Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

But obviously, you're not here to actually listen to any explanation. You've already chosen not to believe, why would someone on the internet change your mind all of a sudden?

So, should I bother to explain my take on it? Will you listen to my opinion and allow me the "privilege" of sharing it? Or are you simply going to turn it into a joke and come back with the age-old "saying God is beyond comprehension is just a lame excuse" routine?

You don't know a thing about me, other than I refuse to accept the existence of god without evidence. So take it easy on the assumptions, please.

If your take on it actually contains something verifiable, observable, or even slightly logical, I'm more than willing to listen.

I'm open minded to arguments that are backed by evidence and reason. The flip side of that is that I will always question somebody who doesn't seem to have any. Generally, that's considered pretty intelligent behavior.

Yeah, but you can't use your own beliefs to attack Christianity in a debate. If you think we are all Gods then that's nice, but what does that have to do with my post?

If you expect us to accept people's beliefs as evidence that god does exist, then you need to allow the other side to use their beliefs too. Or better yet, stick to using some evidence for your side, and the other side will continue to do the same (like they've been doing for 250 pages).

 

[Moontallico]

I am an early Christian so therefore I lack knowledge and often find it hard to answer the questions in this thread.
As I have said there is only one God. He does live. I tried to explain why this assumption was logical back a few pages when I was talking about infinite regress and 'cause and effect'.

Hmmm, doesn't make sense. I don't see how much harder my questions are in compairison to that infinite regress and cause and effect that you talked about, which, by the way, I don't even know what it is. To me is just a way to avoid answering and to lose your faith/believe. Anyway, one question that might not be that 'hard' to answer, how do you know that he/she has a life? How do you even know that it's a he? I believe 'he' hasn't talked to you or that you've seen 'him'...

 

[TankAss95]

Hmmm, doesn't make sense. I don't see how much harder my questions are in compairison to that infinite regress and cause and effect that you talked about, which, by the way, I don't even know what it is. To me is just a way to avoid answering and to lose your faith/believe. Anyway, one question that might not be that 'hard' to answer, how do you know that he/she has a life? How do you even know that it's a he? I believe 'he' hasn't talked to you or that you've seen 'him'...

You can assume what you like, but I'm telling the truth. I'm not going to respond to questions I don't know yet.

God is living, yet he is immortal. He doesn't have a gender (since he is non-material) but jesus was born male. In the Bible he is referred to as being male, just like the human race is referred to as being 'mankind'.
And he does talk to me through prayer.

Now how about I ask YOU a question now. What is the origin of the universe and life? As I have repeatedly said, all scientific theories fail when questions of origins are introduced.

 

[huskeR32]

You can assume what you like, but I'm telling the truth. I'm not going to respond to questions I don't know yet.

God is living, yet he is immortal. He doesn't have a gender (since he is non-material) but jesus was born male. In the Bible he is referred to as being male, just like the human race is referred to as being 'mankind'.
And he does talk to me through prayer.

Now how about I ask YOU a question now. What is the origin of the universe and life? As I have repeatedly said, all scientific theories fail when questions of origins are introduced.

So far, everything fails when it comes to the origins of the universe. Someday, we may have the technology and the know-how to find the answers. Until then, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

"God did it" is but one unsubstantiated answer in a sea of equally unsubstantiated answers. It would be folly to believe in any of them without the proper evidence.

 

[Negrumir]

You don't know a thing about me, other than I refuse to accept the existence of god without evidence. So take it easy on the assumptions, please.

If your take on it actually contains something verifiable, observable, or even slightly logical, I'm more than willing to listen.

I'm open minded to arguments that are backed by evidence and reason.

Do I don't know anything about you, but I've just looked at the last couple of posts you made. Specifically the one I quoted gives the impression that you only wish to draw out responses so that you can further make a mockery of the subject.

Unfortunately, verifiable and observable are rather hard to come by with almighty powers that don't blatantly reveal themselves to the world.
As for evidence and reason, it's all a matter of perspective. What might make sense to me, may seem silly to you, and vice-versa.

With that said, I fail to see this post being an effective explanation to you. But nonetheless, these are my views. Not all of them are strictly stated in the Bible, but there are many other things not mentioned in the Bible so...

Firstly, yes, God exists outside of the bounds of mortality. He also exists outside of most people's grasp of reason, hence why lots of people find His existence hard to believe.

Specifically, people can grasp one aspect of eternity, that is: having no end. It just goes on and on... It's the other aspect, having no beginning, that most can't grasp. "If God created the universe, who created God?" Well, no one did, he always existed.

