- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
Perhaps the eternal life part refers to Jesus. Every time a christian mentions his name, he lives a little bit longer inside your heads.
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,489 comments
- 1,154,266 views
Perhaps the eternal life part refers to Jesus. Every time a christian mentions his name, he lives a little bit longer inside your heads.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That isn't true.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
Careful, that's difficult to prove. It's safer to say that you have no reason to believe it.
- 13,922
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Not really. Your God is the God that you claim him to be. I haven't witnessed him, so I'm merely going on descriptions from you and the texts that you've specified, namely the Bible.
You perceive his actions as those of a kind and loving God.
I perceive his actions as those of a spiteful, vengeful, sadistic bastard.
I'm not judging from your claims of him being loving, I'm judging from the descriptions of his actions. When someone describes their friend as a "loving, caring wife beater" I think that some part of that isn't quite right.
When in doubt, I trust actions over words. And God's actions mostly speak pretty clearly to the sort of solutions to problems he favours.
You might think that, but he's not real. I might as well be mad at Santa Claus. I'm not mad at God for the simple reason that I have no evidence that there's a God to be mad at. I seem to recall that even you in the past have admitted that there's no objective evidence for God.
However, as a hypothetical figure, were he to exist then yes I would be angry at God. If only for all the awful, awful things that he's done, and all the awful things that he's allowed to happen for what I perceive to be no good reason. I'm not like you, I don't take someone's word that mass genocide is in everyone's best interest. I would likely dedicate my life to making sure that humanity was free of such a dangerous being.
As it is, I can't save people from themselves, so I just get on with my life by doing the best I can for me and those around me.
You and your fellow believers can do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't start imposing upon me living my life the way I want to. If you want to go out and flagellate yourselves and moan about how us heathens are living lives of sin and we'll get our comeuppance when Judgement Day comes, then hop to it.
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
Because it is a process to accomplish something, and once it has been accomplished it ends.
No not exactly.
It's not about rational as much as it is relational.
I've said this before, that it is a lot like marriage in a comparative respect.
A sort of balance between the two.
In fact concerning that, let me ask you this question:
Of the two factors rationale or relationship, which do you think would be the stronger to rely on concerning fidelity, in the event you were tempted to cheat on your wife?
He did openly tell them.
"Do not eat from that tree, for in the day you do you shall surely die."
You see we are in a shared power arrangement.
He has given us the power to decide our own fate.
I don't know about that.
I think there are quite a few good reasons to choose God.
As far as conditional love that is true.
But God's love is unconditional.
Thats why I said earlier he is a lot like a mum.
Thats what Jesus's example was all about.
No there is definitely a difference, but it does not change the outcome or reality of my claim.
As I indicated earlier, the Scientific method is specifically designed and structured the way it is, due to the fact that the goal of objectivity, can only be attempted and established through a subjective means.(the individual)
Therefore the subjectivity factor cannot be eliminated, only minimized.
Therein is what I believe you do not seem to recognize as the true underlying fact of the matter.
Now that being the case, in reality everything is a matter of individual perspective.
However, obviously through the process of Scientific method, objectivity being paramount, results are considered
objective, or at least to contain as little subjectivity as possible.
So now, if you remove the individual, you not only remove subjectivity, but all means to establish objectivity as well.
A value oriented position is one wherein you want to preserve and maintain the establishment of real or true value.
To do that God decided to impart Dominion and autonomy unto us along with a balance of potential.
In other words there is a balance of somewhat equal potential in the consequences of decisions in exercise of that Dominion and autonomy.
That is what God has declared and precisely the reason Jesus had to come and pay the price to provide the cure.
Thus far in my examination and experience, I have found that to be a 100% accurate diagnosis.
The only establishable fact concerning God's existence, is he may or maynot exist.
It is not conclusive evidentially either way.
You can believe anything you want, among which is believing God exists.
That is your individual right.
Just remember if you have miscalculated in your belief, it is not God's fault.
Every man is given the measure of faith.
It's up to you whether you use it or not.
Last but not least, God does not send anyone to hell anymore than the law sends anyone to jail.
If you end up in either place your decisions are what put you there.
(In the latter it is possible to be falsely convicted, in the former it is not)
Well first you are assuming God must take pleasure in torturing someone.
He doesn't.
If he is a righteous judge of things as he claims, he has no choice but to punish the guilty.
He would not be righteous if he did not.
The infection is a spiritual condition that everyone is born with.
There are no exceptions.
And it is a spirit of rebellion spread through contact and ultimately Adam and Eve's obedience to Satan.
So we are all born under that influence and are consequently allied with him.
Now if you will consult the Bible it gives instructions on how to get the prescription needed and the phone number to stay in touch. Just follow the instructions.
