Do you believe in God?

[Camaroyenko]

You have no proof God exists. To list all the reasons for disregarding God as a fact would take literally days. For starters the Bible is not reliable info, it often contradicts itself and it can't be proven that God wrote it.

Also look at this: http://imgur.com/OnekE

Do you want to believe in a God as cruel as that?

That can't be right. I'll have to get the Bible out and see if those are true O_o



I mean, why would He say it's best to remain unmarried, if it's a sin to have premarital sex? Doesn't make sense.

 

[cullenand]

If we haven't answered the question of what or who created the universe, then we haven't proven or disproven God's existence.

Exactly my point. Im not saying that there is a God or that there isnt a God, because I dont know, nobody does. But there is a possibility that God in some form exists.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't understand this sentence at all. Could you please clarify?No one has claimed that God doesn't exist because we don't believe he does.Evolution is the exact opposite of "bang we just appeared" This however...is the definition of "bang we just appeared"So? He could have just forgiven us. Why did he kill his Son? Plus, it's not like Jesus actually sacrificed his life. It's not quite dying if you get to come back three days later. Not to mention Jesus is apparantly God anyway, so unless God himself died, which I can't imagine you believe, it wasn't much of a sacrifice at all.

I love that whole post, especially the bold. Nothing beats good old rational thinking.

 

[huskeR32]

That can't be right. I'll have to get the Bible out and see if those are true O_o



I mean, why would He say it's best to remain unmarried, if it's a sin to have premarital sex? Doesn't make sense.

Ah, but now we come to one of the biggest problems with the Bible: There's way too many versions/interpretations of it.

You'll probably be able to find a Bible that doesn't say these things, but other versions surely do.

 

[Tic Tach]

If we haven't answered the question of what or who created the universe, then we haven't proven or disproven God's existence.

Perhaps there's an error in the question: "Who/what created the universe?"

Perhaps it simply didn't have a beginning or "creation", and just always has been. After all, many theists don't have any problem with the idea of eternity or eternal life, so why can't time also be eternal in the opposite direction? Or, the universe could indeed have come into existance out of purely natural occurance(s). I think that many leading astrophysicists take this stance.



It is now becoming clear that everything can, and probably did, come from nothing. (Robert A.J. Matthews)

Space and time both started at the big bang and therefore there was nothing before it. (Cornell University Ask an Astronomer)

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing. (Scienceline.org)

Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. (Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University)

Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God. (Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii)

The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable. (Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek)

Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things, perhaps even the entire universe, can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. (Mark I. Vuletic)

 

[Hun200kmh]

Perhaps there's an error in the question: "Who/what created the universe?"

Perhaps it simply didn't have a beginning or "creation", and just always has been. After all, many theists don't have any problem with the idea of eternity or eternal life, so why can't time also be eternal in the opposite direction? Or, the universe could indeed have come into existance out of purely natural occurance(s). I think that many leading astrophysicists take this stance.



It is now becoming clear that everything can, and probably did, come from nothing. (Robert A.J. Matthews)

Space and time both started at the big bang and therefore there was nothing before it. (Cornell University Ask an Astronomer)

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing. (Scienceline.org)

Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. (Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University)

Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God. (Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii)

The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable. (Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek)

Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things, perhaps even the entire universe, can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. (Mark I. Vuletic)

BANG, we just appeared. I agree

 

[hampus_dh]

If we haven't answered the question of what or who created the universe, then we haven't proven or disproven God's existence.

Well then Santa Claus is alive together with the Tooth Fairy.
I haven´t seen any documents or reports on them not existing..

I mean, why would He say it's best to remain unmarried, if it's a sin to have premarital sex? Doesn't make sense.

Does any of it?

 

[TankAss95]

Tankass is incorrect .

But he won't accept that as the Bible told him what to believe.

