Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

Are you not a layman? I'm merely an engineer - technical but not a scientist. I am however well aware that vast amounts of what we think we know are just reasonable, mostly-working, hypothesis.

If you're an engineer then you're more aware than most. The reality is that everything we know are various levels of hypotheses. Those that are the best working hypotheses in their field are called theories, but every single one that I'm aware of has areas in which it's incomplete.

Take electromagnetism and gravity, which between them account for basically everything that happens on a human scale. Both are pretty well defined at the sort of engineering level that you might need to make a bridge or a computer or bake a loaf of bread, but at the cutting edge of the fields there's so much left to be learned.

Even at low levels there can be surprising areas that lack knowledge simply because no one has gotten around to doing the work. I'm sure you've come across some.

No, a belief is what someone thinks to be true without any proof. They may well have a reason for it. The reasoning may be flawed, but that takes nothing away from the end result - someone has a belief. Let's say they're unwilling to change their view based on new information (present tense). That does not mean they won't change their view (in the future) based on new information.

Say there's a bunch of people who say that they believe in God yet accept that there's no objective evidence for God. In your view, are we to call them either liars or atheists? I don't see any problem with calling them what they are - theists. There is no proof that would falsify their belief.

This is where the Russell's Teapot thing comes into it though.

If you have no proof of something's existence, then any conclusion you choose to come to can be justified by simply saying "well, there's no proof against it either". One might think that this would mean that you can just pick whatever you like. There are problems with this style of reasoning though, in that it's highly unlikely to be correct and it puts up some major obstacles to actually adapting when you're wrong.

Take God. There's somewhere between an incredibly large and an infinite number of possible gods or sets of gods that could exist. Without any other information, they're all equally likely and so there's no real way to choose between any of them.

On the other hand, you also have one more potential hypothesis, that there are zero gods. This hypothesis happens to also fit exactly with the information you have observed so far, you haven't made any observations that would support a hypothesis for a god or gods.

The other difference is that while any of the hypotheses for gods or sets of gods can be supported by observational evidence, the hypothesis for no gods cannot. The only information that you'll get that supports the no gods hypothesis is no evidence for gods at all.

This is why we start with the assumption that there's no god or gods unless there's some reason to think otherwise. This is called the null hypothesis. Because that hypothesis has as good a chance as being correct as anything else, it will be correct if nothing is observed, and is easily falsifiable by observing pretty much anything contrary to it at all.

If you were to try and falsify a hypothesis for God, it's mostly impossible. For most gods, there's no observation that can be made that would falsify their existence. These are unfalsifiable hypotheses. Even the versions of God that are logically inconsistent (like the Christian God) usually come with some caveat that He's beyond the laws of logic anyway.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are scary, because once you accept them there's no rational way you can get yourself out, as there's nothing that you can observe that would force you to conclude that they're erroneous. This is what I meant above when I said there's obstacles to adapting when you're wrong. They're a mental trap.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not considered to be scientific, as science is based on observation and attempting to prove a hypothesis wrong. If something can't be wrong, then there's no sensible manner in which it can be considered to be right either.


I think a nice thought experiment that is more approachable to many people is to think about if they were the first explorers on an alien planet. They know nothing about it going in, and they're looking for life.

If they start with the assumption that there's magical rabbits on the planet, they'll never be able to disprove that even if the planet is really totally empty. The rabbits can always be over the next hill, or in another hole, or something. There's nothing that they can find that will tell them that there are no magical rabbits. And no matter how many other things they find there could always be magical rabbits too.

However, if they start with the assumption that the planet is completely dead, then either they're right or they'll eventually stumble across some sort of lifeform that will prove that their assumption was wrong in no uncertain terms. It means that at any given moment their assumption is in accordance with the best information they have to hand, and if better information turns up they can immediately throw away their incorrect hypothesis and assume the new one.

That's humans. The universe is our unknown planet, and the magical rabbits are God.

Anyway, with them it's more about not believing what they're told, or choosing to believe some invalid source of information, rather than an irrational thought process per se. To bring it more in line with the God in the room scenario, try presenting them with a local measles epidemic and see what happens.

It's very nice how optimistic you are that people will be rational when given appropriate information, and to be honest I try to think the same way when I deal with people on an individual level (at least until proven otherwise). But on a larger scale it's just not so. There are plenty of people who simply don't behave rationally. If you read through that vaccination thread there are a few good examples, and there are more on the internet.

http://www.naturalnews.com/048383_measles_outbreak_Disneyland_vaccine_inserts.html

Even after a major outbreak of measles, some people still hang onto the idea that vaccines are more damaging. Thankfully many also decide to change their minds and get their kids vaccinated.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/25/disneyland-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccination-parents

But the thing is that it's not a given that people will change their views even in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence. To use your phrase from before, a lot of people really are that pig-headed. Actually, a lot is possibly an overstatement, but they exist and they're not exactly super rare.

If these people exist within the anti-vaxx community, I think it's fair to say that the religious and militantly anti-religious communities will probably have their fair share of them as well.

Sadly, the modern school system (and society in general, while I'm at it) tends to value memorisation and obedience over critical thinking and adaptability. And the way that society in general treats people who are wrong makes even people who realise their mistake hesitant about admitting fault and changing their mind sometimes.

It is what it is, I'm not entirely sure than my style of relentless analysis of everything is actually a positive in a lot of professions where stuff just needs to get done. For example, the operation of certain separation machines during the Manhattan Project was actually performed better by less educated operators:

The calutrons were initially operated by scientists from Berkeley to remove bugs and achieve a reasonable operating rate. They were then turned over to trained Tennessee Eastman operators who had only a high school education. Nichols compared unit production data, and pointed out to Lawrence that the young "hillbilly" girl operators were outperforming his PhDs. They agreed to a production race and Lawrence lost, a morale boost for the Tennessee Eastman workers and supervisors. The girls were "trained like soldiers not to reason why", while "the scientists could not refrain from time-consuming investigation of the cause of even minor fluctuations of the dials."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Electromagnetic_separation


P.S. Sorry that this is such a gigantic wall of text.