Afterwards, you will no longer be allied with Satan but God.
Last edited:
dylansan
Premium
- 5,020
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
I cannot believe in anything I want. It is not a choice.
Here's how you can convince me otherwise: All you have to do is believe that the tooth fairy exists. Go ahead. If you can, for five minutes, successfully convince yourself that the tooth fairy really does exist, and not feel like you're lying to yourself during that time, then I'll listen to you.
I've already tried to believe in god (which I've mentioned before). I tried to honestly tell myself that he must be real. And the whole time, I knew I was not being honest because I didn't actually believe it. Because belief is not a choice.
When the crime is being unconvinced of something, and the punishment is infinite misery, something is amiss.
And as you are well aware, many members of this very website have followed the bible to a T and gotten no reply. You have been asked many times to describe the process by which you were able to communicate with god, and because your answers have always been vague, no one has come any closer to finding god than they have to finding the tooth fairy.
The directions in the bible are not enough. The directions you have given are not enough. The fact that people's experiences with the bible are so hit and miss is just evidence that the book is so open to interpretation. When your eternal fate is at stake, it shouldn't depend on your ability to guess whether a line is meant to be literal or metaphorical, or to guess if a word has been mistranslated at some point along the many many versions.
Worst of all, people read books like the Koran and feel exactly as connected with allah as you do with your god. So even if I were to have a very deep experience which makes me feel like I have known god, I can't deny the fact that many many people that feel that way are undeniably wrong, which means I can't trust that experience either. People convert from one religion to another all the time. Why do you think that is? Do you think these people know a godly experience when they feel it? If not, why not?
Lastly, I am not allied with Satan no matter my actions. If there were a god out there, nothing I do is intended to hurt his feelings or make him think I wouldn't be grateful if I thought he was real. I'm just (and this is an important word you really need to remember) unconvinced.
- 126
- Burien, Wa
- none
- none
I was not sufficiently clear. The conclusion that I draw from that text is that the eternal punishment is cessation of existence, not eternal torture, and ceasing to exist is only a punishment if the alternative is eternal life.
The first rule of exegesis is 'read what it says'. In this text no leap of logic is needed.
Concerning the list, it is a mixed bag. I've looked at it before. But I will take it at face value, and try and arrange it into something that makes sense. There will be eternal punishment. There is hell (more properly Ghenna or Sheol (which are conceptually different places) or something Greek that I don't remember, There is 'the grave', also Sheol, but in Acts obviously refers to burial/entombment and decomposition. There is an eternal fire/furnace/lake of burning sulfur (smells bad too!) Into which Satan, his minions, and all the bad people will be thrown. Ultimately it seems that Hell itself will be thrown in. It is clear that Satan etc... are in for a bad time, but it is also clear that the bad people are going to a second death, at which time body and soul will be destroyed. Therefore, the eternal punishment can only be cessation of existence.
No leap there either, goes in a straight line.
Last edited:
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
I suppose generally speaking that we can take the "problem" differently.
Consider everything being mere probabilities, numbers. Take them and add them. You would get some very high complex system but then just take a few. Add for example the probability of life to emerge only from external forces. The earth to develop in a very good living conditions only from external forces, the orbit of the earth, etc.. It would add, not forgetting the number of things being added (could be infinite), as a very tiny bit of probability for all these conditions to be at the same time.
Of course someone could say it's a result of processes of billion years. But that still doesn't tell you why it happened, probabilities would say these would be vers unlikely to be all united even for billion years.
I hope you get what I mean because I'm not sure what I said is clear enough. Someone could say that there is no designer at all, but he shall not forget that the probability is very very tiny to only be a result of external forces through billion years.
Consider everything being mere probabilities, numbers. Take them and add them. You would get some very high complex system but then just take a few. Add for example the probability of life to emerge only from external forces. The earth to develop in a very good living conditions only from external forces, the orbit of the earth, etc.. It would add, not forgetting the number of things being added (could be infinite), as a very tiny bit of probability for all these conditions to be at the same time.
Of course someone could say it's a result of processes of billion years. But that still doesn't tell you why it happened, probabilities would say these would be vers unlikely to be all united even for billion years.
I hope you get what I mean because I'm not sure what I said is clear enough. Someone could say that there is no designer at all, but he shall not forget that the probability is very very tiny to only be a result of external forces through billion years.
Last edited:
- 6,963
- South Africa
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
- 24,066
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Had there only been one planet in the whole universe i'd agree. But since there are billions of them, the chance that all those factors happened together somewhere isn't such a tiny probability. It just so happens that all of it happened on our planet.
It's like the monkey on the typewriter writing the complete works of Shakespeare scenario. One monkey randomly typing away, even over billions of years, has a tiny chance of coming up with a master piece. Billions of monkeys doing the same drastically increases the possibilities.