What makes me laugh about this is how some (not all) evolutionists say "Well He couldn't have always existed, He must have got here somehow." But wait, where did the material for evolution come from? It didn't just magically appear with the big bang, that makes even less sense. Yes, I know, many believe the material to have always existed, that the big bang (and/or evolution) was simply the material coming together to form stuff. Double standard much? How can God be required to have a beginning, but simple matter not be bound by the same requirement?

I chose to believe that God is eternal, and that he created matter; not that matter formed itself.

As for "God created man in his image." That's simple too; He did.

We are three-part beings; body, mind, and spirit.
Body and mind are physical, they are bound by the laws of physics and all that (and sin, but that's not relevant to this particular point). The spirit is, well, spiritual.

The body is the physical form we inhabit. It is operated by our mind. The mind contains our memories, logic, reasoning, personality, etc... The difference between the spirit and the mind is why spiritual things don't seem logical. For the most part, people are not very aware of their spirit.

Thing like morals or conscience are part of the spirit. But again, people are not always aware of their spirit. The more you shun it and ignore it, the easier it will become to continue doing so.

The spirit is eternal, it will never die. After the body is gone, there is either Heaven (eternal joy) or hell (eternal suffering).

God created us in his image (likeness) because that's what a spirit looks like. Were you able to perceive one, you see that it has one head, one torso, two arms, and two legs.

Now I've obviously not proved anything. More likely (to you) I've probably proved how silly our beliefs are.
But proof of God doesn't exist, not in a physical or logical form.
It wouldn't be a belief or require faith if we could prove it scientifically.

Anyway, that's what I think of it, I'm pretty sure that even other Christians will disagree with me. Oh well, I'm entitled to my opinion just as anyone else is the there's.

 

[TankAss95]

So far, everything fails when it comes to the origins of the universe. Someday, we may have the technology and the know-how to find the answers. Until then, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

"God did it" is but one unsubstantiated answer in a sea of equally unsubstantiated answers. It would be folly to believe in any of them without the proper evidence.

I disagree with you. Science will never explain the origin of the universe. God is the author of science. If science ever understands the origins of the universe then I will be wrong. Time will tell.

And God is a logical explanation for the beginning of everything.

 

[Famine]

And God is a logical explanation for the beginning of everything.

Except for God.

 

[TankAss95]

Do I don't know anything about you, but I've just looked at the last couple of posts you made. Specifically the one I quoted gives the impression that you only wish to draw out responses so that you can further make a mockery of the subject.

Unfortunately, verifiable and observable are rather hard to come by with almighty powers that don't blatantly reveal themselves to the world.
As for evidence and reason, it's all a matter of perspective. What might make sense to me, may seem silly to you, and vice-versa.

With that said, I fail to see this post being an effective explanation to you. But nonetheless, these are my views. Not all of them are strictly stated in the Bible, but there are many other things not mentioned in the Bible so...

Firstly, yes, God exists outside of the bounds of mortality. He also exists outside of most people's grasp of reason, hence why lots of people find His existence hard to believe.

Specifically, people can grasp one aspect of eternity, that is: having no end. It just goes on and on... It's the other aspect, having no beginning, that most can't grasp. "If God created the universe, who created God?" Well, no one did, he always existed.

What makes me laugh about this is how some (not all) evolutionists say "Well He couldn't have always existed, He must have got here somehow." But wait, where did the material for evolution come from? It didn't just magically appear with the big bang, that makes even less sense. Yes, I know, many believe the material to have always existed, that the big bang (and/or evolution) was simply the material coming together to form stuff. Double standard much? How can God be required to have a beginning, but simple matter not be bound by the same requirement?

I chose to believe that God is eternal, and that he created matter; not that matter formed itself.

As for "God created man in his image." That's simple too; He did.

We are three-part beings; body, mind, and spirit.
Body and mind are physical, they are bound by the laws of physics and all that (and sin, but that's not relevant to this particular point). The spirit is, well, spiritual.

The body is the physical form we inhabit. It is operated by our mind. The mind contains our memories, logic, reasoning, personality, etc... The difference between the spirit and the mind is why spiritual things don't seem logical. For the most part, people are not very aware of their spirit.

Thing like morals or conscience are part of the spirit. But again, people are not always aware of their spirit. The more you shun it and ignore it, the easier it will become to continue doing so.

The spirit is eternal, it will never die. After the body is gone, there is either Heaven (eternal joy) or hell (eternal suffering).

God created us in his image (likeness) because that's what a spirit looks like. Were you able to perceive one, you see that it has one head, one torso, two arms, and two legs.

Now I've obviously not proved anything. More likely (to you) I've probably proved how silly our beliefs are.
But proof of God doesn't exist, not in a physical or logical form.
It wouldn't be a belief or require faith if we could prove it scientifically.