 

[Outspacer]

If you're an engineer then you're more aware than most. The reality is that everything we know are various levels of hypotheses. Those that are the best working hypotheses in their field are called theories, but every single one that I'm aware of has areas in which it's incomplete.

Take electromagnetism and gravity, which between them account for basically everything that happens on a human scale. Both are pretty well defined at the sort of engineering level that you might need to make a bridge or a computer or bake a loaf of bread, but at the cutting edge of the fields there's so much left to be learned.

Even at low levels there can be surprising areas that lack knowledge simply because no one has gotten around to doing the work. I'm sure you've come across some.

Well yeah, but I'm not sure where we go if we take a postulative 'proof of god' and wrap it in existentialist trappings!

This is where the Russell's Teapot thing comes into it though.

If you have no proof of something's existence, then any conclusion you choose to come to can be justified by simply saying "well, there's no proof against it either". One might think that this would mean that you can just pick whatever you like. There are problems with this style of reasoning though, in that it's highly unlikely to be correct and it puts up some major obstacles to actually adapting when you're wrong.

Take God. There's somewhere between an incredibly large and an infinite number of possible gods or sets of gods that could exist. Without any other information, they're all equally likely and so there's no real way to choose between any of them.

On the other hand, you also have one more potential hypothesis, that there are zero gods. This hypothesis happens to also fit exactly with the information you have observed so far, you haven't made any observations that would support a hypothesis for a god or gods.

The other difference is that while any of the hypotheses for gods or sets of gods can be supported by observational evidence, the hypothesis for no gods cannot. The only information that you'll get that supports the no gods hypothesis is no evidence for gods at all.

This is why we start with the assumption that there's no god or gods unless there's some reason to think otherwise. This is called the null hypothesis. Because that hypothesis has as good a chance as being correct as anything else, it will be correct if nothing is observed, and is easily falsifiable by observing pretty much anything contrary to it at all.

If you were to try and falsify a hypothesis for God, it's mostly impossible. For most gods, there's no observation that can be made that would falsify their existence. These are unfalsifiable hypotheses. Even the versions of God that are logically inconsistent (like the Christian God) usually come with some caveat that He's beyond the laws of logic anyway.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are scary, because once you accept them there's no rational way you can get yourself out, as there's nothing that you can observe that would force you to conclude that they're erroneous. This is what I meant above when I said there's obstacles to adapting when you're wrong. They're a mental trap.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not considered to be scientific, as science is based on observation and attempting to prove a hypothesis wrong. If something can't be wrong, then there's no sensible manner in which it can be considered to be right either.


I think a nice thought experiment that is more approachable to many people is to think about if they were the first explorers on an alien planet. They know nothing about it going in, and they're looking for life.

If they start with the assumption that there's magical rabbits on the planet, they'll never be able to disprove that even if the planet is really totally empty. The rabbits can always be over the next hill, or in another hole, or something. There's nothing that they can find that will tell them that there are no magical rabbits. And no matter how many other things they find there could always be magical rabbits too.

However, if they start with the assumption that the planet is completely dead, then either they're right or they'll eventually stumble across some sort of lifeform that will prove that their assumption was wrong in no uncertain terms. It means that at any given moment their assumption is in accordance with the best information they have to hand, and if better information turns up they can immediately throw away their incorrect hypothesis and assume the new one.

That's humans. The universe is our unknown planet, and the magical rabbits are God.

That's all well and good, but really just an argument against believing in God. It's still not showing that a theist is unable to accept that there's no objective evidence without being an incorrectly labeled atheist, or that a theist's belief's cannot be changed rationally unless they have an incorrectly labeled belief.

Say someone believes in God because they "feel God's presence". That's entirely subjective and irrational, but it's not directly contradictory to the rational knowledge that there's no objective evidence. There's no jarring mental state for that person to resolve that might cause them to lie about accepting the lack of evidence or become an atheist.

In contrast, an agnostic faced with proof of God does have a dilemma. I mean, we're talking concrete proof rather than just a lack of evidence. Something's got to give - either their belief or their sanity.

It's very nice how optimistic you are that people will be rational when given appropriate information, and to be honest I try to think the same way when I deal with people on an individual level (at least until proven otherwise). But on a larger scale it's just not so. There are plenty of people who simply don't behave rationally. If you read through that vaccination thread there are a few good examples, and there are more on the internet.

http://www.naturalnews.com/048383_measles_outbreak_Disneyland_vaccine_inserts.html

Even after a major outbreak of measles, some people still hang onto the idea that vaccines are more damaging. Thankfully many also decide to change their minds and get their kids vaccinated.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/25/disneyland-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccination-parents

But the thing is that it's not a given that people will change their views even in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence. To use your phrase from before, a lot of people really are that pig-headed. Actually, a lot is possibly an overstatement, but they exist and they're not exactly super rare.

You're misreading me if you think I'm saying they'd all run out and get the shots. An outbreak does give them a reminder that the threat is real and not just something that might stop their children going for playdates. Whether they are pig-headed about it or not depends on what reasons they have for their anti-vax belief, not whether their belief can truly be called a belief or not. And since some do and some don't get the shots done after an outbreak we are unable to say what anti-vaxxers as a category will do when faced with new information except as a probability.

If these people exist within the anti-vaxx community, I think it's fair to say that the religious and militantly anti-religious communities will probably have their fair share of them as well.