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
Maybe considering all the planets the probability would be higher, but I'm not sure of a lot or enough to say that it's completely possible. But then for the latter part it comes down to personnal judgement of these probabilities.
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
I think that the probability is a lot higher than you think it is (or want it to be).
Eight New Planets Found in "Goldilocks" Zone: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2015-04
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
"We don't know for sure whether any of the planets in our sample are truly habitable," explains second author David Kipping of the CfA. "All we can say is that they're promising candidates."
You see, you cannot really compare any planets with earth. Some are rocky, others frozen, etc.. They have a very very little chance to become habitable one day (just as the earth) but they still have way too less ingredients. It is also possible these will explode by a meteorite, probably more probable than life happening on these planets.
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
Citations required
- 29,449
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
No 'would be' about it, the probability of finding other planets with life is higher if you can establish there are more planets out there.
It's obviously possible, the question is how probable it is.
It's not just a question of finding out how many planets there are out there, but how life originates in the first place. That is a question that science is answering as we speak. It is also a question of how resilient life is once it has originated - and the answer to that is already pretty unequivocal - it's almost unbelievably resilient... so resilient, infact, that the idea that bacterial life first arrived on Earth via comets or 'from outer space' is a definite possibility - but it is also very possible that life originated completely from scratch right here.
One thing is for sure, however - we should attempt to answer this most important of questions using the best tool we have, science. Observation and evidence, and theories constructed from them, are king. Guesswork and one's personal beliefs on the subject are useless.
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
It's the same situation descrbided for the earth, it is just that it's way too unlikely.
I agree that this subject is complex and that more researches in science are needed, but i've put down the problem very generally. We cannot really quantify what numbers we are talking about and that's what we have to look for, but I also don't think we will ever come up to a definite conclusion about this problem. There are too many variables playing an important role and the more we'll learn the more we'll have to learn again (as always in science).
- 29,449
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It depends on what you mean by that - the more general the question, the more likely it is that a 'definite conclusion' will remain elusive. But we have already made many important discoveries that are 'definite conclusions' in their own right. Does life evolve? Yes. Can we detect planets orbiting distant stars? Yes. Can we conduct scientific experiments on the surface of other planets? Yes. Can we land a probe on a comet? Yes. As such, I think it's only a matter of time until we discover clear evidence of extra-terrestrial life of some sort, and while that alone would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries imaginable, it will also answer a myriad of other important questions. Imagine that we find cells/microbial life in the permafrost of a passing comet and bring it back to the lab... what if it turned out to have some similar genes to ancient bacterial families as found on Earth? That would be incredible, and it is no longer beyond our capability to actually do this. Sadly, it might not happen in our lifetimes, even if we manage not to wipe ourselves in a nuclear war or succumb to medieval religious fanatics who think they know everything there is to know already.
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
Why is it way too unlikely? You must have a good reason to say this, so please show me the numbers.
- 87,885
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Actually it does. Your favourite colour is both a matter of personal perspective (a shade that pleases you personally) and faith (that it's the shade you believe it is) - but the wavelength of light required to produce that shade is neither a matter of perspective or faith. Light in that wavelength (however you measure wavelengths - our unit system is subjective, but the measurements they produce are objective) always emits that hue, whatever you call it.
No - since that's not the case. You're missing one key aspect of the scientific method - and that's that one result in one instance from one individual is not sufficient to establish veracity. Individual testimony is not how the scientific method functions.
In order for an observation to become evidential, it has to be capable of being repeated regardless of the observer. Someone else, somewhere else must be able to do the same process and see the same outcome. It doesn't matter who that someone else is, nor where they are - it doesn't even matter if they're human or on Earth.
So you have a test designed to be, as you say, as objective as possible (and furthermore designed to have the best chance possible of proving you wrong) which has to be repeatable no matter who or what the observer is. What do we call something that happens regardless of who or what the observer is? Objective!
In reality nothing is a matter of individual perspective, except belief and preference. And even then, they have objective outcomes - love is the most subjective of preferences, and we can objectively measure if someone is in love...
Stylel_Code
(Banned)
- 344
- France
- stylel-soheib
Yes I agree with what you said. But what I wanted to prove at the beginning was very generally speaking. I did not focus on the beginning of life, but it's a part of my thing. What I said is, if you loook at the earth, the life, the orbit, the atmosphere, the universe and its caracteristics, quantum physics (again a broad generalization is enough I currently have never studied it) and all these complex things so perfectly fitted. Someone can call all this chaos, but I cannot think how such magnificient things such as our solar system we're living in can emerge from chaos. Now that's my personnal opinion and that's what I wanted to share
.Again, I cannot quantify anything. It's just a matter of self-assumption that I say that the probabilities are very low. "Low" is subjective in maths or physics. I refer to "low" something that is near zero.