Anyway, that's what I think of it, I'm pretty sure that even other Christians will disagree with me. Oh well, I'm entitled to my opinion just as anyone else is the there's.

👍
I really respect you mate. You have clearly explained the exact things that I couldn't. Beautiful and simple explanations you have used there. I have learnt much from you.
God bless you. 👍

 

[Moontallico]

You can assume what you like, but I'm telling the truth. I'm not going to respond to questions I don't know yet.

God is living, yet he is immortal. He doesn't have a gender (since he is non-material) but jesus was born male. In the Bible he is referred to as being male, just like the human race is referred to as being 'mankind'.
And he does talk to me through prayer.

Now how about I ask YOU a question now. What is the origin of the universe and life? As I have repeatedly said, all scientific theories fail when questions of origins are introduced.

But how the heck do you know God is living? Curently at least.
Then if he doesn't have a gender (since he is non-material), are you trying to tell me he's like the stickman, only the base body? xD
And then, where did the penises and the vaginas came from? All, its idea uh?
By the way it made Jesus appear in Mary's womb, it should have 'invented' a better way of making us reproduce instead of the animalistic way we do. Ha, theory of the evolution kicking in by accident. xD
Anyway, I didn't talk about Jesus, but since you recalled him, there are many religions that talk about him and each has it's own image and theories about him. Seriously, in diferent places in the world he either has a diferent hairstyle, hair colour, eyes colour, face, what ever, it's just dumb. Another thing that is not coherent.
And pff, after what I read I won't ever believe in the bible. I only see the bible as a moral code book, all it's written there I see as metaphors, and that way it has good teachings.
Oh, and, Nooo. YOU try to talk to it through prayer. You don't ever hear it...

About your question to me, simple answer!
We just can't know! No time machine and there's no God to tell us xD
Of course they fail, just like religion ones. All the religion ones say is something really vague like, something (wich we don't even know if it exists or not, we just assume based on a book) created it. How? we don't have a clue since it only tell us who, what and how much time it took (which was just some days)...
Yea, great answer on how it was created...

 

[TankAss95]

Except for God.

Okay. Lets go to the 'cause and effect' again.
Take me dividing a piece of paper over and over as much as I can. There are two outcomes:
1.The paper is infinitely divisible.
2.it will finally come to a point where the paper can no longer be divided.

Infinite regress goes on for ever, and infinity doesn't make much sense.

Now imagine 'cause and effect'. We trace back further and further and there can be two outcomes, it either is an infinite regress, or there is a cause with no effect previous to it. The universe either has a beginning or not. If it has, God could be the only logical answer.

 

[Dennisch]

Okay. Lets go to the 'cause and effect' again.
Take me dividing a piece of paper over and over as much as I can. There are two outcomes:
1.The paper is infinitely divisible.
2.it will finally come to a point where the paper can no longer be divided.

Infinite regress goes on for ever, and infinity doesn't make much sense.

Now imagine 'cause and effect'. We trace back further and further and there can be two outcomes, it either is an infinite regress, or there is a cause with no effect previous to it. The universe either has a beginning or not. If it has, God could be the only logical answer.

You really need to look beyond the bible. It can be wrong, you know.

 

[TankAss95]

You really need to look beyond the bible. It can be wrong, you know.

I became Christian when I wondered, "Why something instead of nothing?". I thought monotheism was a logical explanation, and then I found a strong connection in Christianity after I was properly introduced to it.

 

[Moontallico]

Firstly, yes, God exists outside of the bounds of mortality. He also exists outside of most people's grasp of reason, hence why lots of people find His existence hard to believe.

But why do you believe in that specific God and not in older ones? At my eyes people only think of God for things that haven't yet been explained by science. I mean, poeple used to think that there was a God action for almost every thing they didn't have an explanation to. Like rain or thunder, people used to see the rain as the God's unhappyness or the thunder as God's wrath, that the God of war made us fight with each other or the God of love made us, well, love. But since they've been disproven noone believes in them anymore. This "new" God is more neutral so a lot of people still believe in it. But why don't you believe in other Gods and just in one still makes me think a lot.

Specifically, people can grasp one aspect of eternity, that is: having no end. It just goes on and on... It's the other aspect, having no beginning, that most can't grasp. "If God created the universe, who created God?" Well, no one did, he always existed.

Yea? Like I asked before, how do you know that there's no other thing that also allways existed besides that one God? It could very well have parents if it's a he like the bible claims. But since it was said here the it doesn't have a gender, there can still be other Gods, so why believe in just one?