For sure. I'm not sure that "how the anti-vax lot react to an outbreak" is quite the same as "how someone with a belief reacts to new information", but it's pretty close in effect.

Sadly, the modern school system (and society in general, while I'm at it) tends to value memorisation and obedience over critical thinking and adaptability. And the way that society in general treats people who are wrong makes even people who realise their mistake hesitant about admitting fault and changing their mind sometimes.

It is what it is, I'm not entirely sure than my style of relentless analysis of everything is actually a positive in a lot of professions where stuff just needs to get done. For example, the operation of certain separation machines during the Manhattan Project was actually performed better by less educated operators:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Electromagnetic_separation


P.S. Sorry that this is such a gigantic wall of text.

With an element of perfect being the enemy of good? That's the tendency I try to keep in check.

 

[Imari]

That's all well and good, but really just an argument against believing in God. It's still not showing that a theist is unable to accept that there's no objective evidence without being an incorrectly labeled atheist, or that a theist's belief's cannot be changed rationally unless they have an incorrectly labeled belief.

It's showing that theistic beliefs are non-rational.

Say someone believes in God because they "feel God's presence". That's entirely subjective and irrational, but it's not directly contradictory to the rational knowledge that there's no objective evidence. There's no jarring mental state for that person to resolve that might cause them to lie about accepting the lack of evidence or become an atheist.

But if someone is willing to accept a non-rational explanation, why would they be willing to throw that away for a rational one? Just because the clash is less obvious, doesn't mean it's not there.

A theist ignores the in-your-face lack of evidence in favour of what they feel, and they interpret that lack of evidence along with other things in ways that allows them to do that.

In contrast, an agnostic faced with proof of God does have a dilemma. I mean, we're talking concrete proof rather than just a lack of evidence. Something's got to give - either their belief or their sanity.

Not really. As I pointed out earlier, an agnostic can simply default to the No True Scotsman position of "that's not really a god". In the same way as the theist, they can interpret the in-your-face evidence in ways that make their own feelings on the subject more credible to them.


Say Andrew believes that unicorns don't exist. NASA discovers a new planet, and on it is this creature that looks and behaves like a unicorn in every way, a horsey thing with a horn on it's head.

Bob might look at that and say "Wow, a unicorn! That's unexpected, I thought that they didn't exist but there you have it."

Andrew can look at it and say "Not a unicorn, it wasn't found on Earth", or "Not a unicorn, the horn spirals the wrong way", "it's just a horse with a horn" or any number of basically specious statements. Totally easy for him, and impossible to argue with. At the extreme, he can simply say "Doesn't seem like a unicorn to me". It's the equivalent of someone simply replying "nuh uh" to any provided argument.

Try it with any child between the ages of about 3 and 10. People don't lose the ability to do this as they get older, they just get smarter about the ways in which they refuse to engage. The anti-vaxx stuff is a great example, you can provide people with all the information in the world to show that they're wrong, and some of them will still just say "no, it's all bollocks, I'm right". They're idiots, but that's not behaviour that violates their sanity or their belief.

 

[Outspacer]

It's showing that theistic beliefs are non-rational.

I'll go along with that, but that's all it says. It does not say, for example, that a person with irrational beliefs is incapable of rational thought.

But if someone is willing to accept a non-rational explanation, why would they be willing to throw that away for a rational one? Just because the clash is less obvious, doesn't mean it's not there.

No, it can simply not be a clash for them.

A theist ignores the in-your-face lack of evidence in favour of what they feel, and they interpret that lack of evidence along with other things in ways that allows them to do that.

No, again, it's not that they simply ignore that lack of evidence (at least not in all cases). It just doesn't matter to them. It's not even news to many of them. All that accepting the lack of evidence can possibly do is reduce the probability of god existing. Russel's Teapot is fine and dandy in isolation, but the teapot hasn't got the thousands of years of history and lore, the massive buildings, feelings, etc, etc, to go with it. Just because they weigh their subjective above the objective doesn't mean they've ignored the fact.

Not really. As I pointed out earlier, an agnostic can simply default to the No True Scotsman position of "that's not really a god". In the same way as the theist, they can interpret the in-your-face evidence in ways that make their own feelings on the subject more credible to them.


Say Andrew believes that unicorns don't exist. NASA discovers a new planet, and on it is this creature that looks and behaves like a unicorn in every way, a horsey thing with a horn on it's head.

Bob might look at that and say "Wow, a unicorn! That's unexpected, I thought that they didn't exist but there you have it."

Andrew can look at it and say "Not a unicorn, it wasn't found on Earth", or "Not a unicorn, the horn spirals the wrong way", "it's just a horse with a horn" or any number of basically specious statements. Totally easy for him, and impossible to argue with. At the extreme, he can simply say "Doesn't seem like a unicorn to me". It's the equivalent of someone simply replying "nuh uh" to any provided argument.

Try it with any child between the ages of about 3 and 10. People don't lose the ability to do this as they get older, they just get smarter about the ways in which they refuse to engage. The anti-vaxx stuff is a great example, you can provide people with all the information in the world to show that they're wrong, and some of them will still just say "no, it's all bollocks, I'm right". They're idiots, but that's not behaviour that violates their sanity or their belief.

Indeed: "they can" not "they will", "some of them" not "all of them".

Defining what some category will do is futile, and all we can possibly hope to predict are tendencies.

 

[Imari]

Indeed: "they can" not "they will", "some of them" not "all of them".

Well done, you're noticing that some of my words are very carefully chosen.

Defining what some category will do is futile, and all we can possibly hope to predict are tendencies.

You may remember that this started by you asking why an agnostic wouldn't accept suitable evidence of God.

I think that you can answer your own question now.

 

[Outspacer]

Well done, you're noticing that some of my words are very carefully chosen.