Maybe I have come across as a single minded person, I often question and challenge my religion, I'm just very inexperienced as of yet. Im still taking in and challenging the teachings of the Bible, which I will continue to spend my life on earth to do. The Bible does not tell me what to believe, I only believe I think is plausible, and as of yet, I have found nothing that I do not believe false.
I would never believe something just to become stubborn.
To dylansan reply. I will respond once I have studied more and have more knowledge of the topics you have covered. I have sources of information which I cannot locate right now which I find would be helpful in my response.

To everyone, thanks for your patience.

 

[Tic Tach]

...and as of yet, I have found nothing that I do not believe false.

Maybe start here

 

[bass264]

Nobody "created" time itself. Humankind created the concept of time simply as a device to measure the relative distance between one event and another. Time itself as an entity is just a byproduct of those events happening. It's simply one state of affairs taking over from another state of affairs.

Time is just a illusion...

 

[Camaroyenko]

Does any of it?

I guess not. LOL

 

[homeforsummer]

Time is just a illusion...

An illusion.

And no, it isn't.

 

[TJC_69]

Maybe I have come across as a single minded person, I often question and challenge my religion, I'm just very inexperienced as of yet. Im still taking in and challenging the teachings of the Bible, which I will continue to spend my life on earth to do. The Bible does not tell me what to believe, I only believe I think is plausible, and as of yet, I have found nothing that I do not believe false.
I would never believe something just to become stubborn.

And yet we're still waiting to hear about your experiences that you claim to have that prove to you that God exists .

And please enlighten the thread on the plausibility of man being created in the image of his maker . As science proves time & time again that we are a product of evolution and over time we have decended from smaller mammals & indeed fish .

Is God a fish then , or a single celled amoeba ?
Please enlighten me , i'm open & ready to be convinced . 👍

 

[bonobo4]

The statement "God exists" is neither a tautology, that is, not true by definition, nor is it verifiable, as we'll (almost certainly) never know absolutely (without any doubt). There is no absolute proof to say he exists as of yet, but none of the opposite (evolution is still just a theory and God could easily have made the first creatures and let them evolve). Hence:

We have no absolute proof he exists and vice versa, hence it is unverifiable.
The existence of God is not a tautology and vice versa.

Therefore, so far as I'm concerned, whether he exists or not is meaningless. Maybe he does/does not. However, belief in God is a gamble with 4 outcomes.

Belief in God - He exists. You go to Heaven/Hell etc. If he doesn't exist you have simply wasted time to no downfall.
No belief - He exists. You go to Hell/Heaven etc. If he doesn't exist you have wasted no time but are no better of (you will rot when you die as there is no afterlife).

So it is a gamble, of which it is probably slightly better to believe than not to. However, I stand neutral, as for me at least it's meaningless and/or pointless arguing/debating his existence. But, for the record, I voted Maybe but am much more inclined to believe Science than Religion. I would have voted no but we can't ever be certain he exists until we meet him (revelation/death, which in the case of revelation would likely never be believed anyway).



As for the question, What is God, that's a different question altogether.

 

[boomee]

You my friend are absolutely wrong but we can argue back and forth all the time I will pray for you but I completly disagree and you definitly need to study the bible again

Challenge accepted.


One must remember that the first twenty-two chapters of Genesis are myth. We are modern human beings. We have scientific means to explain most things. The people who were present 3300 years ago, about the time Torah was compiled, hadn't the faintest conception of the scientific method. This does not insinuate that they were stupid by any means when considering the document they compiled.

As a pre-modern society, their first concern was to ensure solidarity among their people. When considering Émile Durkheim's theory of mechanical solidarity, one need look no farther than the Israelites for a prime example. There are generally two punishments for deviance: death or exile. With those punishments for various crimes, people were kept in line. There are 613 commandments in Torah. 365 negative: "do not" and 248 positive: "do". One's associations in premodern societies were not chosen. The purpose of Torah in the first place can be easily understood as a code of conduct: Torah means "To teach". What is it teaching? Law.