What makes me laugh about this is how some (not all) evolutionists say "Well He couldn't have always existed, He must have got here somehow." But wait, where did the material for evolution come from? It didn't just magically appear with the big bang, that makes even less sense. Yes, I know, many believe the material to have always existed, that the big bang (and/or evolution) was simply the material coming together to form stuff. Double standard much? How can God be required to have a beginning, but simple matter not be bound by the same requirement?

I chose to believe that God is eternal, and that he created matter; not that matter formed itself.

Again, we don't have a time machine to know so. What do we all do, assume, the so called theories. That's why there's more than that theory. Unlike religion that just says what it is and it's the ultimate thing that has to be and no other thing is. And all that is a certainty to the religious (in this case christian) people. It's exclusive, they only have one explanation and don't expand, seek for other answers and take the God one for granted.

As for "God created man in his image." That's simple too; He did.

We are three-part beings; body, mind, and spirit.
Body and mind are physical, they are bound by the laws of physics and all that (and sin, but that's not relevant to this particular point). The spirit is, well, spiritual.

The body is the physical form we inhabit. It is operated by our mind. The mind contains our memories, logic, reasoning, personality, etc... The difference between the spirit and the mind is why spiritual things don't seem logical. For the most part, people are not very aware of their spirit.

Thing like morals or conscience are part of the spirit. But again, people are not always aware of their spirit. The more you shun it and ignore it, the easier it will become to continue doing so.

Sin is physical? Any way it's not a explanation to the man at God's image... That's the basics, therefore not relevant...
And wrong, there's specific part on our brain that controls our conscience and moral is not a spiritual thing either. That's like saying that a criminal or a person that has a mental desiese has no spirit since, one has no moral problems by killing or robbing or whatever he does, and the person with a mental desiese that can't control well his actions or does bad things because he doesn't undertand what he's doing is socially wrong/unacceptable.

The spirit is eternal, it will never die. After the body is gone, there is either Heaven (eternal joy) or hell (eternal suffering).

Again, not relevant to the subject...

God created us in his image (likeness) because that's what a spirit looks like. Were you able to perceive one, you see that it has one head, one torso, two arms, and two legs.

You're talking as if you've perceived one... So, have you?

Now I've obviously not proved anything. More likely (to you) I've probably proved how silly our beliefs are.

Are all the beliefs, including yours, silly to you too?

But proof of God doesn't exist, not in a physical or logical form.
It wouldn't be a belief or require faith if we could prove it scientifically.

True that, but the same can be said about other things such as monsters that were claimed to exist, yeti, chupa-cabra, ghosts,and many others that weren't yet proven or disproven existing by science, right?

Anyway, that's what I think of it, I'm pretty sure that even other Christians will disagree with me. Oh well, I'm entitled to my opinion just as anyone else is the there's.

Ya, agreed to the opinion sentence. We all have the right of free speech.

 

[Exorcet]

Now imagine 'cause and effect'. We trace back further and further and there can be two outcomes, it either is an infinite regress, or there is a cause with no effect previous to it. The universe either has a beginning or not.

This makes sense.

If it has, God could be the only logical answer.

This makes none. And it's easy to see.

"If it has, Zeus could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, Big Bang could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, Unicorns could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, ___ could be the only logical answer."

 

[huskeR32]

Do I don't know anything about you, but I've just looked at the last couple of posts you made. Specifically the one I quoted gives the impression that you only wish to draw out responses so that you can further make a mockery of the subject.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm mocking you, but I'm not. But I find most answers provided in support of theism to be lacking in logic and reason, and by questioning those answers, I'm hoping to get better answers in return.

Unfortunately, verifiable and observable are rather hard to come by with almighty powers that don't blatantly reveal themselves to the world.
As for evidence and reason, it's all a matter of perspective. What might make sense to me, may seem silly to you, and vice-versa.

Fair enough. I always think back to the unicorn comparison here, but that hasn't gone over too well so far in this thread.

....

Firstly, yes, God exists outside of the bounds of mortality. He also exists outside of most people's grasp of reason, hence why lots of people find His existence hard to believe.

Again, this just seems a little too convenient. Being able to say that god is outside any bounds that might help define him strikes me as a way to avoid asking yourself some tough questions about it all. But that's just me I guess.

Also, a lot of my issues with this is how theists present these ideas with such certainty. "God exists outside the bounds of mortality" is a definitive statement, and I only accept definitive statements that can be backed by evidence. Now, if you were to say "I believe that god exists outside the bounds of mortality," you wouldn't appear so closed-minded. See what I mean? If theists don't want to be questioned on their claims, they should stop acting like the have the absolute answers. You can cry all you want about disrespect, mockery, etc., but when these views are presented as truth, they're going to be questioned.