The problem is knowing which ones, amongst the walls of text

 

[huskeR32]

Russel's Teapot is fine and dandy in isolation, but the teapot hasn't got the thousands of years of history and lore, the massive buildings, feelings, etc, etc, to go with it

Are you saying this makes the existence of God any more likely than the teapot?

 

[Outspacer]

Are you saying this makes the existence of God any more likely than the teapot?

I'm saying that anyone making an assessment on how likely God is will end up taking those into account as well, for better or worse. For a believer in a God moving in mysterious ways, it's not incompatible to have no objective evidence.

The teapot analogy is about where the burden of proof should lie, in theist vs atheist debate. I'm not sure it helps much when thinking about how an individual is supposed to process information (edit: that includes their own feelings etc).

 

[DCP]

Well for starters, you have no idea what my relation with God is. In fact you have no idea what my relationship with Jesus is, and I find you saying that I wouldn't understand that rather impolite and based on nothing but a biased viewpoint with nothing to back up what you just said. Do I know my God? Yes I do. Do I have any relationship with him?
As to you asking me to show you where you said 'you are wrong' in any post, I implore you to read any of your own posts. To say something you do not have to say the exact words, and considering that pretty much everyone else barring you see this, you have to consider that there may be truth in what people are seeing.

But I will say that if you say that people will not go to hell for not following Jesus than I sincerely apologise for my mistake in that.

To be quite honest, and I shall try to be as polite as possible here, I believe most people have pretty much washed their hands off you because no matter what people say you cannot see beyond anything other than what you tell yourself. There are people here who try to give you a fair chance. I never questioned your beliefs in my post and yet you start by directly questioning mine. I questioned the way in which you posted what you wished to say. I never questioned your devotion or relationship with God. You did. I gave you advice in a polite way to help you to get more people to see your viewpoint. You responded by talking about Christ, instead of actually responding to the substance of my post.

On that, I believe if it is best that I bow out of this conversation in order to prevent it going around and around the same way as it has been.

You didn't answer bro. Who do you worship, and have a relationship with?
The truth is offensive, else it wouldn't be the truth. Christians are slaughtered daily, with no retaliation. It's because they know exactly who they believe in is more real than what the natural eye sees in this natural world. People don't know what happened before the big bang, yet still defend it no matter what. Free will indeed.

So you dismissed @ECGadget post or you just missed the point. I should come in just for one time since i found this constant dead horse beating to be hilarious.


No. You cant force people into your religious beliefs. If they said no to do it then fine, leave them what they are. Their view isnt the same as yours. Accepting this is healthy.

And they not need to if they dont have interest in. Let them be.



So you dont go to hell for not following him, but you get sin because youre not following Christ's "free will" option?

There is a huge line between religious and ignorance. You can be religious and be happy to yourself. And i understand that you have a supposedly good intention on that. But no matter what you did, the only way to really change their beliefs (or not) is to do it themselves, which renders years, hundreds of pages, and many thread resurrection from yours seems pointless and clueless at best and ignorant at worst.

Again, accepting this is healthy.

I've forced no one.
One may feel forced, because of the conviction of sin. That is all that needs to happen, than that person can decide with their free will what to do with it. One judgment day no one will have or make excuses, because of the very conviction is utter proof.

You don't get sin because of not following Christ. Everyone inherits sin from their parents. It's up to them to make the change (each person). We cannot conquer sin without Christ. We cannot acknowledge the seriousness of sin without Christ, as many just brush it off, or others say their gods just forgive sin at will.
Sin before a Just God is so serious, that it requires an entire world to be flooded by it's wickedness.
If man can choose to disobey God, then man must accept the choice, and the choice in its fullest, of choosing both all the good, and all the wickedness of this world.
Mankind has fallen through choice, and man can only change that through the One who has given Him a free gift. Again, man is not forced to take it. Such is the free will given.

I'll take that as a no, you don't understand how horoscopes work.

Let me explain. Horoscopes manage to appear to be accurate by making predictions that are non-specific and easy to interpret in many different ways. People who read them are actively looking for something in their life to match up with their horoscope, and because the predictions are vague often they find something. When they don't find something, confirmation bias kicks in and the assume that either they weren't looking hard enough or it's the exception that proves the rule.

Let's look at the very first "prediction" in that video (because I'm not killing more brain cells by watching further).

"Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

The video claims that this is a prediction of mass transport and the internet. Maybe. But what other things could it be?

The Olympic Games have many running to and fro. Wars and natural disasters often result in people moving back and forth over large stretches of land. Trade in general probably fits the bill, as does any society where people do not work from home. Migratory animals go to and fro, and there's lots of them.

As for knowledge being increased, the internet is only one of many things that has done that. Libraries, for starters. Schools. Books. Professional teachers. Professional researchers. Natural philosophy and science. Radio and television. Galileo. Newton. All the millions of different instruments that we use to observe the world in ways that humans can't. And so on.

There's nothing that specifically limits that passage to either mass transport or the internet. It could instead refer to any of the things that I mentioned above (some of which existed at the time the "prophecy" was written), or things that haven't happened or don't exist yet. It's impossible to tell.

To be an actual prophecy, the conditions have to be specific enough that they couldn't reasonably be met by mere chance. Otherwise it's simply a parlour trick to fool people whose perception isn't broad enough to see how easy it is to interpret a broad prophecy as just about anything.

A broad prophecy proves nothing other than that the author knew that people could often be fooled by these sort of tricks. And back when people were less educated, that might have been reasonable. But you and everyone else on here has presumably gone to school (you even travelled to and fro from school, even) and received a basic education (increasing your knowledge), and should not be fooled by these things in the same way that an illiterate peasant 2000 years ago might have been.