God reveals himself to Abraham. Like the bases for Christianity and Islam, it was a personal revelation. God just spoke to one dude. Maybe the dude was crazy. Abraham, Muhammad, Jesus, and the prophets during the time of prophecy could have easily been dismissed as crackpots.

Let us take the claim of revelation at Sinai. Supposedly, God revealed God's self to several hundred thousand people at the same time. If famine were to say that "the voice of Isaac Newton called to me the evening of the 23rd of October, 2011 and told me to drop a sperm whale and a potted plant off of the Royal Albert Hall", one could quite easily dismiss him as a loon.

However. Imagine that the voice of Isaac Newton spoke to famine and every last GTPlanet user at the same time. Though it is an even more preposterous claim, it is fundamentally hard to dismiss. Could every last GTP'er be wrong?




I'll pick on Christianity as an example of the fundamental contradictions within organized religions.

The entirety of the New Testament, and therefore Christianity as a result, is based on mistranslation and the contradiction of Tanakh.

The whole point of Christianity is the coming of the mashiach which was foreseen during the time of the prophets. However there is no logical reasoning whatsoever supporting the claim by Jesus of Nazareth to the messiahship.

Example: Isaiah 7:4. The word "Alma", which is in the original verse, means maiden, whereas the word "bethulah" means virgin. The word bethulah is not used. Nobody ever said that the messiah would be born from a virgin.

Consider lineage. The Messiah is supposed to be derived from the stock of David, right? One must remember that Jewish lineage was still on a patrilineal basis at this time. Only through one's father was one considered a Jew. Joseph (the father) was a gentile. Not Jewish. In the age of patrilineal descent, Jesus was neither Jewish nor a legitimate descendant of David.


Let us also consider that God explicitly forbids human sacrifice. "You shall not sacrifice your children to moloch".

Well, the New Testament claims that Jesus was the son of God. The son of God was apparently sacrificed on a cross in order to pay for the sins of humanity. The notion that God would engage in human sacrifice is preposterous.

 

[High-Test]

You my friend are absolutely wrong but we can argue back and forth all the time I will pray for you but I completly disagree and you definitly need to study the bible again

Please give some reasoning for your assertion that I am absolutely wrong.

I would genuinely like to hear it.

 

[TJC_69]

Please give some reasoning for your assertion that I am absolutely wrong.

I would genuinely like to hear it.

+1 . If he disagrees he should back it up with contrary evidence .
If he can't provide it , it is because he just doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his faith or teachings.

 

[huskeR32]

Please give some reasoning for your assertion that I am absolutely wrong.

I would genuinely like to hear it.

This. ^^^^^

What a lot of you arguing for religion need to realize is that the following statements are ridiculous:
-You're wrong (EDIT: I mean when this statement is not backed up with any other thoughts)
-I could argue with you, but I won't
-OMG why don't you believe??? I do!!!11!1!!1

Any of the above, many variations of which have shown up in this thread, make you look naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

Telling him he is wrong without pointing out any of his supposed errors is probably the most damaging thing you could do to your position in this debate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

it was a question mate. seeing as you said "well if im right im right and if im not then ok"

Could you explin how you got to that god-theory?
And also your theory about God himself or herself?

What is your theory on who created GOD?
I assume you have one since you have a theory that he exists.

I understand it is a question but you too must understand my apprehensions for trying to explain something when I feel you're trying to bait me in . Also why is God a he/she? What makes you think God is even humanoid or with a gender, see that wording shows that your taking a context from popular religion and not the idea that a god could just be a powerful celestial being.

What Theory of God? I don't remember giving a theory of god, but I do remember giving my idea on it. Also with our limited understanding what makes you think the this being would have to be created by another force? How do we know it is a singular god and not several powerful celestial beings? I mean the questions can go on from here to Timbuktu, you nor I will be able to answer them. We can try with our opinions but that doesn't place things in a factual bearing.

 

[TJC_69]

I understand it is a question but you too must understand my apprehensions for trying to explain something when I feel you're trying to bait me in . Also why is God a he/she? What makes you think God is even humanoid or with a gender, see that wording shows that your taking a context from popular religion and not the idea that a god could just be a powerful celestial being.