- 24,066
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
What I said is, if you loook at the earth, the life, the orbit, the atmosphere, the universe and its caracteristics, quantum physics (again a broad generalization is enough I currently have never studied it) and all these complex things so perfectly fitted. Someone can call all this chaos, but I cannot think how such magnificient things such as our solar system we're living in can emerge from chaos. Now that's my personnal opinion and that's what I wanted to share
That's looking at it from an inverted perspective. All these 'complex things fitting so perfectly' is the wrong way to look at it. The planet happened to exist within a set of circumstances. Life just managed to adapt to those circumstances and then thrive. The magnificence in it is how life developed on this rock to what it is today, not how this rock is perfect to sustain life as it is today.
- 2,542
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
You say that it is near zero. What do you consider near zero: 1%, 0.01% 0.00000001%, etc. You must have some reason to assume that it is near zero. Did you read this somewhere? Did someone tell you? I'm pressing this, because I think that you are basing your conclusion on incorrect data.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Biological life is undoubtedly magnificent, but it is also very rare and possibly unique, since we have no evidence of its existence elsewhere. Essentially, biological life is a magnificent and temporary accident which will vanish under any number of expectable scenarios, especially the death of our star.
On the other hand, inorganic life looks as though it could be comfortable almost anywhere in the universe. If we had an ounce of brains, we'd direct our own evolution towards an inorganic life-form which could thrive in a radiation rich environment.
- 24,066
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
The probability of winning big on the lottery is near to zero - but people still do.
- 13,922
- Adelaide
- Neomone
But the thing is, we have no idea. It could be near zero. It could be pretty much guaranteed on a planet of even vaguely similar conditions to Earth.
We've observed exactly one Earth-like planet in detail: Earth. We're pretty sure others exist due to having detected them in the right regions around other stars, but that's about it. We know pretty much nothing about them. They could be teeming with life right now, and we'd have no idea.
You can't make any sensible conclusions from the observation of a single instance. Well, apart from "this is possible". That's all we can really say, it's possible for life to occur on an Earth-like planet. We still don't know exactly how, or if it's only Earth-like planets, or how likely it is.
The correct assumption is that the probability is somewhere between infinitesimal and 100%. If you want to restrict it further than that, you need to have reasoning to justify why.
- 2,621
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
What do you say we find some numbers that give us some perspective on this, and make it a little less of a "personal judgement?"
There are 100 billion* stars in the Milky way, and roughly that same number of galaxies in the observable universe. So, there are somewhere around 10^22 stars** out there. It has been estimated that 5%*** of those stars are "sun-like" (similar size, temperature, luminosity). So, we're left with 500 quintillion (500 billion billion) stars similar to our own sun, that could be conducive to life.
Of those 500 quintillion stars, the US National Academy of Sciences estimated back in 2013 that around 22%**** of them have an Earth-sized planet orbiting in their habitable zone (the distance at which liquid water could likely exist). Alright, where are we at? Doing the math yields 100 quintillion (100 billion billion) Earth-like planets in the universe.
Now, if we were to get wildly speculative and say that 1% of those planets capable of sustaining life actually do have life, and in 1% of those cases, that life has evolved into an intelligent form on a similar level to humans, then we have 10 quadrillion (10 million billion) intelligent civilizations in the observable universe.
Those numbers too optimistic for you? Okay, let's say .01% of planets have life, and .01% of those life forms are intelligent. That's 10,000,000,000 (10 trillion!) intelligent civilizations.
---
So sure, looking at the percentages make life seem staggeringly unlikely. If only 1% of all stars are Sun-like and have Earth-like planets orbiting them, and intelligent life develops on only .01% of those planets, that's a roughly .00001% chance of intelligent life existing in any given solar system. So I get where you're coming from. Seems almost impossible that we're here, doesn't it?
But the raw numbers paint a very different picture. That .00001% yields, again, 10 quadrillion intelligent civilizations. Written out, that's 10,000,000,000,000,000! Suddenly, it seems almost inevitable that we're here.
In something as unimaginably vast as the universe, percentages don't really mean too much. We're talking about numbers so big, that pretty much anything that's possible has probably happened many, many, many times over. It's quite incredible to think about!
I went with the conservative end of the ranges these numbers are thought to fall in:
*It's thought that there are between 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way
**It's thought that there are between 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe
***It's thought that between 5%-20% of stars are "Sun-like"
****It's thought that up to 50% of Sun-like stars have Earth-like planets around them
Take the high end of one (or several) of these numbers, and that 10 quadrillion estimate becomes even larger!
That's A LOT of numbers. Tell me, can you even count to that much?? I sure can't. 
Similar threads