That's nice, but stick to what God is telling us, not your own assumptions and theories.
So you agree that when Israel became a state in 1948, it was the will of God, considering Israel was offered statehood by many other countries. Why and how was it possible that after nearly 2000 years, they become a nation?
Has it occurred to you that the rest of the bible would be a false doctrine had this not happened?
Likewise with them re-capturing their City, their language and their blessings God promised them, even after they rebelled and sinned many times.
Did you ever ask yourself why Israel, and why this promise? I guess not.
I cannot prove Gods existence to you, much like you cannot disprove Gods existence.
Israel alone is proof of Gods existence.

15 I will scatter you among the nations, disperse you throughout the countries, and remove your filthiness completely from you. 16 You shall defile yourself in the sight of the nations; then you shall know that I am the Lord.”’”

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

Satan hates Israel. I suppose you don't know why either.

The bible says all the nations will see the two witnesses being executed by the Political leader (anti-Christ).
How could such a prophecy be possible, if it where not in this generation, where it so happens to be the one that can see what's going on around the world, through satellite, tv, cellphones, internet etc.
How could such a prophecy even mean anything in the 1700s or 1800s?

Utter 🤬. Several atheists in this thread, myself included, have said that we've tried to "find" God at some point in our lives. Not everyone who seeks her finds her. So you need to do better than this.

Share with us the steps you followed, so that we can join the party.

When it comes to the God of the bible, there is no "trying" to find Him.

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity;

There are no steps, just simply opening your heart.
Get on your knees, call on Christ, confess your sins to Him, tell Him you want to change, tell Him that He is welcome into your heart, and ASK HIM, to reveal Himself to you.

Put your ds3/4 dfgt etc aside and give Him the time of day.

Off course you will find other gods, those that fit your schedules, or those that are able to tag along in your lifestyle.
Other gods conveniently forgive their people, or accept sacrifices or good deeds. Real convenient.
The God of the bible is seeking a relationship with his children, not a religious gathering with rules and laws.
The church is just a building. The real church is the bride of Christ, the people united as one in Christ.
People can go to church their whole life and still not know God, because from Monday to Saturday, God is in their back pocket. I was a suspect myself.


“I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger.” John 6:35
“I am the light of the world; he who fallows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the lightof life.” John 8:12
“I am the gate; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and findpasture.” John 10:9
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep.” John 10:11
“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” John 11:25
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” John 14:6
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” John 15:1

No being in history, could make such claims, not even other self claimed religious leaders or prophets.
The question is, can a person put their pride aside, if they really want the Eternal Son to be revealed to them?

http://www.gotquestions.org/sinners-prayer.html

 

[huskeR32]

When it comes to the God of the bible, there is no "trying" to find Him.

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity;

Wait, your argument is that the Bible says anyone who seeks God will find God?

So then why didn't I find her?

There are no steps, just simply opening your heart.

Did that. Didn't work.

Get on your knees, call on Christ, confess your sins to Him, tell Him you want to change, tell Him that He is welcome into your heart, and ASK HIM, to reveal Himself to you.

Did that. Didn't work.

Put your ds3/4 dfgt etc aside and give Him the time of day.

Did that. Didn't work.

(Starting to get tired of your assumptions about what I tried, how I tried it, and what I otherwise do with my time. Not to mention your arrogant judgement about the value of what you assume I do with my time.)

Off course you will find other gods, those that fit your schedules, or those that are able to tag along in your lifestyle.

All your Bible said is that I need to seek, and I will find. That's it.

You're now suggesting that I need to seek in a specific way. Since the Bible didn't lay out that process for me, perhaps you could?

Other gods conveniently forgive their people, or accept sacrifices or good deeds. Real convenient.

Wait, so is it your contention that your god doesn't forgive people? Then what's the point?

The God of the bible is seeking a relationship with his children, not a religious gathering with rules and laws.

Apparently she's not seeking it too enthusiastically, because she passed up an opportunity to count me among her followers.

The church is just a building. The real church is the bride of Christ, the people united as one in Christ.

Seems to me that the people of Christ are divided into nearly countless groups, each of which is left in the dark as to why their method of seeking her is inferior to others.

People can go to church their whole life and still not know God, because from Monday to Saturday, God is in their back pocket.

Again, sounds like God isn't all that interested in gathering those who seek her.

I was a suspect myself.

Again, please share what you did to eventually wander out of the forest of wretched, sinful folk like myself to finally find her. You speak of it so confidently, I can't imagine that you forgot what you did.

 

[DCP]

Wait, your argument is that the Bible says anyone who seeks God will find God?

So then why didn't I find her?



Did that. Didn't work.



Did that. Didn't work.



Did that. Didn't work.

(Starting to get tired of your assumptions about what I tried, how I tried it, and what I otherwise do with my time. Not to mention your arrogant judgement about the value of what you assume I do with my time.)



All your Bible said is that I need to seek, and I will find. That's it.

You're now suggesting that I need to seek in a specific way. Since the Bible didn't lay out that process for me, perhaps you could?



Wait, so is it your contention that your god doesn't forgive people? Then what's the point?



Apparently she's not seeking it too enthusiastically, because she passed up an opportunity to count me among her followers.



Seems to me that the people of Christ are divided into nearly countless groups, each of which is left in the dark as to why their method of seeking her is inferior to others.



Again, sounds like God isn't all that interested in gathering those who seek her.



Again, please share what you did to eventually wander out of the forest of wretched, sinful folk like myself to finally find her. You speak of it so confidently, I can't imagine that you forgot what you did.

Sorry to hear that. I suppose judgment day will reveal the truth, since only you and God knows what's currently in your heart.
As for me, I rested, and found His favour upon me. I responded when I was convicted. I didn't ignore it and carry on with my sinful life.

I wasn't judging what you do with your time, I was merely stating things of this world, materials things, that come first, and block out the times to seek God.