Specifically, people can grasp one aspect of eternity, that is: having no end. It just goes on and on... It's the other aspect, having no beginning, that most can't grasp. "If God created the universe, who created God?" Well, no one did, he always existed.

Conjecture. See above. Try a rewording along the lines of "I believe god has no beginning and no end, and created everything."

What makes me laugh about this is how some (not all) evolutionists say "Well He couldn't have always existed, He must have got here somehow." But wait, where did the material for evolution come from? It didn't just magically appear with the big bang, that makes even less sense. Yes, I know, many believe the material to have always existed, that the big bang (and/or evolution) was simply the material coming together to form stuff. Double standard much? How can God be required to have a beginning, but simple matter not be bound by the same requirement?

No "evolutionists" that I know think the material for the Big Bang "magically appeared." Instead, we say we don't know where it came from, and until evidence points to a certain explanation, we're perfectly happy saying we don't know. God is an equally unfounded answer to the question as any other.

I chose to believe that God is eternal, and that he created matter; not that matter formed itself.

Now this statement I can get on board with. You seem to be leaving open the possibility that you're wrong. 👍

As for "God created man in his image." That's simple too; He did.

We are three-part beings; body, mind, and spirit.
Body and mind are physical, they are bound by the laws of physics and all that (and sin, but that's not relevant to this particular point). The spirit is, well, spiritual.

The body is the physical form we inhabit. It is operated by our mind. The mind contains our memories, logic, reasoning, personality, etc... The difference between the spirit and the mind is why spiritual things don't seem logical. For the most part, people are not very aware of their spirit.

Thing like morals or conscience are part of the spirit. But again, people are not always aware of their spirit. The more you shun it and ignore it, the easier it will become to continue doing so.

The spirit is eternal, it will never die. After the body is gone, there is either Heaven (eternal joy) or hell (eternal suffering).

God created us in his image (likeness) because that's what a spirit looks like. Were you able to perceive one, you see that it has one head, one torso, two arms, and two legs.

Now we're wandering back into the area of conjecture. You believe that humans have a "spirit." That's cool. But you present it like it's a verifiable (and verified) fact. As I said above, either provide facts for it, or present it as an opinion.

Now I've obviously not proved anything. More likely (to you) I've probably proved how silly our beliefs are.
But proof of God doesn't exist, not in a physical or logical form.
It wouldn't be a belief or require faith if we could prove it scientifically.

Anyway, that's what I think of it, I'm pretty sure that even other Christians will disagree with me. Oh well, I'm entitled to my opinion just as anyone else is the there's.

Absolutely you are. Make sure that you keep in mind that it's just that, an opinion, and I've got no problem with it. Thanks for the reply 👍

 

[TankAss95]

Pretty much proof that God exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1J5kX4Cubc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Moontallico]

This makes sense.

This makes none. And it's easy to see.

"If it has, Zeus could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, Big Bang could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, Unicorns could be the only logical answer."
"If it has, ___ could be the only logical answer."

Unicorns?

That would be really cool xD
Sorry, I had to

 

[Moontallico]

Pretty much proof that God exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1J5kX4Cubc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Really, now you go look for answers on youtube? Dude, don't you have your own opinion? Do you really need to use someone elses?
Seriously, you wanted an answer from us to that? Just click on the video response to that same video and enjoy the comments..
Or check other videos on youtube as well, since you're looking for your answers there.

 

[Negrumir]

But why do you believe in that specific God and not in older ones? At my eyes people only think of God for things that don't yet have been explained by science. I mean, poeple used to thing that there was a God action for almost every thing they didn't have an explanation to. Like rain or thunder, people used to see the rain as the God's unhappyness or the thunder as God's wrath, that the God of war made us fight with each other or the God of love made us, well, love. But since they've been disproven noone believes in them anymore. This "new" God is more neutral so a lot of people still believe in it. But why don't you believe in other Gods and just in one still makes me think a lot.

Why do I believe in this one God?

I chose to.

I just explained my views on some things. As I said, no one (except God Himself) can prove anything or explain everything. Of course, I come far shorter of explaining everything than others do. But it really comes down to simply making a choice.

Yea? Like I asked before, how do you know that there's no other thing that also allways existed besides that one God?

I do not know.

Again, we don't have a time machine to know so. What do we all do, assume, the so called theories. That's why there's more than that theory. Unlike religion that just says what it is and it's the ultimate thing that has to be and no other thing is. And all that is a certainty to the religious (christian (is it that word correct?)) people.

Uh... you'd have explain a bit better than that if you're trying to actually make a point.

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that things evolved from almost nothing. The theory of Creation is based on the idea that God created the universe. Oh, and it's based on the Bible. I don't know of any particular theories that are based on God creating everything that don't also take the Bible into account, but there might be.

