with the "bad things happen so there is no God" claim. Look at it this way. You own some dolls. These dolls are lifeless creatures, you determine everything and anything they do, they love you unconditionally unless you say otherwise, they would never hurt each other without you making them hurt each other, etc. - wouldn't that get boring? Don't you think you'd get tired of always knowing how the story will go? Wouldn't you feel bad for controlling these dolls, especially when you know that with the click of a finger you could whisk free will and life into them? I mean, it would end your boredom. It will also make their love for you more meaningful, or there hate for you more entertaining. It would just make make things more fun.
Firstly no proof of God's existance,
Secondly had there been God , he would not have let so much of injustice in the world.
Had he been so considerate and 'above all' he would not let people or even worse his devotees suffer with deadly diseases, born with incapabilities, raped ,tortured by various means etc.
there is no proof of that.