 

[JKgo]

...

The truth is offensive, else it wouldn't be the truth

Incorrect. Truth is enlightening, hence humanity's continued pursuit of the spiritual truth and scientific truth. If it's offensive, then we'd all bury our heads in sand and sing "lalalalalala", just like back in the Dark Ages.

Christians are slaughtered daily, with no retaliation

...You make it sound like Christians are the only folks getting murderized everyday. Don't forget Muslims, Buddhists, Communists, Hippies, Death Row convicts, drunken drivers, HIV/AIDS sufferers, etc, etc...

Everyone inherits sin from their parents

...This is quite a disturbing notion to hang your neck on. Tell me your opinion, not off a Bible, why a supposedly loving God let this happen. And please, not about the original sin - if you think about that carefully, the fault does not lie with Eve and Adam, but of the temptation brought upon by the Snake aka The Devil.

Which was supposedly created by "God".

It's up to them to make the change (each person).

...If God's all omnipotent, omniscient and kick-ass, wouldn't it know already who will make the so-called right decision? Why bother with the charade? Does it have that much free time?

Such is the free will given.

...Yeah, free will right? Huh. So free that if I freely choose not to follow your version of God, then I'm screwed.
If I do then although my God-given brain tells me this whole thing stinks to high heavens, I gotta fall in line like a flock of sheep and shuffle about like a dazed zombie.

I wonder if you can see my problem with this Christian version of God being a nice guy. Oh and before you say anything, I was brought up a Christian, spent most of my academic years in Christian boarding schools and was force fed all the... "education" you now possess.

Another thing that always bugged me regarding God and how we call it - why are we compelled to call an entity that supposedly transcends the boundary of mortal coil, and can not be explained by human minds, a Him?
I mean, since we can't be sure whether it's actually a human-shaped being or not in the first place, and not to mention whether it can be classified in either of the sexes, shouldn't we just call it a it?

If someone mentions a Bible passage about "we being made in God's image", then that brings in an another rub, since then it can be either Him or Her. Besides, if you quote that, then you're kind of acknowledging Bible as... factual, believable source of information. Which I don't, not really.

 

[DCP]

...


...This is quite a disturbing notion to hang your neck on. Tell me your opinion, not off a Bible, why a supposedly loving God let this happen. And please, not about the original sin - if you think about that carefully, the fault does not lie with Eve and Adam, but of the temptation brought upon by the Snake aka The Devil.

Which was supposedly created by "God".

When will you let this go. Again, if God is true and just, and if His creation, disobey Him, obviously His justice won't be true if a punishment isn't ongoing until judgment. To just decide in the spur of the moment, aah, I'll forgive him, maybe include them, and a couple of these birds etc, this doesn't make God true and just.
Also, by creating everything, and giving them a free will to choose whatever they desire, can only come from a true and just God.

If the devil desired to have pride, and overthrow God, well, you got to respect his decision to do so.
Likewise Eve, who wanted to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. She had the free will not to listen to the snake, likewise Adam, not to listen to Eve. It was then already, when the blame game started as well.

You today have the same free will, to remain on this earth, that will soon come to an end and be judged, or, seek God and acknowledge you want another chance, away from all the evil and wickedness of this world.
Violence and wickedness you would agree has been around since the big bang. Without a law giver, and original sin, where did all these things just pop up from?
Who was the first person that just woke up and decided to poke an ape, or this hidden gem of a common ancestor, to see what would happen. What gave this being the notion to even attempt it?

Your upbringing in a Church means nothing. Like I say, knowing about God is one thing, and knowing God is quite another.

Also, we are made in the image of God. God created Adam, a man, and breathe life into Adam. The breath of God. God came in flesh as a man into this world, to save this world. It's pretty clear.
Eve was a woman made from flesh. Ironically, it was the "flesh" that was tempted, which unsurprisingly goes on till this very day. Lust of the flesh. There is no mention of female angels in the Bible. Angels had free will, hence why they lusted over earthly women, and bore children with them.

I know it's hard to comprehend it, but continue trying. God created everything, and it was good.
Without free will, God created robots. Individuals in heaven, and on earth, chose what they wanted, likewise you, choosing your own lifestyle, living in sin (according to God), on this sinful earth.
Yes you are screwed, because the judgment of sin will hit this earth. Is sin good, or evil? Better still, is sin good or evil in the Creators eyes?

 

[JKgo]

if God is true and just

...We can never know what God's thinking, whether it's true and just. You can cite Bible as much as you want, but let's be honest here, all of what's written in there are not God's direct words, but of the people who "heard" them. Meaning, the interpretation is open to change according to the individual writers' own perspectives and life experiences.

Also, by creating everything, and giving them a free will to choose whatever they desire, can only come from a true and just God.

...You're forgetting that God is supposedly omni-everything. If so, then it already knows what choices we will make. I ask again, why bother with the charade? If it knows what our final actions are going to be then why not simply render the judgement now, and call it a day?

Is it because then it'll have less toys to play around with?

If the devil desired to have pride, and overthrow God, well, you got to respect his decision to do so.
Likewise Eve, who wanted to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. She had the free will not to listen to the snake, likewise Adam, not to listen to Eve. It was then already, when the blame game started as well.

...So you respect the devil now? That's great.

Indeed Miss Eve had a choice not to listen to the devil. Unfortunately for her, didn't God create the devil? Wasn't he one of the highest ranked, most beloved of all Angels before the Fall? Doesn't that imply the devil has the wherewithal to tempt even the Pope, if it comes down to it? (Maybe that's not such a good example. Let's replace Pope with... Gandhi. Yeah, that's better.)