Some people say there is no such thing as "Creation science."
A creation scientist studies the world, taking into account the Theory of Creation. An evolutionist does the same thing, excepting that they base their studies on the Theory of Evolution.

The Christian teachings don't say "It's this way, and only this way." to an extent. We have the Bible, which explains some things. Also, parts of it are written directly by, and from the perspective of man; thus some things may be incorrect. An example would be the Sun "Rising" and "Setting," this was based on the idea that the earth was flat. But now everyone knows better.

So my point with this is that yes, Christians do learn and change their views based on learning. It's just that we adhere to the Theory of Creation.

Sin is physical? Any way it's not a explanation to the man at God's image... That's the basics, therefore not relevant...
And wrong, there's specific part on our brain that controls our conscience and moral is not a spiritual thing either. That's like saying that a criminal or a person that has a mental desiese has no spirit since, one has no moral problems by killing or robbing or whatever he does, and the person with a mental desiese that can't control well his actions or does bad things because he doesn't undertand what he's doing is socially wrong/unacceptable.

Points taken.
Perhaps I should explain a bit better.
According to the Bible, when the first sin was committed, it allowed sin to enter the world. From then on, everything in the world is tainted by sin. That's what I meant by that, not that sin is physical. But with Salvation "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law (of sin)."
Off the original point, but I felt I should clarify a bit.

As I said, it becomes easier to ignore your conscience as you continue to ignore it. So a murderer has obviously made it a habit to ignore his conscience for a while. Also, if you're not taught "right" from "wrong," or taught that there is no such thing, then it simply makes it even easier to ignore.

Again, not relevant to the subject...

So?

You're talking as if you've perceived one... So, have you?

No, but I originally posted from a discussion that had to do with "God created man in his image."
Some people think God to be a shapeless force. If He was and He then created us in His likeness, then we'd be shapeless as well.

Are all the beliefs, including yours, silly to you too?

No. Some seem silly, others do not. In my opinion, the Theory of Evolution does have plenty of validity to it; I just don't think we evolved to the extent that that evolutionists say.

The point of what I said there was that you (and others)probably (and rather evidently) think of Christianity as pure nonsense. Thus, my entire post would be even more pure nonsense in their eyes.

True that, but the same can be said about other things such as monsters that were claimed to exist, yeti, chupa-cabra, ghosts,and many others that weren't yet proven or disproven existing by science, right?

Yes, that can be said. Your point?

Ya, agreed to teh opinion sentence. We all have the right of free speech.

Then my post has been successful. Thank you for reading it.

 

[Negrumir]

Stuff

Most of you reply consists of pointing out that I state things as fact rather than "I believe." This was not intentional, I simply did it out of laziness. lol I didn't feel like adding "I believe" or similar, to every single sentence I typed.
As a belated disclaimer, everything I posted was typed as "This is what I believe."

In my defense, I'm not the only one who has done this by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's hope this doesn't end up as a double post.

Edit: it did, oh well.

 

[huskeR32]

Most of you reply consists of pointing out that I state things as fact rather than "I believe." This was not intentional, I simply did it out of laziness. lol I didn't feel like adding "I believe" or similar, to every single sentence I typed.
As a belated disclaimer, everything I posted was typed as "This is what I believe."

In my defense, I'm not the only one who has done this by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's hope this doesn't end up as a double post.

Edit: it did, oh well.

Most of it, but not all of it. There were some points/questions in my post that I think merit a response, but whatever.

And it may seem trivial for me to get hung up on presenting things as fact vs. opinion, but it seems like a significant difference to me.

 

[Moontallico]

Why do I believe in this one God?

I chose to.

I just explained my views on some things. As I said, no one (except God Himself) can prove anything or explain everything. Of course, I come far shorter of explaining everything than others do. But it really comes down to simply making a choice.

I do not know.

Oh, I see! It's just a belief without a reason then? You just pick a certain religion because you like it more or...?

Uh... you'd have explain a bit better than that if you're trying to actually make a point.

What I was trying to say is that it just can't be proven whether the universe, matter and I'm adding for the believers (God), "magically" apeared or just exists infinitly. Hence the time machine.

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that things evolved from almost nothing. The theory of Creation is based on the idea that God created the universe. Oh, and it's based on the Bible. I don't know of any particular theories that are based on God creating everything that don't also take the Bible into account, but there might be.

Some people say there is no such thing as "Creation science."
A creation scientist studies the world, taking into account the Theory of Creation. An evolutionist does the same thing, excepting that they base their studies on the Theory of Evolution.