What Theory of God? I don't remember giving a theory of god.... How do we know it is a singular god and not several powerful celestial beings? I mean the questions can go on from here to Timbuktu, you nor I will be able to answer them. We can try with our opinions but that doesn't place things in a factual bearing.

Does this help ? -

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So God looks like man ? Yes ?
Source - http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm

 

[PeterJB]

Does this help ? -
So God looks like man ? Yes ?
Source - http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm

That may not necessarily mean in a physically sense, the Bible shouldn't really be interpreted in such a literal manner as it is written.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Does this help ? -
So God looks like man ? Yes ?
Source - http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm

No...why would god look like man? Cause a bible verse said so? So thus since a bible verse said so that is instant proof?

So if I write a blog saying Harry Potter is Jesus and Voldemort is the devil that is proof too right? I mean considering the context that both the bible and my blog were written by humans.

 

[TJC_69]

That may not necessarily mean in a physically sense, the Bible shouldn't really be interpreted in such a literal manner as it is written.

I know , I was engaging in debate & providing evidence . 👍
It's interesting to think about that though isn't it ? I mean , the Bible , the word of God in text form given to man no less - should not be taken literally .

I mean , what kind of belief system is that ?
" Ahh yes , this is your holy book , it's from God , but .... uhh ..... when people question it , just say , uhh , it's not meant to be literal . And you are a believer . " .....

Fiction does strange things to people . 👍

LMSCorvetteGT2

I was proving a point . I'm an Atheist & therefore do not believe fairytales to be fact . 👍

 

[Tic Tach]

If horses had gods, they would look like horses. (Xenophanes)

 

[TJC_69]

If horses had gods, they would look like horses. (Xenophanes)

Excellent point . 👍

I believe Dolphins have a God called " Flipper " .

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was proving a point . I'm an Atheist & therefore do not believe fairytales to be fact . 👍

What fairytale was I quoting? Were you proving a point to me or showing me what the religious would say to me for saying that?

 

[bonobo4]

If horses had gods, they would look like horses. (Xenophanes)

They probably would.

Also, Jesus was almost always depicted as a white man in art and literature related to Christianity. Yet he was born in Palestine, so chances are he would look like most people living in that area now, most likely not white. I assume this is either because a) No one knows/knew exactly what Jesus looked like and/or b) 2000 years ago man was seen as greater and since Catholicism/Christianity as a whole was introduced by the Romans who were predominantly white and Latin, as well as Renaissance artists, they probably depicted him as a white man to make him look more powerful than say, a black man as back in those days a black person was seen as inferior, unlike the Son of God.

 

[TJC_69]

What fairytale was I quoting?

I didn't say you were quoting from a fairytale.

From what I saw you were giving your opinion .
My statement clearly states my opinion on the matter of the Bible being a book of fairytales .

Not quite sure how you got that confused but whatever . 👍

 

[High-Test]

Also, Jesus was almost always depicted as a white man in art and literature related to Christianity. Yet he was born in Palestine, so chances are he would look like most people living in that area now, most likely not white. I assume this is either because a) No one knows/knew exactly what Jesus looked like and/or b) 2000 years ago man was seen as greater and since Catholicism/Christianity as a whole was introduced by the Romans who were predominantly white and Latin, as well as Renaissance artists, they probably depicted him as a white man to make him look more powerful than say, a black man as back in those days a black person was seen as inferior, unlike the Son of God.

The wife of Moses, Tzipporah, was from what is now Ethiopia. A inconvenient fact for those who used/use the Bible as a basis for racism.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I didn't say you were quoting from a fairytale.

From what I saw you were giving your opinion .
My statement clearly states my opinion on the matter of the Bible being a book of fairytales .

Not quite sure how you got that confused but whatever . 👍

No problems I was probably taking my post too seriously, sorry about that.