If we're to play the blame game, blame God for creating the devil. Or, the so-called forbidden fruit in the first place. Why the hell did it place such a dangerous item in the vicinity of innocent children? It must be out of its mind. Or read a bad Sci-fi novel, probably.

You today have the same free will, to remain on this earth,

Spoiler

Of course I choose to remain on this earth. Where else can I go to? Mars? God made sure we can't live there (yet).

Violence and wickedness you would agree has been around since the big bang.

...Don't quite recall agreeing to this at all, but you're right, violence and wickedness has been a notable feature of all God's creations. Including its angels, "soldiers" of God's will.

Without a law giver, and original sin, where did all these things just pop up from?

I know this is a rhetorical question, but I'm still compelled to give you an obvious answer: from God. Well, your version of God, that is.

Who was the first person that just woke up and decided to poke an ape, or this hidden gem of a common ancestor, to see what would happen. What gave this being the notion to even attempt it?

...Careful now, this paragraph sounds awfully like you believe in evolution.

Your upbringing in a Church means nothing.

...I agree. It meant nothing. Oh wait, it does mean something - I feel rather aggrieved by the fact I've lost a lot of time going to Bible study classes that I could've used for something more... constructive. Ah well, what can you do, right? When I die and stand before the pearly gates, I'll ask for refunds.

Also, we are made in the image of God. God created Adam, a man, and breathe life into Adam. The breath of God. God came in flesh as a man into this world, to save this world. It's pretty clear.
Eve was a woman made from flesh. Ironically, it was the "flesh" that was tempted, which unsurprisingly goes on till this very day. Lust of the flesh. There is no mention of female angels in the Bible. Angels had free will, hence why they lusted over earthly women, and bore children with them.

...This "flesh", didn't God create this too? And without us having our seeds sowed, then surely there will be nothing to save anyway, right? As for angels prefering human ladies over... their own, surely God should've known that might happen. If it didn't.... well, not much of omni-everything now is it, let alone keep its own house in order. The more I think about it, the less trustworthy God becomes in my eyes.

What you're supposing here is that free will is to "fault" for our sins, since we "choose" to disobey. But God gave all his children (those with reasonable faculties anyway - can't blame wild animals for acting sinfully now can we) the free will - so in essence, it gave us sin too, if we follow your chain of "logic".

I know it's hard to comprehend it

...Right back at ya.

I can't comprehend why on earth a being claiming to love its children would subject the said kids through hell just to prove it's a nice guy. Makes no sense, thinking with my God-given brain.

God created everything

...Quite possible. But I just thought of something now - who created God? Surely, it couldn't have just popped out of nowhere, and proclaim, "Oy, I'm God. Respect."

Is sin good, or evil? Better still, is sin good or evil in the Creators eyes?

...This is one of my fav line you've wrote so far - if we're a bit honest here, I'd say in God's eyes, sin is good, since it weeds out the undesirables. With sin it can sort out those who'll follow its words blindly and unquestioningly.

So, yeah, let me repeat it once more: sin is a good evil in God's eyes.

Hell, that must be the whole reason why God created evil in the first place, to help him sort out the good eggs from the rotten ones; so we can appreciate all the "good stuff" God has created. If I didn't know better, this sounds more and more like this guy wants its ego stroked a bit.

Above is all under the assumption that your version of God is indeed the truth.

Which is questionable, to say the least.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Wow.

 

[FoRiZon]

Wow.

Same person, same attitude, same point of the post.

And i thought my life couldnt be more boring.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Same person, same attitude, same point of the post.

And i thought my life couldnt be more boring.

Oh please go find a sense of humor.

 

[FoRiZon]

Oh please go find a sense of humor.

Wait what? Sorry. I was actually referring to the frequent bringers of this thread, DCP. Not you.

Sorry if i look like that. You're ok Now on topic.

 

[huskeR32]

Sorry to hear that. I suppose judgment day will reveal the truth, since only you and God knows what's currently in your heart.

I've been revealing the truth: I sought God with a genuine desire to find her. She, for reasons that no theists can ever seem to provide, decided I wasn't worth her time or effort. Seems a bit strange considering all the times the Bible says that she loves us all, and wants us all in her flock.

As for me, I rested, and found His favour upon me.

That's it? All I've had to do this whole time is just take a nap? brb...

I responded when I was convicted.

Responded to whom? Who "convicted" you? What did they convict you for? How was this communicated to you? What was going to be the punishment if you didn't respond correctly? How did you know that?

I didn't ignore it and carry on with my sinful life.

Instead of passing down more of your arrogance, your assumptions, and your judgement, how about you help me find what you found?

What is it that you "didn't ignore?" What sign should I be looking for from God so that I might gain the same enlightenment and salvation that you found?

I wasn't judging what you do with your time,

You're right. You were judging what you assumed I do with my time.

I was merely stating things of this world, materials things, that come first, and block out the times to seek God.

You don't have the slightest clue what I did during the times I sought God.

Incidentally, I don't have any clue what you did either, despite asking several times now.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Wait what? Sorry. I was actually referring to the frequent bringers of this thread, DCP. Not you.

Sorry if i look like that. You're ok Now on topic.

Yeah took it wrong, sorry.

 

[Turbotwin01]

The truth is offensive.

Correction: You are being offensive, because you are making disrespectful assumptions about everyone in this thread since they disagree with your belief of what the truth is which apparently is a problem.

I don't really have an answer as to whether god exists or not. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. But if he does exist I am pretty sure that being disrespectful to people isn't going to put you on his nice list and goes against his bro code.

Also this thread should have "The Offical TL;DR Thread" written on the title. Man you guys post alot. You could probably make The Great Wall of China with these walls of text you post.

 

[DQuaN]

...you would agree has been around since the big bang.

Wait, what?

How exactly does the Big Bang fit in to your faith???

 

[Dennisch]

Wait, what?