Yup, I do know there is. But I just consider it to be part of the religion. Why? Because I believe that the creation science is "blinded" by the religion and doesn't take every single possibility into account.

The Christian teachings don't say "It's this way, and only this way." to an extent. We have the Bible, which explains some things. Also, parts of it are written directly by, and from the perspective of man; thus some things may be incorrect. An example would be the Sun "Rising" and "Setting," this was based on the idea that the earth was flat. But now everyone knows better.

So my point with this is that yes, Christians do learn and change their views based on learning. It's just that we adhere to the Theory of Creation.

But, a majority of christians do only take that into account possibly because they only follow and know the bible. I know so, as I went through all the catechism years and finished it because my parents forced me to, but anyway, that sun rising and setting was known a bit before the christians accepted it.
They just didn't want to accept any other truth because they were afraid of something religious being disproven. And yes, sorry to bu** this in but I'm saying this about God too. And again like I said in the begining of this post I now see that it's just a matter of preference.. of sorts. So, this really is a useless discussion untill something is proven or disproven about a God's existance, if possible.

Points taken.
Perhaps I should explain a bit better.
According to the Bible, when the first sin was committed, it allowed sin to enter the world. From then on, everything in the world is tainted by sin. That's what I meant by that, not that sin is physical. But with Salvation "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law (of sin)."
Off the original point, but I felt I should clarify a bit.

As I said, it becomes easier to ignore your conscience as you continue to ignore it. So a murderer has obviously made it a habit to ignore his conscience for a while. Also, if you're not taught "right" from "wrong," or taught that there is no such thing, then it simply makes it even easier to ignore.

Oh, yea, very off the point indeed, but sorry, it doesn't make sence either way and I'll explain why it doesn't make sence to me.
If the sin was commited, the sin was already there. You can't eat cereal if you don't have it.
Actually, yea, it was there. Just read the story of the aple and the snake. The snake represents the sin, and it was there already, tempting.

Aaaannndd? Still not spiritual. If it was spiritual, since the spirit is a pure thing, at least a child would be good, regardless it was taught or not the "right" form "wrong". That doesn't happen, we just have that reckless animal instinct of doing "naughty" stuff. And talking about animal stuff, kinda off topic, don't the babies crawl resembles the primal walking of any 4 legged animal? If a human baby didn't see any other humans I say that's very possible it wouldn't walk only on 2 feet.

So?

It's useless to be mentioned. Just wastes space. Enough of a point?

No, but I originally posted from a discussion that had to do with "God created man in his image."
Some people think God to be a shapeless force. If He was and He then created us in His likeness, then we'd be shapeless as well.

So you're saying that you know what God's like, based on what this statement says: "God created man in his image". Meaning we're suposed to look like it, and it is suposed to look like us.
Since we have no other form than this (or are shapeless), neither is god?

No. Some seem silly, others do not. In my opinion, the Theory of Evolution does have plenty of validity to it; I just don't think we evolved to the extent that that evolutionists say.

The point of what I said there was that you (and others)probably (and rather evidently) think of Christianity as pure nonsense. Thus, my entire post would be even more pure nonsense in their eyes.

Oh, I see.

Yes, that can be said. Your point?

My point is that we can't prove wheter those mosnters exist or not, just like we can't prove if God exists or not. It's all just a belief by some, and disbelief by others.

Then my post has been successful. Thank you for reading it.

No problem, man
Been an interesting discussion, but since now it's 2 am where I live I'm going to rest. But you can still write your reply as I'll be very happy to read and reply back.

 

[niky]

Except that other religions didn't center around one person who claimed to be god in the flesh. And those other religions didn't dramatically change the course of human history forever.

First point changes what, exactly? Those who claim to be avatars of dieties don't count?

Didn't drastically change the course of history forever? So we're going to forget completely about all history that isn't Western history? Islam is as much a part of that history as Christianity is. And Judaeism is more influential, having spawned both.

No, it's exactly what you just said it is, shutting the door on certain possibilities that don't meet the criteria you would like them to.

The criteria being provability? Is it too much to ask to see proof of the things that it was said God did? The collapse of the walls of Nineveh? The pillars of salt? The biblical flood (oops... forgot... borrowed myth).

There is not equal evidence. No Hindu walked this earth and changed the world forever, nor did any Buddhist, shaman, Muslim, or any other besides the one person who's death actually did those things. As an example, the entire history of 'Western' music was forged on the foundation of Christianity, not any other religion. That is one small piece of many concrete historical evidences that suggest it should be looked at and weighed differently than Hinduism, as an example. And our system of dates?

Mohammed certainly changed the course of history. Gautama Buddha did. Confucius did. Don't confuse your cultural millieu with the totality of human experience.

Our system of dates is Roman. With days named after Norse Gods and months named after Roman people. Which proves what, exactly?

Unfortunately, verifiable and observable are rather hard to come by with almighty powers that don't blatantly reveal themselves to the world.

As for evidence and reason, it's all a matter of perspective. What might make sense to me, may seem silly to you, and vice-versa.

God has, in olden times, had no problems with turning people into pillars of salt, razing cities to the ground, sending his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egyptian households, causing global floods, raising the dead, or allowing his prophets and representatives to walk on water or be translated directly to heaven.

I'd call an observable and concrete example of any of the above verifiable evidence.

 

[Negrumir]

Most of it, but not all of it. There were some points/questions in my post that I think merit a response, but whatever.

And it may seem trivial for me to get hung up on presenting things as fact vs. opinion, but it seems like a significant difference to me.

Alrighty then...

Again, this just seems a little too convenient. Being able to say that god is outside any bounds that might help define him strikes me as a way to avoid asking yourself some tough questions about it all. But that's just me I guess.

Yes, it does seem convenient. I'd be lying if I said I haven't had similar thoughts myself. But as I said near the end of the post. It wouldn't be a belief, nor would it require faith if God could be proven. Since the entirety of Christianity is based on faith, it's fitting given the context.

No "evolutionists" that I know think the material for the Big Bang "magically appeared." Instead, we say we don't know where it came from, and until evidence points to a certain explanation, we're perfectly happy saying we don't know. God is an equally unfounded answer to the question as any other.

Well, I've heard both that it spontaneously appeared and (the more common) that it was there, but then transformed through evolution.
Likewise, there's not reason to have to find out what God's origins are, we don't know, and may never know.

All theories say one of three things.
It always was.
It wasn't and then it was.
Who knows.

God has, in olden times, had no problems with turning people into pillars of salt, razing cities to the ground, sending his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egyptian households, causing global floods, raising the dead, or allowing his prophets and representatives to walk on water or be translated directly to heaven.

I'd call an observable and concrete example of any of the above verifiable evidence.

Well I've not seen any of that myself. Though I've heard of many miracles these days. People being healed, even raised from the dead. But since I've not seen it or experienced it myself, I won't use that as evidence.

 

[huskeR32]

All theories say one of three things.
It always was.
It wasn't and then it was.
Who knows.

Bingo. Nobody knows. I don't, so I say so. You don't, so you say "god did it."

Choosing "god did it" from the endless list of possibilities is hard for me to do. To go even further, and start to say which god is the right god seems downright foolhardy to me. But to each his own.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Let's not get the big bang theory and the theory of evolution mixed up.

 

[TankAss95]

Really, now you go look for answers on youtube? Dude, don't you have your own opinion? Do you really need to use someone elses?
Seriously, you wanted an answer from us to that? Just click on the video response to that same video and enjoy the comments..
Or check other videos on youtube as well, since you're looking for your answers there.

No, I found a video that explained what I was trying to say about the infinite regress part. If you actually paid attention you would see that God is a logical candidate to explain origin.

 

[Moontallico]

No, I found a video that explained what I was trying to say about the infinite regress part. If you actually paid attention you would see that God is a logical candidate to explain origin.

Along with many other explanations besides the God one only, most people choose to accept...
And of course God is a logical candidate to explain origin. If that story didn't made at least a bit of sense, people wouldn't believe in a God to start with...

Bingo. Nobody knows. I don't, so I say so. You don't, so you say "god did it."

Choosing "god did it" from the endless list of possibilities is hard for me to do. To go even further, and start to say which god is the right god seems downright foolhardy to me. But to each his own.

'Nuff said. 👍

 

[Exorcet]

No, I found a video that explained what I was trying to say about the infinite regress part. If you actually paid attention you would see that God is a logical candidate to explain origin.

The video doesn't explore the idea of a timeless origin predisposed to creating a universe (like strings outside of the universe). It also ignores its self contradiction, saying that a timeless book can't change and thus can't be a cause, yet a timeless being can make decisions (which can't happen if the book can't change).

That video isn't proof. And it gets even worse when at the end, three religions are pit against each other and he chooses one and declares it the best with no reasoning.

 

[Moontallico]

The video doesn't explore the idea of a timeless origin predisposed to creating a universe (like strings outside of the universe). It also ignores its self contradiction, saying that a timeless book can't change and thus can't be a cause, yet a timeless being can make decisions (which can't happen if the book can't change).

That video isn't proof. And it gets even worse when at the end, three religions are pit against each other and he chooses one and declares it the best with no reasoning.

I didn't bother to watch the video, and I am glad I didn't because it sounds dumb