How exactly does the Big Bang fit in to your faith???

 

[Exorcet]

When will you let this go. Again, if God is true and just, and if His creation, disobey Him, obviously His justice won't be true if a punishment isn't ongoing until judgment. To just decide in the spur of the moment, aah, I'll forgive him, maybe include them, and a couple of these birds etc, this doesn't make God true and just.

There is nothing to let go. You still don't realize that a just god and punishment don't go together at all. Perfect gods have no need for punishments. Perfect means no problems.

Also, by creating everything, and giving them a free will to choose whatever they desire, can only come from a true and just God.

This makes no sense.

If the devil desired to have pride, and overthrow God, well, you got to respect his decision to do so.
Likewise Eve, who wanted to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. She had the free will not to listen to the snake, likewise Adam, not to listen to Eve. It was then already, when the blame game started as well.

And even if we to just accept the story up to this point and not assign God the blame he deserves, we still don't get anywhere. No one except Adam, Eve, and Satan is guilty of anything. There is completely zero justification for pain, suffering, redemption, etc, for anyone else.

You today have the same free will, to remain on this earth, that will soon come to an end and be judged, or, seek God and acknowledge you want another chance, away from all the evil and wickedness of this world.
Violence and wickedness you would agree has been around since the big bang. Without a law giver, and original sin, where did all these things just pop up from?
Who was the first person that just woke up and decided to poke an ape, or this hidden gem of a common ancestor, to see what would happen. What gave this being the notion to even attempt it?

The more attractive option for many is to just stick to the truth. Your ideas are gaining support because they either don't make sense or are self contradicting. Why do "law givers" and "original sin" matter? Violence and wickedness are behaviors, and like most behaviors, they were shaped over billions of generations of biological competition and random mutations. The world is very easy to explain without religion. What is difficult is finding a way to fit gods in and make them meaningful. No religion does this.

I know it's hard to comprehend it, but continue trying. God created everything, and it was good.
Without free will, God created robots. Individuals in heaven, and on earth, chose what they wanted, likewise you, choosing your own lifestyle, living in sin (according to God), on this sinful earth.

And no one preaching free will wants to address how often it is violated. The very moment you are born, free will is violated because no one asks you where, when, who, you want to be. After that you get saddled with pointless rules that keep you from doing the best possible thing for yourself (according to Christianity) which is to commit suicide. Free will isn't doing anything for your story.

You are still arguing from a conclusion, so you don't really have a good chance of seeing things as they are.

 

[GBO Possum]

I know it's hard to comprehend it, but continue trying. God created everything, and it was good.

I think we've heard about this "good" stuff before, so I won't waste time listing stuff that can't be characterized as "good", even if your god or someone else's made it.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Wow, this is still going on. This thread has kept popping up in the newest post box for quite some time. I can't believe that a site such as GTPlanet, which I thought had quite a relaxed and restrained user base, would have a forum where people that have nothing better to do with their lives can argue about a trivial, useless topic and turn into bloodthirsty keyboard warriors. Let people believe what they want to believe, because whatever it is that they're believing doesn't affect you, so who cares?
Religion doesn't need to be gotten rid of, people value their traditions and science can exist without offending everyone. So please just chill out. Good day.


So basically, long thing short, keep an open mind.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Wow, this is still going on. This thread has kept popping up in the newest post box for quite some time.

That's @DCP you need to speak to about that. This thread has dropped off the radar several times only for him to pop up out of nowhere to continue a long non-existent discussion. Then he avoids all the questions asked of him.

Let people believe what they want to believe, because whatever it is that they're believing doesn't affect you, so who cares?
Religion doesn't need to be gotten rid of, people value their traditions and science can exist without offending everyone. So please just chill out. Good day.

So basically, long thing short, keep an open mind.

Let's face it, religion these days is a huge issue especially in the USA where an ever growing portion of the population are losing their faith and rightfully questioning their beliefs. Unfortunately the super religious see their shrinking numbers as an attack, especially when we point out the inconsistencies and errors in their logic. And let's not even get into the issues of religion in the classroom and government.

Why is it so wrong to have a place to discuss these issues when it remains civil?

 

[FoRiZon]

I should note that there is a distinction between simply religious and having a "your religion (or not) is wrong and ours right" mentality and then constantly tell to follow them without even telling why they should.

Former doesn't need to feel threatened and goes with their lives as long as their community supports them and they acknowledge that different beliefs (or not) exists. If they got interested in your religion (or not), then congrats to you. If not then thats pretty much ok.

Latter are constantly feel threathened and they feel they should feed their religious norm to other people who dont have the same as theirs. For other people than them, of course it's felt like their beliefs are forced upon them. And when other people asks why they should, they'll basically say "i wont tell you exactly why but please join us and youll be saved ". I typically dont support this behavior, and as recent news told us it could be much worse in practice. But thankfully what @DCP done is just telling us. His intention is good, but the way it delivered only turns away people.

I have to be honest, religion isnt supposed to be an issue as long as you dont force-fed to others who is different. I think the resistance of change and the act of hate, thats the more real issue. Questioning beliefs is allright (ive done this many times), but in the end the choice of life remains on your hands. And hey, what can i judge.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think the resistance of change and the act of hate, thats the more real issue.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation shared a very eye opening sample of some of the hate mail they get on their facebook page today and I think this goes right along with that.

 

[FoRiZon]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation shared a very eye opening sample of some of the hate mail they get on their facebook page today and I think this goes right along with that.

Well yeah. Kinda expected if you try to corner a group. Any group: religious, race, fandom, etc. Kinda sad, but honestly Internet kinda works like that.

Its like ISIS though. Its basically a vocal minority. The majority, religious ir not, simply wouldnt bother on this because of both freedom of speech and they have more important things to do anyways.